Engineers: Only Explosives Explain WTC Destruction

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by skanny

the eyewitness statements of molten metal are CONFIRMED!!!! ......... photographic evidence and confirmed witness statements confirm this.

there was NO PILEDRIVER!!! ... video evidence shows this clearly.

there was only SMALL AND ISOLATED OXYGEN STARVED FIRE!!!

professional firefighters make good eyewitnesses, they are taught to be observant for risks, they reported numerous times of secondary explosions caused by bombs, also the reporters on the day all report explosions of bombs going off in and around the buildings before, during and after the towers came down.

Bump!

Again why do you think these are oxygen starved fires?

Also no one is disputing the fact molten METAL was present, its molten STEEL I'm disputing.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by wispy

Yes. Steel framed buildings are vulnerable to fire. It's a problem which is constantly researched and improvments made.

See attached in particular Section 2 of the research paper on the PDF download.:

https://blume.stanford.edu/content/c...gs-under-fires

Yes, you are forgetting, or overlooking, that WTC 1 & 2 were hit by planes and WTC 7 was damaged as well as the fire sprinklers knocked out.




Different structure, different design.



Standard calling of those who disagree with truther theories as paid shills.


As mentioned by Mishy, these arguments keep going around.

If you don't believe me and instead of feeding off truther internet myths, why don't you spend some money and buy a structural engineers time? Anyone you care to pick but who's unbiased and not involved as a truther or debunker, and ask them to explain. But i suggest that your brief to them includes asking them to look into not only the various truther theories but also the NIST report and also material such as:

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstrea...1/WTCpaper.pdf - -

titled 'How Did the WTC Towers Collapse: A New Theory' by Umsani and Chung of University of Edinburgh.

They could then report to you.

You could even have it published here.

I asked you a simple question Wispy & you have me a lot of spewl to cover up this very straight forward question.

All I am doing is exposing you for what you are a propagandist & these are the disinformation tactics you use.

If steel bends like you say so easily, why haven't any steel framed skyscrapers in history collapsed under their own weight after an hours fire?

We all know when fires attack buildings they usually have to be demolished as the steel is deemed useless afterwards, but they dont collapse in on there own weight. They might twist & warp, but even after 24 hours inferno they dont collapse.

Now you can give me all the links in the world to try & prove you are the authority, but until you can show me something real, youre talking out your ass.

Originally Posted by skanny

thank you for posting these 2 videos snippets porridge

the local idiots will be along shortly to call you a tinfoil hat wearing loony for trying to use documented evidence of the crimescene to explain things.... im surprised you couldnt just make something up like certain people do on here on a daily basis.

YW Skanny, its all truther intaknit theorys tho.

You have no proof there was any molten steel in them fires that raged 2 months after the demolition.

All them witnesses arnt proof it there was an molten steel. Prove it!

How dare you make them kind of assumptions.

[skanny]

Originally Posted by porridge

Molten Metals under WTC 6 weeks after 9/11


9/11 2800 degrees jet fuel scam High Temperature Accelerant fires

9/11 World Trade Center Debris Removal Operations Two Months Later

It was jet fuel dont you know!

*BUMP* For a hot topic that the "debunkers" just cannot address

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

I asked you a simple question Wispy & you have me a lot of spewl to cover up this very straight forward question.

All I am doing is exposing you for what you are a propagandist & these are the disinformation tactics you use.

If steel bends like you say so easily, why haven't any steel framed skyscrapers in history collapsed under their own weight after an hours fire?

We all know when fires attack buildings they usually have to be demolished as the steel is deemed useless afterwards, but they dont collapse in on there own weight. They might twist & warp, but even after 24 hours inferno they dont collapse.

Now you can give me all the links in the world to try & prove you are the authority, but until you can show me something real, youre talking out your ass.



YW Skanny, its all truther intaknit theorys tho.

You have no proof there was any molten steel in them fires that raged 2 months after the demolition.

All them witnesses arnt proof it there was an molten steel. Prove it!

How dare you make them kind of assumptions.

There is no proof of molten STEEL.

