>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
Because it's simple physics that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from, before and since.

And were those other skyscrapers also damaged after being showered in debris from an adjacent building collapse? No? Okay, then.

Let me refer you to my previous comment:
http://videosift.com/video/Building-7-Explained#comment-1290794

>> ^Fade:
Because it's simple physics that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from, before and since.


And were those other skyscrapers also damaged after being showered in debris from an adjacent building collapse? No? Okay, then.

>> ^Fade:

Because it's simple physics that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from, before and since.

Wait... what? That's not physics at all... simple or otherwise... It's like, history or something.

Because it's simple physics that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from, before and since.>> ^coolhund:

Oh man guys...
It has been said for years, and you can also go ask your local firefighters (DO IT!!!!!!!!!): Fires in closed rooms, especially office fires, can easily reach 1000C and far above that. It even gets so hot that the gas thats created from the fire itself will ignite aswell, creating even higher temperatures!!!
Seriously... Its simple physics. I really dont understand why people still question it...

I don't care what side your on, just please don't compare Skyscrapers to Jenga Blocks. Jenga blocks are not secured together!!! They are just placed on top of one another. It simply isn't safe to stack wooden blocks that high and have people walking around in and on them. That would be dangerous. No, Skyscrapers are fastened together somehow. Really really tightly.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Occam asks: Why would the demolitioninjas collapse the building in an orderly manner that would arouse the suspicions of conspiracy theorists (and 1500 construction experts)? Why didn't they wire the building so it would fall over?

>> ^marinara:
Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.



You're mis-wielding the Razor. 1) The construction of T1/T2, and I assume 7-- steel-structured buildings in the old WTC site were such that they *would* impolode in the face of structural failure, not fall over. this limits casualties from outside the buildings. 2) The assumption that there are demoninjas necessitates the sub-assumption of the fact that demonninjas do not care what conspirators think, because conspirators will not be able to prove anything, because the ninjas are ninjas. 3) Because, in theory, the demoninjas are making so much money off of this that risking the ire of 1500+ construction experts, demo experts, engineers, and internet users isn't nearly reason enough to stop them taking the risk.

Can I just say... (I lived a few short blocks away in NYC at the time of the collapse. And I am a truther of sorts.) ...I'd like to stop the idea that conspiracy "nuts" are akin to religious zealots, suffer from some kind of mania, think that Illuminati lizards control the world, etc. The government's official story is BOTH a conspiracy (religious nuts in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to crash two planes into two of the largest structures in the financial capital of the west) and a theory (there has been no trial, there is very little hard evidence, there was no comprehensive official investigation, and both the Commission and NIST reports were produced by government institutions or congressionally appointed committee, and neither were conclusive- both were, in the end, speculative.

Good question. Maybe so that the building wouldn't damage anything else?>> ^quantumushroom:

Occam asks: Why would the demolitioninjas collapse the building in an orderly manner that would arouse the suspicions of conspiracy theorists (and 1500 construction experts)? Why didn't they wire the building so it would fall over?

>> ^marinara:
Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.

Occam asks: Why would the demolitioninjas collapse the building in an orderly manner that would arouse the suspicions of conspiracy theorists (and 1500 construction experts)? Why didn't they wire the building so it would fall over?


>> ^marinara:

Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.

"One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 2 3 It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century". "
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html


This clip is a pathetic little band-aid against the piles of "weird shit" about 9/11 that still to this day should make any intelligent person think twice.

Such as:

- The alleged masterminds of 9/11 have never been produced and never put to trial, despite having supposedly been captured in 2001/02

- Total failure of the air defense system. The Pentagon was struck One hour and Twenty minutes after the attacks began, yet there was no response from Andrews Air Force base, which is just 10 MILES away and supposed to be in charge of defending the capitol.

- The Bush / Bin Ladin / Saudi families connection was never fully explored or explained.

- According to two first responders, black boxes were found, but later "disappeared" and their existence denied by the 9/11 Commision Report.

- The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. Some fucking co-incidence huh.

- Of all the cameras around the pentagon, including the security tapes taken from local gas stations, only one blurry clip was released.

- The remains of the twin towers were quickly carried off and buried before any forensic investigations could be done.

the list goes on....


