News – For those interested in what physicist and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7's collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics offers these notes:
Not a member? Sign-up today!
soulkeeper009
fyuuuuut
gabriel19671968
grisha5
round-up
dimka
razorlight
DianeSBlack
casualkur
misterkju
WilliamKTurner
stwor
savitr
ishmuga
wombatmont
lovingu
onlyonesecret
PoliticalScientist
somebigguy
popbob
veranadine
ipodwheels
Jayson
cherev
trevinocampos
getreal1
Helixbuilder
travesty
vagredajr
BoBo in Texas
natashas
pozycjonowanie
camions
tbkennedy53
bwiksten
100LL
tellerbr
1basque1
eternalsky
Zorn
pawfoots
GoldStandard
drunkenhunter
gatitabonitasen
Commodore1
A.W.
darwinbrian
_kam0_
JrMastermind
ETproductions
142)
"Tower 7 housed the city's emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building-including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. "Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time," according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit-but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse."
'Nuff said.
Rosie clearly knows nothing about how fire affects steel buildings. Steel structures are often the quickest to collapse in a fire, quicker even than wooden structures. Many firefighters have died in steel framed buildings because the building collapsed before it was expected to.
Very true. Rosies' comments had me feeling embarassed "for her" LOL
For 25 years I've been in the fire protection industry, and after seeing numerous steel beams twisted like pretzels after a fire, it's quite obvious what heat can do to steel.
Many older buildings with wood timber beams will actually stay structurally intact much longer in fire conditions because the
steel beams lose their integrity of strength much quicker.
"the first time in history that fire has melted steel"...LOL
I wonder how many fire fighters have left Rosie a voicemail! LOL
(("the first time in history that fire has melted steel"...LOL))
She could have made one phone call and spared herself the humiliation of that statement, lol!
Name another steel structure that fully collapsed due to fire.
Did you read the article?
Yes quickly, but I didn't see any mention of another building collapsing due to fire. Maybe I missed it?
It is relevant, since it is the main point of your opposition to Rosie's comments. Stick to one lie at a time.
And name the steel-framed building that collapsed due to fire.
Oh its the Pawn again.
Like it has been said, its not really important that a steel building hasnt encased, what is important is that steel loses its structural integrity at a certain point.
There is a first time for anything. The burden of proof relies on the conspiracy theorists to prove that it is not possible that it could happen. They fail to even disprove that this could happen and do not provide a reasonable reason of their own as to what happen aside from taking a handful of quotes out of context and a laughable BBC tv clip.
OK, University hills shopping mall. Denver Co. about 1982 if I remember my dates correctly. Oh, and there was no multiple story weight on top of it. One story only. next question....?
lol a mall??
I'm talking about modern steel sky scrapers that are built to withstand multiple jet impacts like the WTC was.
And what's Denver Co.? Can you provide a link about it?
First, what makes you think it was built to withstand "multiple jet impacts"? LOL and again LOL. How old are you? And why is a mall made of steel any different? You asked the question. Da! Denver? Do a google on it in your spare time.
it's not built on any similar plan or for the dynamic loads involved in a scyscraper.
Then why do people keep saying "NO OTHER building like it has EVER collapsed!" If there is no other like it then...see where I'm going?
I do appreciate the damage photo showing the undercut structure of that one corner.
You're taking it to specifically. They're talking about modern steel sky scrapers have never collapsed due to fire.
WTC7 is not a one of a kind building.
How many of the similar buildings have had a tower the size of the Twin Towers collapse unexpectedly beside them?
WTC 7 was a block away. The buildings right in front of WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse.
Read the article.
Hmm...maybe because that's what the WTC designer said?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design...
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-b...
Sky scrapers are over designed to withstand hurricane force winds, earthquakes, fires, etc many times over. A mall is not built to the same specs as a sky scraper would be. There is a HUGE difference.
I love the "how old are you" comment. Mark of a true genius.
Actually, steel melts, or distorts, at what apparently is unacceptably low levels for the far more educated mind.And as well, the question asked was.."Name another steel structure that fully collapsed due to fire" ahem, didn't realize there would be so many attachments to it later on. Let's hope steel steps up to the plate and does what you obviously know it's more capable of. Parden my infringement on your years of expertise.
You cannot compare the engineering of the WTC to a shopping mall. They are built totally different. To even suggest they are comparable is idiotic.
And your infringement is pardoned. :-P
It does not matter how well the structure was designed to withstand impact or wind. That design will not protect against the effect of fire one iota. All of that strength depends on the integrity of the steel itself. Heat will weaken steel the same regardless of it's construction.
The real question with steel buildings is fire resistance. Very often buildings are not capable of withstanding the type of fire that they are rated to withstand - and there is no such thing as a fire-proof building. Every structure, no matter how fire resistant, will fail given enough heat for a long enough time.
Thank you! Well said.
Even so, this does not explain why it feel symmetrically onto its own footprints at near free fall speeds.
Once again, READ THE ARTICLE!
Once again, your point?