[mishy]

Interesting picture that. Shows they wanted to control all imagery from the day. I wonder why

[denton]

Originally Posted by denton

Are you aware when you post things like this that it doesn't actually refute the OS? Another failure. I think I know now why you're called porridge.

Originally Posted by porridge

I asked you a simple question Wispy & you have me a lot of spewl to cover up this very straight forward question.

All I am doing is exposing you for what you are a propagandist & these are the disinformation tactics you use.

If steel bends like you say so easily, why haven't any steel framed skyscrapers in history collapsed under their own weight after an hours fire?

We all know when fires attack buildings they usually have to be demolished as the steel is deemed useless afterwards, but they dont collapse in on there own weight. They might twist & warp, but even after 24 hours inferno they dont collapse.

Now you can give me all the links in the world to try & prove you are the authority, but until you can show me something real, youre talking out your ass.



YW Skanny, its all truther intaknit theorys tho.

You have no proof there was any molten steel in them fires that raged 2 months after the demolition.

All them witnesses arnt proof it there was an molten steel. Prove it!

How dare you make them kind of assumptions.

Do you understand the difference between an eyewitness statement and irrefutable scientific analysis? Those witnesses who said they SAW steel had no way of knowing that's what it was, from sight alone. From your ramblings I seriously doubt you understand what you're saying. All you've done for umpteen pages is attempt to deflect attention from your startling inability to address the fact that the witness statements cannot in this instance be taken at face value.

You may wish to imply that I'm being paid by some shady secret organisation to post on here. That's usually your tactic.

[porridge]

Just to repeat one more time, just in case its not clear enough for you.


I have asked several questions that have not been answered & I dont feel I have to repeat myself over & over to cheap trolls that spend their time sniping on conspiracy forums, as the authority over anyone who has an alternative than the government approved theory.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by porridge

You have no proof there was any molten steel in them fires that raged 2 months after the demolition.

All them witnesses arnt proof it there was an molten steel. Prove it!

Quit spamming & DERAILING the forum Milky.

[wispy]

I asked you a simple question Wispy & you have me a lot of spewl to cover up this very straight forward question.

I'm trying to explain and point out to you what the issues are. Please consider my responses.

All I am doing is exposing you for what you are a propagandist & these are the disinformation tactics you use.

No tactics. Just answering and responding as best I know. You are inferring 'paid shill' again or similar.

If steel bends like you say so easily, why haven't any steel framed skyscrapers in history collapsed under their own weight after an hours fire?

Hmmm. I note you've changed from steel framed buildings to steel scyscrapers in your question, I presume to shift the goal post a bit. Steel framed buildings have collapsed but as far as I know steel framed scyscrapers haven't. (That is unless you take into account the steel framed elements of the Madrid tower and similar fires where the building had to be demolished as the frame had failed.

We all know when fires attack buildings they usually have to be demolished as the steel is deemed useless afterwards, but they dont collapse in on there own weight. They might twist & warp, but even after 24 hours inferno they dont collapse.

Yes they do and they have. Can't be bothered to track down them now for you but hetre's a summary.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/artic...ue_id=27&i=153

That more multi storey buildings don't collapse due to fires is probably a credit to the their design, fire protection and the fire fighting involved.

High rise buildings necessarily need to be heavily protected to allow the the occupants to escape and to allow fire fighter to do their job in assisting escsape. Also probably to prevent collapse onto other buildings.

Low rise buildings do not need to have as much protection as high rise. Hence burnt out steel framed warehouses for instance lying in a smoking ruin.

Now you can give me all the links in the world to try & prove you are the authority, but until you can show me something real, youre talking out your ass.

But you just keep ignoring what is out there and what I've already linked to.

The University of Edinburgh paper explains how the WTC towers were vulnerable to fire and how the collpase was initiated. But I bet you haven't even tried to read it. If you have you must be completely ignoring the findings to state what you do.

here's another one for you which might be an easier read:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html

You also handwave away the fact that buildings are designed to resist fire but with the assumption that the fire starts in one spot and not being hit by an airplane causing fires to start on more than one floorr at atime.

That's too inconvenient for you to accept is it not?

