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)

>> ^Trancecoach:

Yeah, you're right.. These guys are clearly lying. In fact, they're not even fire fighters! They're actors working on scale.. (how else would they know what it's like to be on a movie set?)
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
I dunno about you guys, but i'm convinced. This is such a conspiracy, there is no other explanation at all.

Everybody knows that an approaching tornado sounds like an oncoming locomotive. And a path of destruction it leaves behind also looks like a train plowed through. Shouldn't there also be a claim that it's a conspiracy and they are hiding all the rogue trains while blaming tornadoes?

These firefighters might not be lying or actors, but I would not necessary take their post-traumatic descriptions of the event as facts. They just lived through perhaps their most extreme experience of their lives with 2 giant buildings collapsing around them. While they might be trained and have experience with fires, nobody there had any training or preparation or prior experience on how an 110 story building hit by a plane would collapse and what it would sound and feel like.

When the south tower started collapsing i was standing at exactly 40.705426,-74.004928 that was literally in front of the an entrance to our office building(it was demolished since). When it started collapsing from my vantage point it looked like the top simply toppled over. That was my experience of the event. Was it accurate? No. But everybody on the street at that time saw it that way.

>> ^arvana:

a) We can't tell from the video if this accident was fatal.
b) Regardless of what happened to the operator, I certainly wouldn't say the video is "explicit depiction of loss of human life" [FAQ].
I'm going to assume for my own peace of mind that he's ok and recovering in hospital from dust inhalation. There are plenty of times during earthquakes when people survive building collapses while inside the building.
I'll add a warning in the description, and return.



Alright, let me explain B.

There was the video on the sift a while back of a man on a scooter ramming an elevator door until the door broke and he fell to his death.

The death occurred in the elevator shaft itself, not on screen. However, it was generally agreed upon that literally watching the last 4 seconds of someones life was disrespectful and disturbing in its own right.

a) We can't tell from the video if this accident was fatal.

b) Regardless of what happened to the operator, I certainly wouldn't say the video is "explicit depiction of loss of human life" [FAQ].

I'm going to assume for my own peace of mind that he's ok and recovering in hospital from dust inhalation. There are plenty of times during earthquakes when people survive building collapses while inside the building.

I'll add a warning in the description, and *return.

>> ^Bruti79:

Derren Brown said it best: "Extra ordinary statements require extra ordinary proof to back it up."
Showing this guy built steel box cutters (which were impressive) to show how to make cuts, isn't extraordinary enough to prove that the US government took down their own buildings. You still need to find the answers to this things like: Why? How? When did they set it up? And if they're so logistically sound to plant explosives in three buildings and make it look like a terror attack, then why couldn't they plan a strategy for Iraq that matched it?
Jinx said it best: "Plane hit building. Building collapse."
Until someone recreates a Skyscraper in the desert, built the same way the WTC and flies a plane into it, and it doesn't fall. You're not going to convince people that it wasn't an inside job =\


I couldn't agree more. Until someone rebuilds the trade center exactly, and flies a plane into it, and it falls, I won't believe planes alone can bring down buildings.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.

I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.
And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?
It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.


You'll have troubles looking up temperature in any scientific literature because the real measure that matters in energy. Temperature is just a measure of how much energy a particular object is storing in the form of heat. Jwray's very valid point is simply that a skyscraper is storing an utterly enormous amount of energy in the form of gravity. If even a small portion of that energy is converted to heat, which a collapse is guaranteed to do, it will raise temperatures of whatever material absorbs that heat. If it is concentrated enough it could melt whatever is heated up. The point is simply that the collapse turned more than enough energy into the form of heat to melt a good mass of steel, the question is only how that energy was distributed through the wreckage. Odds are in a random collapse it will be distributed fairly broadly, meaning less temperature increase per mass, but the already very hot steel may not have needed that much either.

All said, it is absolutely hard to say. Meaning it's hard to rule out the collapse and simmering fires within the wreckage couldn't have melted some steel over time. Hard say that would be expected either. The more complex an event is the harder it is to predict.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.


I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.

And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?

It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.

Ever heard the quote "there are no straight lines in nature" ?

Seriously, what are the chances that random, organic events caused three symmetrical collapses at free fall speed? How can a building collapse in the direction of most resistance (through load bearing columns) especially when it is damaged unevenly by either a fire or a plane strike. You make a cut in a tree and it falls in the direction of the cut. You light a wood framed building on fire and it collapses in the direction of whatever column succumbs to fire first. I'm not an expert but what happened does not make sense.

Again, not saying it was an inside job. I'm just pointing out what seems probable vs improbable in my mind, in the same way that I would point out a straight line in the forest.

I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.

Some questions, since I always manage to completely misunderstand waht you believe your saying:

Most importantly, do you trust the honesty and competence of the engineers who published those tests?
I for one do.

Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?

Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?

The deeper story of the references you've given is that the engineers behind them have new evidence since the attacks. Primarily that the buildings collapsed hours after being hit by airliners. They have accepted a re-analysis of their initial tests and agree with the conclusion. That the combination of the initial crash striping the fireproofing and the following fires could collapse the towers, a condition they did not test for in their initial analysis you referenced.