9/11 Never Forget??

You're damn right I'll never forget. You can count on it.

>> ^marinara:

Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.
If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.


One column?

Do you really believe that the professionals at NIST are suggesting that in WTC7 one column was compromised to the point of failure by the fire, but the other 19 were in pristine normal condition?

Right, anything to hang on to your internal belief system.

The body of professionals across the globe are convinced that the devastation of the lower floors of WTC7 and resulting fires were easily enough to cause the collapse. This was so evident that emergency workers were ordered to abandon the burning building in advance, and news crews were reporting about it's probable collapse before it went down.

Your 'theories' are stupid.

Please, keep parroting things like how house fires can't reach 1000 degrees, it helps people see how stupid your ideas are more quickly. Early steel makers regularly made do with wood fires for their forges, and somehow managed to get the steel to melt. A google scholar search will also quickly show that temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees can be reached by house fires within minutes.

House fires can reach pretty insane temperatures, I don't see why its so unbelievable that a building full of paper might also produce these temperatures.

You don't need the same heat as a tanker with 9000 gallons of fuel. That bridge collapsed in minutes, WT7 collapsed after 7 hours of fire...

As for one column failing...well its the straw that breaks the camels back. You'd expect multiple redundancy, but I imagine the trouble with building huge skyscrapers is the more load bearing structure you put in the more weight the structure beneath that has to hold. It doesn't really surprise me that it wouldn't take many things going wrong for gravity to have its way.

As for the fact the building went down like a controlled demolition...why is that surprising. If you want to bring down a building cleanly and efficiently with minimum explosives you look for the card that holds the rest of the house up. The fire did that job as well as any demo expert, it poked and prodded every single Jenga block in that building, it weakened every support and warped the whole structure and if you end up with just one Atlas of a crossbeam holding more than its fair share of weight and a fire goes through the building testing every single one then ya, its the one holding all the weight thats gonna fail.

Wow theorycraftin is ez.

Let's say WT7 had 20 columns holding up 47 floors (that's big). So these big ass columns get pushed around by by the "flooring under heat expansion" and then the other 20 ginormous columns fail instantly, and the whole thing goes down.

If one column can bring down WT7, it wasn't a skyscraper, it was a deathtrap.

The fireproofing that protects the steel is meant to protect it for 2 hours, not 7.

These questions have all been answered, but you conspiracy people are as bad as the fanatically religious; just keep plugging your ears and yelling, "la la la la, I can't hear you!"
>> ^Fade:

Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

was the wtc7 fire somehow magically hotter than all the other skyscraper fires that never resulted in a collapse?
Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

Why didn't this building collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc

or this one?

http://youtu.be/j4MjsVnasLA

You clearly don't understand structural engineering so I seriously doubt you would have a firm grasp of rocket science.
>> ^Skeeve:

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.
So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:
I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

>> ^Fade:

I'm sorry, but the claim that office fires brought down a skyscraper is an extraordinary claim. It's not a 'duh' 'you retard' 'can't you see that fires brought it down' 'herp derp' claim.
Fire as far as I know has never caused a skyscraper like wtc7 to collapse before. Therefore there is a burden of proof on the claim that it caused this one to collapse.
http://youtu.be/mZthDtybmTE
I don't see anything to prove that fires caused it to collapse. Can you point me in the direction of some?


No, you're completely ass backwards.

The burden is not on people to prove that the fires brought down the buildings. Two aeroplanes flew into the towers, they fell down.

The burden is on those that continue to wail that there was a secret conspiracy to plant explosives in the buildings and bring them down... AFTER some planes were flown into them.

The burden is ON YOU.

And any 'evidence' that the conspiracy theorists have brought up have been TIME AND AGAIN shown to be bullshit.

So, sorry, but you're coming at this from entirely the wrong angle.

Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the one... we SAW the planes hit the towers, WTC7 was right next to them, sustained damage, fell down. Simplest explanation.

Add the planes being flown into the buildings on TOP of all the conspiracy bullshit and you've just made it FAR more complicated, FAR more unbelievable, and FAR more implausible.

And the facts do NOT support any of it.