"Things You Wouldn't Know If We Didn't Blog Intermittently."
This is perplexing. If buildings don't usually collapse due to fire, the companies who made WTC 1 2 and 7 need to be investigated and sued.
No, the buildings were built right. It's who placed explosives inside that needs to be investigated
Ummm. They do if the fire weakens the structural steel.
I'll concede your point if you're calling thermite a type of fire. Then, yes, "fire" has weakened structural steel and brought down buildings.
Mr. Ruidh - There actually has never been a case where a fire has caused a large steel-frame buildings to collapse. Never. Not before 9/11 or since then, anywhere in the world. Period. Google the terms, look it up. It's true. And there have been lots of skyscraper fires. None have EVER brought down a steel-framed building.Deb [engineer]
I can't believe we're still doing this. Popular Mechanics handled the entire World Trade Center crash conspiracy. How often do we need to explain that normal sky scraper fires don't have several hundred pounds of jet fuel fueling the fire? How often do we need to explain the concept of an "engineering pancake" where the fire burns hot enough to melt steel piers enough to weaken them which then collapse under the weight of the above levels? This then becomes it's own down blast column, which nothing could have withstood.As to Deb (the engineer)who commented, I suggest she also check to see if anyone else has flown passenger jets into high rise buildings too.
How many times do we need to explain this? there was NO JET FUEL in Tower 7 and minimal fires as everyone was able to see on TV or in person, like myself living blocks away. Tower 7 was downed with internal explosions that bent the structure toward its center while there were no major fires raging in it. The jet fuel theory and the pancake theory really are ludicrous when attempting to explain how Tower 7 went down. Check your ludicorous facts again
The collapse occurred because of uncontrolled fires of office materials.http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
B 25 bomber into empire state building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash
Brian - Please don't take this personally, because you and I are on opposite sides of a fence neither of us will ever cross but I do feel I need to point out that even though the general public considers "Popular Mechanics" to be a science journal, it has always been the magazine of flying cars, personal submarines and ecospheres, and is as prone to bias and political influence as any other Hearst publication.Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which ignites at 444F. The peak burn temp depends on oxygen supply and can be 800-1500F, but the twin towers showed a quick fireball followed by black thick smoke indicating poor oxygen supply. Steel doesn't melt until 2750F. There's no way on God's green earth that impacts and fires caused buildings overdesigned to withstand plane impacts and hurricanes to collapse into their own footprints.Deb [again], trying to be cordial.
Absolutely spot on, Deb. In addition, people like Brian conveniently leave out of the equation Tower 7, where there was no jet fuel at all, just medium fires in two-three sections, nothing that would warrants anything remotely related to the collapse that downed that building. It just came down toward its center, as they usually do when they are rigged with explosives for demolition.
BrianA large airplane flew into the Empire State Building in the 40's. The resulting fires killed 17 people, but the building still stands.The Pancake collapse theory has been debunked. Think about it, in a pancake collapse each floor with it's concrete reinforced steel beams would offer resistance. A Pancake collapse would take minutes, not seconds, andthe floors would end up stacked, not pulverized to dust.
I'll add one other point -Building 7 was not struck by a jetliner. It was about the same size as the Chinese hotel in the photos above. It sustained only minor damage from debris falling from Buildings 1 and 2. It had a fire in one corner of the basement as I recall.And yet it collapsed vertically in freefall??? Others can spend their time arguing fruitlessly about the first two buildings. I'll hang my hat on Building 7 having been demolished.
Absolutely. For us New Yorkers who watched the events unfold in front of our eyes, there was no doubt Tower 7 was not in a condition to warrant a collapse. It had most of its windows still in place, two medium size fires in two sections of the building but minimal stuff compared to the fires of the Chinese hotel or the skyscraper in Madrid that burned for 2 days. Yet, those were standing and Tower 7 came down like if made of sand. Steel doesn't come down by itself, it just doesn't.