You just come out with your own spewl which is the well worn Gageist dogma about 'no steel framed skyscraper etc etc etc....' 'they were only bin fires', 'they were only office fires', take your pick, completely ignoring the gallons of kerosene and gaping damage caused by the planes.


And by the way, I asked you a question earlier.

Where did the mass of the upper block disappear if you state there wasn't sufficient to damage the floors below during collpase? Did it all jump over the side down the outside walls or what?

[marky78]

This is a interview with one of the cleanup workers who was assigned to building 7, he mentions molten steel still dripping of the ends of beams he was removing from the debris pile.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...6568154709236#

[wispy]

Actually forgot to quote this from the 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation' link concerning why the building didn't tip over and why it collapsed straight down.


"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

There you go, neatly explained in simplistic terms.

Originally Posted by wispy

I'm trying to explain and point out to you what the issues are. Please consider my responses.




No tactics. Just answering and responding as best I know. You are inferring 'paid shill' again or similar.




Hmmm. I note you've changed from steel framed buildings to steel scyscrapers in your question, I presume to shift the goal post a bit. Steel framed buildings have collapsed but as far as I know steel framed scyscrapers haven't. (That is unless you take into account the steel framed elements of the Madrid tower and similar fires where the building had to be demolished as the frame had failed.




Yes they do and they have. Can't be bothered to track down them now for you but hetre's a summary.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/artic...ue_id=27&i=153

That more multi storey buildings don't collapse due to fires is probably a credit to the their design, fire protection and the fire fighting involved.

High rise buildings necessarily need to be heavily protected to allow the the occupants to escape and to allow fire fighter to do their job in assisting escsape. Also probably to prevent collapse onto other buildings.

Low rise buildings do not need to have as much protection as high rise. Hence burnt out steel framed warehouses for instance lying in a smoking ruin.




But you just keep ignoring what is out there and what I've already linked to.

The University of Edinburgh paper explains how the WTC towers were vulnerable to fire and how the collpase was initiated. But I bet you haven't even tried to read it. If you have you must be completely ignoring the findings to state what you do.

here's another one for you which might be an easier read:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html

You also handwave away the fact that buildings are designed to resist fire but with the assumption that the fire starts in one spot and not being hit by an airplane causing fires to start on more than one floorr at atime.

That's too inconvenient for you to accept is it not?

You just come out with your own spewl which is the well worn Gageist dogma about 'no steel framed skyscraper etc etc etc....' 'they were only bin fires', 'they were only office fires', take your pick, completely ignoring the gallons of kerosene and gaping damage caused by the planes.


And by the way, I asked you a question earlier.

Where did the mass of the upper block disappear if you state there wasn't sufficient to damage the floors below during collpase? Did it all jump over the side down the outside walls or what?

[porridge]

Originally Posted by wispy

Hmmm. I note you've changed from steel framed buildings to steel scyscrapers in your question, I presume to shift the goal post a bit. Steel framed buildings have collapsed but as far as I know steel framed scyscrapers haven't. (That is unless you take into account the steel framed elements of the Madrid tower and similar fires where the building had to be demolished as the frame had failed.

There was the Singapore toy factory fire, which I am sure had many chemicals in that made it burn hotter, but is the only building & like you say the Madrid building partially collapsed after 24 hours of solid inferno. So I dont really need a lesson in any of this I have researched it all before & you cant claim planes or jet fuel as WTC 7 wasent hit by a plane or jet fuel, yet after minor fire damage.

and similar fires where the building had to be demolished as the frame had failed.

And again you are giving more straw man, which your whole post is full of really & quite deliberate.

I already stated "buildings need to be demolished after fires" or jacked up at great expense & the steel replaced.

Why do you repeat what I just stated in my post??

Originally Posted by wispy

Yes they do and they have. Can't be bothered to track down them now for you but hetre's a summary.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/artic...ue_id=27&i=153

That more multi storey buildings don't collapse due to fires is probably a credit to the their design, fire protection and the fire fighting involved.

Why do I need a lesson on this?

I disagree, when a building burns for 24 hours & still stands, it has nothing to do with the fireproofing, fire fighting neither is any good against an inferno.