And the number one question still stands:

Where is the profit in crashing the planes into the buildings, that wasn't already equally profitable by simple controlled demolition.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,
"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"
or are you going to think,
"Hey look, a controlled demolition"
Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html


I don't see how Occam's Razor applies any differently to WTC 7. It received serious blast damage from the collapse of WTC 1. It was on fire on at least 10 floors. Emergency crews had been ordered clear of the building fearing the it might collapse. When it collapses what is the simplest explanation?

1.The visible blast damage and fires caused the collapse.
2.Explosives planted before the blast and fires were triggered causing the collapse.
3.Miniature welding robots planted around the steel columns caused the collapse.
4.An inter-dimensional rift briefly opened within the buildings support columns, severing them and causing the collapse.

>> ^bcglorf:

I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,
"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"
or are you going to think,
"Hey look, a controlled demolition"
Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html

I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,

"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"

or are you going to think,

"Hey look, a controlled demolition"

Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse."
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
>> ^Duckman33:
I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?



From your link "Debunking 9/11":

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time."

This is actually not entirely true at all. According to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Not only the is size of a Boeing 707 only slightly smaller than a Boeing 767, but it holds only a mere 980 gallons less fuel, and is faster than a 767 by 77MPh.

Also:
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

And:
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

See also: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html

One thing that keeps repeating in this thread is the idea that planes were a factor. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and it collapsed symmetrically into it's own footprint. I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,

"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"

or are you going to think,

"Hey look, a controlled demolition"

I think it should be pretty obvious which is the "conspiracy theory" and which is the simpler explanation. The logistics of someone rigging a building really have no bearing on the mechanics of the collapse - that is a separate body of evidence altogether. I'm not saying it was an inside job I'm just saying what it looks like and what is to me the simpler explanation (from a mechanical perspective only). I can't make a clear argument on intention or logistics because honestly, nobody in this thread can be sure what the government is really capable of.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yes, you could post those links. I might actually pay attention to the content, unlike you. You'd apparently prefer to believe what you want in a vacuum of contrary thinking. Which is fine, it's your right, but don't expect people's opinions of you to improve.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/FOIA-Lawsuits-Cause-Release-of-New-WTC7-Collapse-Video?loadcomm=1#comment-1166922'>^Duckman33</a>:<br />
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther". Sorry to inform you "dumb fucks", but I do have a right to my opinion as much as you do. As others have already said, I don't buy 100% into the whole truther thing. Never thought Bush was behind this, simply because he's too God damn stupid to pull anything of this magnitude off. He's lucky if he can tie his own fucking shoes by himself! But there are too many inconsistencies in the official story to make it believable. There's nothing wrong with questioning things that don't add up. Don't know why you guys get so worked up about it but it's funny. <br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Drachen_Jager" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">Drachen_Jager</a> I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.<br></em>


No I don't prefer to think what I want. I prefer to think about what I have already read and watched on the subject. And I have read and watched a lot on both sides. For some reason you all assume I haven't because I still ask questions. I guess asking questions is not allowed.... Sorry, from now on I'll be a good little robot and keep my mouth shut.

There are many expert opinions on both sides of this subject. Everything from architects and engineers to firefighters. Who's to say which side's opinions are right and which are wrong? Why do you and the others here assume the links you provide to me are the end all truth of the discussion because it follows your line of thinking? Or that I haven't already read them? Much like when I watch the news on TV, or read news articles on the internet, I don't assume the information I read or watch is 100% accurate or correct. But I do give info on both sides my consideration.

Since you mentioned it, here's a link for you read away.

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

See, the problem is, this subject isn't cut and dry by any means. There's alot more to this than just WTC 1, 2 and 7. But that's what all "debunkers" always seem to focus on. And that's what you guys think I/we only focus on, because I/we make comments about them on these sifts. However, there's a lot to the official story that doesn't add up. One thing I can think of off hand is the fact that the Government still refuses to release surveillance footage of the Pentagon "attack". That is suspect, and only serves to raise questions. There was a lawsuit placed just to get what little footage has been released so far. The question has already been asked once. Why does it take a lawsuit to get this footage released if there's nothing to hide? The fact that all the material from the WTC site was rushed off to China to be recycled before anyone could analyze it is suspect as well, and only serves to raise questions. I'm sorry if it's so hard for you to accept we are being lied to, or at least not being told the entire story. However, as other have mentioned. The sad reality is it's not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last. Sadam having Weapons of Mass Destruction comes to mind....

What was to gain from this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/transactions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

Kill a bunch of people?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/victims/index.html

These links aren't meant to be taken as gospel truth, rather something to think about.

The other two questions are harder to answer. Hence why the whole controlled demolition theory is a hard sell. That doesn't mean people shouldn't still ask questions. In all reality the bottom line is, until someone can build an exact duplicate of WTC 1 & 2, and can then smash jets into them, people can theorize all they want but we will never really know for sure why the buildings collapsed. Good thing for us that isn't the only thing fishy about this.

BTW, I could care less about your or anyone else's opinion of me. I don't know you, or anyone else on this site personally and even if I did, I still wouldn't give two shits what you think. This isn't High School, nor is it a popularity contest. My friends all think I'm nuts, so what? That doesn't change who I am as a person. They understand this and are still my friends. At least they listen to me with an open mind. I got over worrying about what other people think about me when I was 16. Perhaps you should do the same.

[Edit] P.S. No-one has yet to provide the odds of this happening, despite the evidence already produced. Which was my original question.