The WTC wasn't a "large, steel frame building". There was no structural framework outside of the central core. The building was literally held up by the strength of the tube formed by it's exterior walls. A key part of that strength was how the floor trusses tied into the outside of the building.There's a reason that floor trusses -- including those at the WTC -- are coated in insulation. That's because it is *well known* that steel trusswork can fail when exposed to fires. It literally happens all of the time except usually it is the roof of a warehouse and not the floors of a skyscraper. When the trusswork is also a structural component, as it was in the EWTC, the potential for catastrophic failure is present. That it did happen is proof that it could happen.The comparison to the Empire State crash is completely beside the point. Completely different method of construction and a smaller plane with less fuel on board. In any event, it's a logical fallacy to argue from the specific to the universal -- this building didn't fail, so no buildings can fail.
I cant believe this site is part of the conspiracy theory 911 fucktard set. Get a fucking life.
"Here we go again.."
"I cant believe this site is part of the conspiracy theory 911 fucktard set. Get a fucking life."Charming.
Ruidh omits the Building 7 demolition. Wonder why? Possibly his jet fuel theory does not fit Bidg. 7.
Why am I not surprised that "Minnesotastan" is a conspiracy fucktard since he's also a Ron "the racist" Paul supporter.
the world trade center buildings were built in a very different way. there's a documentary on it..i find it hard to accept that they came down just because of the fires the way they did though.
Hey guys, stop with the nasty comments about Stan. This site and these comment sections are all about debate. If you can't come to the debate with a proper attitude, then please don't say anything at all. Stan and I both centrists on opposite sides of the fence as well and I respect his opinion and his skill at blogging. I respectively disagree with him quite a lot, but that doesn't mean you need to use foul language, or impress us all with your knowledge and tact with pointless insults.This blog is about bring up questions, not about supporting a conspiracy.
Wow, I did not expect to wade into this kind of discussion the first time I commented on this site. I don't make a hobby out of collecting information about an event which was already much too close to this New Yorker's home. I also recognize that people are apt to build elaborate explanations to understand simple things. The Kennedy Assasination, 9/11, Roswell, even Paul McCartney's "death" all have websites and elaborate theories dedicated to preserving elaborate and overly complex theories.I am not going to get into an extended discussion of the merits of the simple, straightforward explanation. It's very simplicity is it's strength.
Up is down and left is right if you argue it enough. I saw the damn things go down live on tv, I was stunned like everyone else, but to put stock in the belief that some of the tallest buildings in the world react like any other when struck by a jet liner because you are an expert in structural failure is so retarded. Its all part of the "right wing conspiracy to take over america" or some other bullshit. The lack of critical thinking exhibited by such idle conspiracy spinning is just not dignified of thinking educated people. I would go into all the reasons why but I would be lowering myself to your level. I wouldnt dignify the debate with serious comments, its right up there with the Moon Landings were Faked and the world is controlled by the Illuminati set. Fucktard is really quite applicable in this case, far from being an idle insult it is really a carefully applied and in this case apt term.
"I cant believe this site is part of the conspiracy theory 911 fucktard set. Get a fucking life."and "Up is down and left is right if you argue it enough. I saw the damn things go down live on tv, I was stunned like everyone else, but to put stock in the belief that some of the tallest buildings in the world react like any other when struck by a jet liner because you are an expert in structural failure is so retarded. Its all part of the "right wing conspiracy to take over america" or some other bullshit. The lack of critical thinking exhibited by such idle conspiracy spinning is just not dignified of thinking educated people. I would go into all the reasons why but I would be lowering myself to your level. I wouldnt dignify the debate with serious comments, its right up there with the Moon Landings were Faked and the world is controlled by the Illuminati set. Fucktard is really quite applicable in this case, far from being an idle insult it is really a carefully applied and in this case apt term."To paraphrase your comment of "The lack of critical thinking exhibited by such idle conspiracy spinning is just not dignified of thinking educated people," the lack of appropriate vocabulary exhibited by such use of crude and vulgar slang is just not worthy of thinking, educated people.
I think this discussion thread has reached its useful limit. Point(s) taken, counterpoints noted.I'll delete further comments on this thread. Time for everyone to move on to other topics.(But we can revisit this some time in the future.)