I can put links in also that are not relevant to my question:

Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire

FIRE PROPAGATION IN HIGH RISE BUILDINGS.

NFPA fire investigations

Originally Posted by wispy

High rise buildings necessarily need to be heavily protected to allow the the occupants to escape and to allow fire fighter to do their job in assisting escsape. Also probably to prevent collapse onto other buildings.

Low rise buildings do not need to have as much protection as high rise. Hence burnt out steel framed warehouses for instance lying in a smoking ruin.

WTF does any of this have to do with my question?

Originally Posted by wispy

But you just keep ignoring what is out there and what I've already linked to.

The University of Edinburgh paper explains how the WTC towers were vulnerable to fire and how the collpase was initiated. But I bet you haven't even tried to read it. If you have you must be completely ignoring the findings to state what you do.

here's another one for you which might be an easier read:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html

Why do I need to read this, when I know already khow the twin towers supposedly collapsed? It doesnt answer my question.

Why do steel framed buildings not collapse under their own weight after an hours fire?

Originally Posted by wispy

You also handwave away the fact that buildings are designed to resist fire but with the assumption that the fire starts in one spot and not being hit by an airplane causing fires to start on more than one floorr at atime.

That's too inconvenient for you to accept is it not?

Nope I am waiting for a simple answer to a question, you claim structural steel bends so easily.

Originally Posted by wispy

You just come out with your own spewl which is the well worn Gageist dogma about 'no steel framed skyscraper etc etc etc....' 'they were only bin fires', 'they were only office fires', take your pick, completely ignoring the gallons of kerosene and gaping damage caused by the planes.

We arnt talking about the twin towers, we are talking steel buildings & I am not claiming I know but you clearly have no clue, yet think pasting a few links & some spam on fire protection is going to somehow explain it.

Originally Posted by wispy

And by the way, I asked you a question earlier.

Where did the mass of the upper block disappear if you state there wasn't sufficient to damage the floors below during collpase? Did it all jump over the side down the outside walls or what?

How many times have I answered this question. Like I said to Milky I am not going over & over this. I have spoke with you about it before, you obviously must value my opinion to ask me this or maybe you are just all fucking crazy & have a memory of a goldfish?

The mass was projected away from the building, watch any video of the DEMOLITION of WTC1

[porridge]

Originally Posted by wispy

Actually forgot to quote this from the 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation' link concerning why the building didn't tip over and why it collapsed straight down.


"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

There you go, neatly explained in simplistic terms.

So yes again, all you are doing is reading from the script!

Which we can all do & plenty have had to torture themselves with pure Orwellian garbage like this too,(poor fuckers)

[porridge]

Originally Posted by marky78

This is a interview with one of the cleanup workers who was assigned to building 7, he mentions molten steel still dripping of the ends of beams he was removing from the debris pile.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...6568154709236#

The rubble was the longest burning structural fire in history & smouldered for 5 months.

[wispy]

WTF does any of this have to do with my question?

Why do I need to read this, when I know already khow the twin towers supposedly collapsed? It doesnt answer my question.

Well I think you do becuase you don't know how the twin towers collapsed if you believe it was explosives or any other truther theory.

Why do steel framed buildings not collapse under their own weight after an hours fire?

But they do. WTC 7 did.

Nope I am waiting for a simple answer to a question, you claim structural steel bends so easily.

What I and others are saying structural steel starts losing its designed strength significantly at about 500 deg c. Or didn't you know that?

We arnt talking about the twin towers, we are talking steel buildings & I am not claiming I know but you clearly have no clue, yet think pasting a few links & some spam on fire protection is going to somehow explain it.

Because the issue is on this forum is that there are truther theories about how the buildings collapsed which are nonsense. So lets discuss fire and its effects on steel buildings and in particular WTCs 1, 2 & 7. If you read the links rather than thinking you know after having 'researched' using whatever other 'resources' you've used you'll see that the engineering world patently disagrees with truther theories.

The mass was projected away from the building, watch any video of the DEMOLITION of WTC1

How much of the mass, was it all the mass, or was a lot off mass left on top of the building causing it to collapse? Or did you not think of that?

[porridge]

Originally Posted by wispy

Well I think you do becuase you don't know how the twin towers collapsed if you believe it was explosives or any other truther theory.

I think I know the script pretty well by now Wisp.

Originally Posted by wispy

But they do. WTC 7 did.

Actually I think it took a bit longer than an hour, but nice try.

Originally Posted by wispy

What I and others are saying structural steel starts losing its designed strength significantly at about 500 deg c. Or didn't you know that?

So why dont steel buildings collapse in on their own weight after an hours fire?

Originally Posted by wispy

Because the issue is on this forum is that there are truther theories about how the buildings collapsed which are nonsense. So lets discuss fire and its effects on steel buildings and in particular WTCs 1, 2 & 7. If you read the links rather than thinking you know after having 'researched' using whatever other 'resources' you've used you'll see that the engineering world patently disagrees with truther theories.

Again, we are talking about all building fires & as you always tell me wtc 1&2 wasent just fire. Building 7 was & you cant blame the design of the building or the fire proofing. You cant claim it spread through the building, as buildings have fire dampeners in all the air con & any place fire can spread.
Which wasent damaged by no airplane, so you cant use that excuse.
Also I can give lots of examples of buildings that didnt have sprinklers but stood after real infernos. So just coz steel may creep, I think you'll find it takes a lot more heat to collapse a building. Which was my original point, otherwise EVERY office inferno would end in a collapse. So why doesnt this happen?

Of course you have no idea, just your little NIST bible & debunker sites to preach from, so is pointless you trying to teach me about it. Just admit YOU DONT KNOW.

Originally Posted by wispy

How much of the mass, was it all the mass, or was a lot off mass left on top of the building causing it to collapse? Or did you not think of that?

Like I say watch the videos or check the photos, which there are plenty overhead from helicopters too & Wispy you can clearly see there was no mass to destroy the rest of the building.

Also the photos of ground zero afterwards clearly show where the debri fell & the cores being empty, as I have posted before. Otherwise there would have been a big mountain of collapsed floors, like there should have been, or at least several stories of core left. but instead we see pieces everywhere, outside the cores, nothing like any collapse.

That is my opinion, doesn't matter how many times you repeat the script.

[zhiba]

Moderator Note

Members are reminded to please stay on topic. The 'report post' button is your friend. Rather than reply to derailing content, and further add to derailment, report off topic content and let the moderators deal with it.

A number of posts have been removed. Please play nice, play fair and lets keep it topical, eh?

Ta

[wispy]

I think I know the script pretty well by now Wisp.

Depends how you interpret the script. It seems to me that you've read into it something which aint there.

Actually I think it took a bit longer than an hour, but nice try.

Yup. You asked if any building had fallen after an hours fire. Which WTC7 did

So why dont steel buildings collapse in on their own weight after an hours fire?

But some do. WTC7 did, abd WTC 1 & 2.

Again, we are talking about all building fires & as you always tell me wtc 1&2 wasent just fire. Building 7 was & you cant blame the design of the building or the fire proofing. You cant claim it spread through the building, as buildings have fire dampeners in all the air con & any place fire can spread.
Which wasent damaged by no airplane, so you cant use that excuse.
Also I can give lots of examples of buildings that didnt have sprinklers but stood after real infernos. So just coz steel may creep, I think you'll find it takes a lot more heat to collapse a building. Which was my original point, otherwise EVERY office inferno would end in a collapse. So why doesnt this happen?

Of course you have no idea, just your little NIST bible & debunker sites to preach from, so is pointless you trying to teach me about it. Just admit YOU DONT KNOW.

I'm not sure what your fixation is with 'an hours fire' and this period is significant. Whether a building collapses or not will depend on a number of factors. It's design as in whether it is low level and lightly protected or a high rise which would have a higher level of protection and even have active protection such as sprinklers, what the fuel load is, the condition of the fire protection etc.,.

The fact that you keep going on about some question about 'other steel steel framed' buildings indicates a form of diversion away from considering the relevant issue about the actual collapse in question, WHICH THIS FORUM IS ABOUT.

You've accepted that steel framed buildings are compromised during a fire if the steel reaches a temperature high enough to weaken it and it is unable to then carry the loads it's designed for.

