Burning skyscraper engulfed in flames and smoke collapses because of so much fire.

[Gary K]

How much fire is required to weaken the steel in a building? By how much I am asking how hot, duration, does location make a difference? i.e. Does a fire under a support junction have a greater impact than a fire in the middle of the floor.

The NIST DID NOT say that one side collapsed.

If you pay attention to what the report actually said you would see that the internal structure collapsed first. The external shell was left unsupported, its walls buckled and it collapsed.


The animation matches the observed progression of the collapse.

All I can do is show you the engineering and physics of what happened. The main problem with controlled demolition is that there are no reports of multiple explosions immediately before the collapse began. That means the video evidence of the collapse does not match the hypothesis of a controlled demolition. I can show the engineering and the physics, but it requires some work on your part to understand. It took me six years of study to understand the physics and the engineering.

I'll only respond to what I bolded above as the temps and the like have no relevance. According to the diagram by NIST, one side of the building, at the bottom left of the diagram, weakened, bulged, and started the collapse. That means that side of the structure weakened first and the most, meaning it should have leaned and then fallen in that direction as the bulge and weakening means the floors on that side of the building would have started collapsing first. An unsupported wall, unless it is somehow artifically manipulated does not fall straight down on itself. It falls one way or another when it buckles at its base, whichever way gravity pulls it as the center of gravity of the wall changes due to the buckling.

The only other thing I can comment on is the lack of visible fire. Any fire hot enough to destroy an entire building is hot enough to blow out the windows and fire and smoke will be flowing out of almost every window of the building. The very video you posted demonstrates this conclusively. Look at that video and how hot those fires were, and how much of the building it destroyed before those buildings collapsed. The flames totally engulfed the buidlings. The windows had all disappeared, as had all the walls between the support structure of the burning buildings. Not a single bit of that was evident in building 7.

 

[jaybird]

All I can do is show you the engineering and physics of what happened. The main problem with controlled demolition is that there are no reports of multiple explosions immediately before the collapse began. That means the video evidence of the collapse does not match the hypothesis of a controlled demolition. I can show the engineering and the physics, but it requires some work on your part to understand. It took me six years of study to understand the physics and the engineering.

what about the multitudes of people that did in fact report explosions?

 

[patrick jane]

All I can do is show you the engineering and physics of what happened. The main problem with controlled demolition is that there are no reports of multiple explosions immediately before the collapse began. That means the video evidence of the collapse does not match the hypothesis of a controlled demolition. I can show the engineering and the physics, but it requires some work on your part to understand. It took me six years of study to understand the physics and the engineering.

I have seen video footage of more than two dozen people on the scene and/or in the building(s) who said they heard multiple explosions, all three buildings. These dozens include police and firefighters and people that worked in the buildings everyday. That is only the tip of a massive iceberg.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I watched the whole video and the building didn't collapse. :idunno:

It did but they just missed it. It fell down just like ones on 911, exactly the same way. No difference what's so ever.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

NIST is Fake News. It was the third high rise in the history of the world that collapsed like a pancake demolition due to fire. The first two happened earlier that day.

Man that's just crazy talk. :dizzy:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Ummm.... Take a look at your own video. For each of the buildings destroyed by fire we see those buidling entirely engulfed in flames. In building 7 we see fire coming out of a few windows on one side of the building. And, if what NIST says is true that one side collapsed first, with that type of construction that building should have leaned toward the side that buckled and then fallen in that direction due to the laws of physics. Instead we see an almost completely vertical collapse meaning all sides collapsed at the exact same speed. Only at the very last, as in the video you provided of deliberate demolition, does building 7 even begin to lean. 90% of its fall is entirely vertical and with no fire visible. That is exactly the opposite of the video evidence that supposedly demonstrates NIST's explanation.

Blah blah blah, can't you see? Use your brain box, it was like all on fire and everything. :flamer:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

what about the multitudes of people that did in fact report explosions?

It was probably a car back firing. :nascar:bang!

 

[CabinetMaker]

I'll only respond to what I bolded above as the temps and the like have no relevance. According to the diagram by NIST, one side of the building, at the bottom left of the diagram, weakened, bulged, and started the collapse. That means that side of the structure weakened first and the most, meaning it should have leaned and then fallen in that direction as the bulge and weakening means the floors on that side of the building would have started collapsing first. An unsupported wall, unless it is somehow artifically manipulated does not fall straight down on itself. It falls one way or another when it buckles at its base, whichever way gravity pulls it as the center of gravity of the wall changes due to the buckling.

You comments DO NOT match the video. The video clearly shows the intrnal structure collapsing first which left the outer walls unsupported.

The only other thing I can comment on is the lack of visible fire. Any fire hot enough to destroy an entire building is hot enough to blow out the windows and fire and smoke will be flowing out of almost every window of the building. The very video you posted demonstrates this conclusively. Look at that video and how hot those fires were, and how much of the building it destroyed before those buildings collapsed. The flames totally engulfed the buidlings. The windows had all disappeared, as had all the walls between the support structure of the burning buildings. Not a single bit of that was evident in building 7.