Again both statements are false.
yes...I didn't know buildings were tested to withstand multiple jet impacts...?? LOL maybe they would be now tho! who knows...maybe they were tested for multiple jet impacts at a terrorist camp!
built to withstand multiple jet impacts like the WTC was.
Really and how would they test that? Are you siting something that works on paper, in a perfect world?
Actually it wasnt built to withstand even a single jet impact.
Words of the architect none the less.
A mall is entirely different than a skyscraper. Last winter one collapsed because of snow. Stop trying to compare apples to oranges. These people are grasping at straws trying to cover-up for this lost administration.
Actually thats exactly what you are doing. Grasping at straws, the importance is of melted steel, which has occured.
That's your proof? How hot was that fire? DO you even know? You sound like Bush after we found no WMD's. "Next question"
Do you know how hot the fire was in the towers or in WTC 7 which had burned all day?
"the first time in history that fire has melted steel"...LOL
I wonder how many fire fighters have left Rosie a voicemail! LOL
Along with welders, steel worker, history teachers. In my world (apparently not Rosies) there was the bronze age, copper age, iron age, and steel age, all, even before Reagan.
Rosie may not be an expert... Are you ?
These are...
The editor (Bill Manning) of Fire Engineering Magazine said,
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."
F.E. Jan 2002 Edition Link :
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:eLleB9EV2v...
---
Also, the steel and floor trusses were tested far in excess of the reported temperatures and burn times, they performed so well that NIST had to resort to a "black box" computer model to get their desired results.
Watch NIST & FEMA WTC Report Flaws Exposed
Video Link : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7465849...
Dare you...
Sorry but the editor of Fire Engineering is not an expert on steel structures, he is an expert on squirting water.
Now I doubt that we have the full story on the collapse. I suspect that it would have lasted a bit longer if all the steel and concrete used in building it was to spec, but this was a building built in New York by the same Yankee crooks that built the Big Dig in Boston... I'm guessing the work was full of sub par steel and concrete and the report tried to avoid mentioning the part played by crooked contractors.
That said. I don't know what the mystery is about why it fell. A plan smashed into it. The steel inside wasn't made to withstand a 350 mph crash so in all likelyhood fireretardent coating were blown off. All it takes is a few beems in the right place to let the thing collapse and once it starts it wont stop. Watch a demolition crew blow a big building, they don't have to take out every beem just the right ones.
So that must make you an expert at nonsense, since that is what you seem best capable of spewing forth.
I would trust the editor of Fire Engineering way quicker than the Bush appointees at FEMA or Chertoff's cousin over at Popular Mechanics.
Sure you do, because you are desperate to prove that your hare brained theories have some basis in fact... which sadly they dont.
I thought physiicists said that these particular fires (jet fuel) wouldn;t be hot enought to melt steel. Are you saying this fire was hot enough to melt steel? If you are saying that, how hot was the fire?
"Our working hypothesis..."
That's the key phrase.
This isn't even a theory yet let alone proof that fire caused WTC7 to collapse.
"Our working hypothesis..."
Okay let's see.
An aircraft crashes into the building complex, fires are raging all over the place.
WTC 7,a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building-including two 6000-gal.Tanks because it is the city's emergency command center.(For most people with an IQ above 12 who don't drink out of a toilet, a building on fire, with 12000 gal of fuel is an OH Sh*T situation)
The ""Our working hypothesis.is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,"
That's 1, I just thought of another. Suppose the generator weren't running, and the fuel was in pipes, that are routed all through the building with valves closed at all ends, fire raging on the pipes, sooner or later the fuel is going to heat up, expand and most likely burst the pipes now you have fuel spraying into a building that is all ready on fire.
Wouldn't that be a huge frging bomb?
Now lets go over Rosies, steel can't be melted buy fire therefore Bush had the building blown up. The building had secret files on Bush and his cronies so when the terrorist hit the towers Bush took that opportunity to have his people rush in to WTC 7 plant explosives at key support locations exit the building and blow it without being noticed even though thousands of cameras were recording every second of that day.
Dame that Bush is good!
Gee, you don't think they could plan this ahead?
You think they could? This is a group of people who cant even keep 8 attorney's firing under wraps.
Suppose the generator weren't running... Great speculation !!!
FYI re the Fuel Distribution Systems in WTC7 (source FEMA).
If you check the FEMA fuel distribution chart... All the tanks, pumps and risers are in the WEST portion of WTC7.
The fuel tanks could not account for the initial eastern edge (SEC) fires on the twelfth and thirteenth floors, regardless...
East Edge Fire (floor 12) :
http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/7018/wtc7floor...
No large tank was above the 3rd floor.
The small day tanks were (in gallons) : 275 on 5th floor, 275 on 7th floor, 275 on 8th floor and 50-100 on 9th floor.
More info : http://www.911blogger.com/node/7118?page=1#comm...
O.K. on Netscape FEMA is bad Bush puppets. On planet Netscape Bush had the towers taken down. Now you're using FEMA to prove your point???? Inset that using the tooth fairy to prove the Easter Bunny is real.
The Popular Mechanics book has been largely de-bunked itself.