And this will be true for WTC 1 & 2.

The issue is that WTC towers were a particular form of construction. They were not 'true steel frames' but a tube (ie the core) within a tube (ie the external wall columns) with the floors spanning in between on light weight truss beams.

If you had bothered to read the Edinburgh report you would have seen that they considered this structure particularly vulnerable to fire. Yes there was fire protection but some of it this was in poor shape and much of it in the location of the fire would have been stripped off by the plane impact. Truss beams are lightwieght and will be affected by heat easier than heavy weight beams. Add in the plane damge and the fires over a number of floors then they would inded be very susceptable to fire.

If you had also bothered to read the other report which described that once the floors started collapsing and the upper tsections tilted it was end game for the towers.

As for WTC7, well it took longer and that's it. In fact it did well considering, as I understand it, to stand up for the 6 hours as the sprinklers were knocked out and there was a large fire as well.


You can't seem to accept that the assumption when designing buildings is that it will be a single fire breaking out, not multiple fires on top of damage already incurred.

Like I say watch the videos or check the photos, which there are plenty overhead from helicopters too & Wispy you can clearly see there was no mass to destroy the rest of the building.

No mass. Where did all this mass miraculously disapear to? Jump ship over the side? You mean the all mass of the top section, not even some of it and enough to damge the floor below, somehow goes over the side and falls outside of the building. That means it falls a bit, stops, has to turn 90 degress and go out far enough out to be past the external columns then start dropping down????????????

And you can see this for defintite with all the debris and dust plume at the top of the buildi?

And you don't think that as it is a tube in tube design with the floor connections held by steel brackets at either end of the truss beams that these steel brackets will not fail causing any of the mass to fall down inside the tube and make the outside walls peel outwards?

Also the photos of ground zero afterwards clearly show where the debri fell & the cores being empty,

Oh yeah? The photos I've seen show a mound where WTCs 1 & 2 would have been.

How would the cores have been empty? Even with the claimed CDs wouldn't there have been a pile in the building location. Or is this some new form of CD?

as I have posted before. Otherwise there would have been a big mountain of collapsed floors, like there should have been, or at least several stories of core left. but instead we see pieces everywhere, outside the cores, nothing like any collapse.

Yup. Becuase it wasn't CD. It fell down and with the mas it would have spread. Where else do you think the debris of a 100 storey building would have gone. It would be fantasy to think that it would look like a squashed coke can on the one spot neatly pile up in its footprint.

But you can't have it both ways.

It was said that it fell into its own footprint proving CD, now it is being said the debris was all over the place but the theory is still CD. Which is it? Make your minds up.

That is my opinion, doesn't matter how many times you repeat the script.

Well of course it is. I would still suggest talking to an unbiased structural engineer if you know any.

[porridge]

Wispy you cant even address my name in your replys, so I am not sure I should even bother replying atall.

Originally Posted by wispy

Depends how you interpret the script. It seems to me that you've read into it something which aint there.

What that steel buildings don't collapse in on their own weight after an hours fire? Nope this pretty much FACT Wisp, I know you hate it, coz it proves your phony fairy tale you bought into is a lie.

Originally Posted by wispy

Yup. You asked if any building had fallen after an hours fire. Which WTC7 did

Well there you go then, not only the 1st skyscraper to collapse in history for minor fire damage. It only took an hour. Whilst other buildings with real fires rage for hours & hours.

Originally Posted by wispy

But some do. WTC7 did, abd WTC 1 & 2.

According to your script yes.

Originally Posted by wispy

I'm not sure what your fixation is with 'an hours fire' and this period is significant. Whether a building collapses or not will depend on a number of factors. It's design as in whether it is low level and lightly protected or a high rise which would have a higher level of protection and even have active protection such as sprinklers, what the fuel load is, the condition of the fire protection etc.,.

I see you are repeating yourself again, when I already told you. This has never happened before in history, so why do you pretend its a regular occurrence?

Originally Posted by wispy

The fact that you keep going on about some question about 'other steel steel framed' buildings indicates a form of diversion away from considering the relevant issue about the actual collapse in question, WHICH THIS FORUM IS ABOUT.