There was a rather substantial amount of smoke coming out of the building indicating fires were burning. It should also be noted that the explosions that are required for a demolition are not present. In essence, you are attempting to claim the building was demolished without evidence of explosions. I would say that your position is far weaker.

 

[CabinetMaker]

what about the multitudes of people that did in fact report explosions?

What about them? The second video in this thread shows the amount of explosives that are typically required to demolish a building. They are fired in rapid succession. People said they heard explosions but nobody has ever said that they heard multiple explosions in rapid succession before any of the buildings collapsed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I have seen video footage of more than two dozen people on the scene and/or in the building(s) who said they heard multiple explosions, all three buildings. These dozens include police and firefighters and people that worked in the buildings everyday. That is only the tip of a massive iceberg.

Did you ever hear any of those people claim to have heard multiple explosions in rapid succession? If not, how can you claim demolition. Any explanation that is put forward MUST match the video evidence and the debris. Controlled demolition does not fully explain either. That is a problem for people who claim demolition.

The problem here is that people see a building falling and the only thing they have to compare it to are videos on YouTube. They lack the understanding of construction and physics so they form bad conclusions and don't understand why. The fires in 7 burned for at least 7 hours. The fire insulation they use on beams is only good for 3 to 4 hours before it fails leaving the steel exposed to the fire. Here is an interesting chart that relates the strength of steel to temperature:

Note that at about 1200°F steel has lost half of its strength. At 50% strength it may no longer be able to support the load it carries ant if fail. 1200°F is easily attained in office fires. Steel does not need to melt to fail, it only needs to get hot enough to lose enough strength that it can no longer carry the load it is subject to.

 

[patrick jane]

What about them? The second video in this thread shows the amount of explosives that are typically required to demolish a building. They are fired in rapid succession. People said they heard explosions but nobody has ever said that they heard multiple explosions in rapid succession before any of the buildings collapsed.

You should research Thermite and/or Electro-hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel device. They wouldn't use commercially available explosives as a demolition company would use.

There were military explosives available in the 90s that can change the molecular structure in a cloud created around a structure. The electrically charged cloud crushes steel to dust.

totse.com | CIA's METC Explosives - 9-11 Research

 

[patrick jane]

Did you ever hear any of those people claim to have heard multiple explosions in rapid succession? If not, how can you claim demolition. Any explanation that is put forward MUST match the video evidence and the debris. Controlled demolition does not fully explain either. That is a problem for people who claim demolition.

The problem here is that people see a building falling and the only thing they have to compare it to are videos on YouTube. They lack the understanding of construction and physics so they form bad conclusions and don't understand why. The fires in 7 burned for at least 7 hours. The fire insulation they use on beams is only good for 3 to 4 hours before it fails leaving the steel exposed to the fire. Here is an interesting chart that relates the strength of steel to temperature:

Note that at about 1200°F steel has lost half of its strength. At 50% strength it may no longer be able to support the load it carries ant if fail. 1200°F is easily attained in office fires. Steel does not need to melt to fail, it only needs to get hot enough to lose enough strength that it can no longer carry the load it is subject to.

Believe what you want. I know that over 1,300 structural engineers, architects, demolition experts and scientists say fire is impossible to do what happened within 7 hours to to three modern buildings. The only three in the history of mankind.

 

[patrick jane]

[h=3]Why the NIST Report on the World Trade Center Towers is False ...[/h]

The manner in which all three towers collapsed combined with the scope of thousands of facts we know to be true, other impossibilities, inconsistencies, lies, cover-ups and dismal "official" investigations leads me to believe that the American people do not know the truth about 9/11.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You should research Thermite and/or Electro-hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel device. They wouldn't use commercially available explosives as a demolition company would use.

There were military explosives available in the 90s that can change the molecular structure in a cloud created around a structure. The electrically charged cloud crushes steel to dust.

totse.com | CIA's METC Explosives - 9-11 Research

And no supporting evidence was found of either.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Believe what you want. I know that over 1,300 structural engineers, architects, demolition experts and scientists say fire is impossible to do what happened within 7 hours to to three modern buildings. The only three in the history of mankind.

Believe what you want is an incredibly weak response. You don't even attempt to refute any points raised by the video, you just beat your drum that controlled demolition is the ONLY explanation. Its not.

They are not the only three, the video I post clearly refutes that number.

If it was impossible for fire to bring down a building then there would not be ANY requirements for fire stopping steel in a building yet every building department requires it. If fire can't cause a failure, why require fire stopping. There is a NatGeo video that clearly shows an aviation fuel fire generates sufficient heat for steel to fail. It would seem that those 1,300 experts are ignoring certain facts of the collapses to support their pet theory. People do that.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why the NIST Report on the World Trade Center Towers is False ...



The manner in which all three towers collapsed combined with the scope of thousands of facts we know to be true, other impossibilities, inconsistencies, lies, cover-ups and dismal "official" investigations leads me to believe that the American people do not know the truth about 9/11.