So now I am diverting the topic, coz you dont like my question. When you just for the 3rd time reeled off a load of spew about why buildings collapse HILARIOUS! & cant find 1 example of this occurring elsewhere. When I have posted several links on high rise fires. You are trying to be the authority again, coz you have NOTHING.

But its all "truther theory's" right you keep repeating.

Originally Posted by wispy

You've accepted that steel framed buildings are compromised during a fire if the steel reaches a temperature high enough to weaken it and it is unable to then carry the loads it's designed for.

So why dont steel frame buildings all collapse under their own weight after an hours fire?

Originally Posted by wispy

And this will be true for WTC 1 & 2.


The issue is that WTC towers were a particular form of construction. They were not 'true steel frames' but a tube (ie the core) within a tube (ie the external wall columns) with the floors spanning in between on light weight truss beams.

More reason the cores would have stood & there would have been a partial collapse of the floors at worse.

Originally Posted by wispy

If you had bothered to read the Edinburgh report you would have seen that they considered this structure particularly vulnerable to fire. Yes there was fire protection but some of it this was in poor shape and much of it in the location of the fire would have been stripped off by the plane impact. Truss beams are lightwieght and will be affected by heat easier than heavy weight beams. Add in the plane damge and the fires over a number of floors then they would inded be very susceptable to fire.


If you had also bothered to read the other report which described that once the floors started collapsing and the upper tsections tilted it was end game for the towers.

Course they did, they are payed to think that fires brought down the towers. So that's how they explain it probably happened.

This is the script that I knew already. Why would I waste my time reading this?

Originally Posted by wispy

As for WTC7, well it took longer and that's it. In fact it did well considering, as I understand it, to stand up for the 6 hours as the sprinklers were knocked out and there was a large fire as well.

Originally Posted by wispy

Yup. You asked if any building had fallen after an hours fire. Which WTC7 did

So was it an hour or several hours?

Originally Posted by wispy

You can't seem to accept that the assumption when designing buildings is that it will be a single fire breaking out, not multiple fires on top of damage already incurred.

Like I already told you buildings are ALL fitted with dampeners & fire doors. Fires cannot spread through to other parts of the building. So you have sporadic minor fires breaking out in parts of the buildings & an hour later it fully collapses. This is a one off & very odd. For anyone to try & play this down otherwise as a normal occurrence is an obvious deceiver.

Originally Posted by wispy

No mass. Where did all this mass miraculously disapear to? Jump ship over the side? You mean the all mass of the top section, not even some of it and enough to damge the floor below, somehow goes over the side and falls outside of the building. That means it falls a bit, stops, has to turn 90 degress and go out far enough out to be past the external columns then start dropping down????????????

And you can see this for defintite with all the debris and dust plume at the top of the buildi?

And you don't think that as it is a tube in tube design with the floor connections held by steel brackets at either end of the truss beams that these steel brackets will not fail causing any of the mass to fall down inside the tube and make the outside walls peel outwards?

I gave you my opinion from my observations several times now, I don't see no point in going over this.

I find it amusing when you say "somehow go's over the side & falls outside the building" when this is what happened lol. But yes it shouldnt have, it was a collapse you claim not nothing like what we witnessed.
When buildings collapse they go down, they dont erupt like a volcano.

Like I say you might wish to actually check the helicopter photos & watch the videos again.

You keep repeating about the floors, when I am mainly talking about the CORE & also as I explained, there should have been floors piled up on top of each other after, there was NOTHING.

Originally Posted by wispy

Oh yeah? The photos I've seen show a mound where WTCs 1 & 2 would have been.

How would the cores have been empty? Even with the claimed CDs wouldn't there have been a pile in the building location. Or is this some new form of CD?

There were pieces of steel like matchsticks littered about, nothing like any collapse. And yes definitely unconventional, this was no ordinary demo I agree 1000% In fact I kind of reckon just a long shot, they probably did spray all the floors with this nano thermate or whatever when they sprayed over the asbestos that was sposed to be removed. They no way removed all that asbestos from the building was way to expensive.

Something like this must of happened, as doesn't explain how everything got turned to dust & steel fell to bits like matchsticks. Would be cool to have a normal conversation on this, without all the troll fodder jumping in like the little bitches they are.

Originally Posted by wispy

Yup. Becuase it wasn't CD. It fell down and with the mas it would have spread. Where else do you think the debris of a 100 storey building would have gone. It would be fantasy to think that it would look like a squashed coke can on the one spot neatly pile up in its footprint.

Like I say I would have expected a lot more remnants after a collapse.

Originally Posted by wispy

But you can't have it both ways.

It was said that it fell into its own footprint proving CD, now it is being said the debris was all over the place but the theory is still CD. Which is it? Make your minds up.

Again, it wasent anything conventional, why the rubble fires lasted for 5 months as I already posted.

Originally Posted by wispy

Well of course it is. I would still suggest talking to an unbiased structural engineer if you know any.

A retired one maybe. Few are crazy enough to risk their career on this.

You dont have to be a conspiracy nut like me to see this obvious.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Wispy you cant even address my name in your replys, so I am not sure I should even bother replying atall.



What that steel buildings don't collapse in on their own weight after an hours fire? Nope this pretty much FACT Wisp, I know you hate it, coz it proves your phony fairy tale you bought into is a lie.



Well there you go then, not only the 1st skyscraper to collapse in history for minor fire damage. It only took an hour. Whilst other buildings with real fires rage for hours & hours.



According to your script yes.



I see you are repeating yourself again, when I already told you. This has never happened before in history, so why do you pretend its a regular occurrence?



So now I am diverting the topic, coz you dont like my question. When you just for the 3rd time reeled off a load of spew about why buildings collapse HILARIOUS! & cant find 1 example of this occurring elsewhere. When I have posted several links on high rise fires. You are trying to be the authority again, coz you have NOTHING.

But its all "truther theory's" right you keep repeating.



So why dont steel frame buildings all collapse under their own weight after an hours fire?



More reason the cores would have stood & there would have been a partial collapse of the floors at worse.



Course they did, they are payed to think that fires brought down the towers. So that's how they explain it probably happened.

This is the script that I knew already. Why would I waste my time reading this?





So was it an hour or several hours?



Like I already told you buildings are ALL fitted with dampeners & fire doors. Fires cannot spread through to other parts of the building. So you have sporadic minor fires breaking out in parts of the buildings & an hour later it fully collapses. This is a one off & very odd. For anyone to try & play this down otherwise as a normal occurrence is an obvious deceiver.



I gave you my opinion from my observations several times now, I don't see no point in going over this.

I find it amusing when you say "somehow go's over the side & falls outside the building" when this is what happened lol. But yes it shouldnt have, it was a collapse you claim not nothing like what we witnessed.
When buildings collapse they go down, they dont erupt like a volcano.

Like I say you might wish to actually check the helicopter photos & watch the videos again.

You keep repeating about the floors, when I am mainly talking about the CORE & also as I explained, there should have been floors piled up on top of each other after, there was NOTHING.



There were pieces of steel like matchsticks littered about, nothing like any collapse. And yes definitely unconventional, this was no ordinary demo I agree 1000% In fact I kind of reckon just a long shot, they probably did spray all the floors with this nano thermate or whatever when they sprayed over the asbestos that was sposed to be removed. They no way removed all that asbestos from the building was way to expensive.

Something like this must of happened, as doesn't explain how everything got turned to dust & steel fell to bits like matchsticks. Would be cool to have a normal conversation on this, without all the troll fodder jumping in like the little bitches they are.



Like I say I would have expected a lot more remnants after a collapse.



Again, it wasent anything conventional, why the rubble fires lasted for 5 months as I already posted.



A retired one maybe. Few are crazy enough to risk their career on this.

You dont have to be a conspiracy nut like me to see this obvious.

There was a few things that occurred with all 3 buildings that is not synonymous with your average office fire, wispy has outlined these already.

One thing I did see above and wanted to ask was, why would you expect more remnants in the collapse? Don't worry about the other questions a page or so back we've established that you cannot answer that, so just this one will do for now.