There are unanswered question about 9/11. The method of the building collapse is not one of them. The report looked at a controlled demolition explanation. It was found that demolition did not match the actual collapse of the buildings. It was found that the damage caused by the initial impact followed by uncontrolled fires did match the video evidence of the collapse.

I fail to understand why so many people insist that it was our own people who did this.

 

[patrick jane]

There are unanswered question about 9/11. The method of the building collapse is not one of them. The report looked at a controlled demolition explanation. It was found that demolition did not match the actual collapse of the buildings. It was found that the damage caused by the initial impact followed by uncontrolled fires did match the video evidence of the collapse.

I fail to understand why so many people insist that it was our own people who did this.

I'm not saying it was our own people who did this. Anybody involved with covering up any information or the attack itself are by definition not "our own people".

 

[CabinetMaker]

I'm not saying it was our own people who did this. Anybody involved with covering up any information or the attack itself are by definition not "our own people".

If you are saying that Americans are involved in this then yes, they are our own people. They may have felt there were highly compelling reasons to kill Americans that day, the the good of the many out weighed the good of the few. How is it that in all the years since the attacks NOBODY has ever come forward to leak the details?

 

[Gary K]

You comments DO NOT match the video. The video clearly shows the intrnal structure collapsing first which left the outer walls unsupported.


There was a rather substantial amount of smoke coming out of the building indicating fires were burning. It should also be noted that the explosions that are required for a demolition are not present. In essence, you are attempting to claim the building was demolished without evidence of explosions. I would say that your position is far weaker.

So, you're sticking by the idea that an unsupported wall made of structural steel simply collapses straight down upon itself rather than leaning in one direction or another and then falling over. I would love to see you demonstrate that in reality, not in a computer simulation. The fact that the laws of physics say otherwise is meaningless I guess. How did that structural steel support all that extra weight of those internal floors when the building was intact? It's only after they are relieved of that excess weight that they collapse straight down by crumbling from the bottom up? Yeah.... There's some real science. I can see why it took you seven years to convince yourself of this.

And you haven't even begun to address the fact that all the buildings in the video you posted were completely engulfed with flames before they collapsed. The flames were shooting out of them from top to bottom and on all sides of the buildings. None of them showed a building collapsing that had a little smoke coming out of a very small percentage of the building's windows, and only on one side of the building. All the windows were gone, blown out by the gasses and heat created by the fire. Building 7's windows were intact and no flames or smoke were visible over at least 98% of the building. Even where the video says the roof was collapsing from the fire beneath it there was very little smoke compared to what kind of fire is said to have been raging inside that building. Again, I can see why it took you seven years to convince yourself all of it is true.

I sort of have to laugh that you believe that a computer simulation is an absolute truth. A computer simulation does exactly what the programmers tell it to do. A simulation can make anything look plausible if the programmers want it to. A computer in the hands of a fraudulent programmer does nothing but display the fraud the programmer wants it to. So, a computer simulation is basically meaningless. Look at Twitter. They make it appear certain people don't actually tweet unless you deliberately go that person's account. Otherwise their tweets don't appear to exist. Google does the same thing. They bury the results you're searching for if they don't want you to find them. Youtube does the same thing. Computer output and reality are quite often not the same thing. Anyone who insists they must be identical has no real understanding of how computers operate.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

So, you're sticking by the idea that an unsupported wall made of structural steel simply collapses straight down upon itself rather than leaning in one direction or another and then falling over. I would love to see you demonstrate that in reality, not in a computer simulation. The fact that the laws of physics say otherwise is meaningless I guess. How did that structural steel support all that extra weight of those internal floors when the building was intact? It's only after they are relieved of that excess weight that they collapse straight down by crumbling from the bottom up? Yeah.... There's some real science. I can see why it took you seven years to convince yourself of this.

And you haven't even begun to address the fact that all the buildings in the video you posted were completely engulfed with flames before they collapsed. The flames were shooting out of them from top to bottom and on all sides of the buildings. None of them showed a building collapsing that had a little smoke coming out of a very small percentage of the building's windows, and only on one side of the building. All the windows were gone, blown out by the gasses and heat created by the fire. Building 7's windows were intact and no flames or smoke were visible over at least 98% of the building. Even where the video says the roof was collapsing from the fire beneath it there was very little smoke compared to what kind of fire is said to have been raging inside that building. Again, I can see why it took you seven years to convince yourself all of it is true.

I sort of have to laugh that you believe that a computer simulation is an absolute truth. A computer simulation does exactly what the programmers tell it to do. A simulation can make anything look plausible if the programmers want it to. A computer in the hands of a fraudulent programmer does nothing but display the fraud the programmer wants it to. So, a computer simulation is basically meaningless. Look at Twitter. They make it appear certain people don't actually tweet unless you deliberately go that person's account. Otherwise their tweets don't appear to exist. Google does the same thing. They bury the results you're searching for if they don't want you to find them. Youtube does the same thing. Computer output and reality are quite often not the same thing. Anyone who insists they must be identical has no real understanding of how computers operate.

I must have watched that animation a hundred times, may be a thousand, so I know what I'm saying when I say it happened just like that! :dizzy: