No conspiracy to blow-up WTC 7

[Chimensch]

Well, it's official. According to the Feds, it was fire, and not explosives, that caused building 7 to collapse, making it the first skyscrapper ever to behave that way. Here's the article from the New York Times. I don't accept it and I'm wondering what other people think.

[Bruno]

If I remember correctly, WTC7 was missing one corner which was bearing a significant load.
And as I said before about the collapse of the WTC towers themselves: the fire doesn't have to be hot enough to melt the steel in order to make the building collapse.
It just has to be hot enough that the metal starts to give away to the increased stresses of an unbalanced load. Once it starts to give, the stresses will increase and there is only 1 outcome.

[Nickelking]

yep bruno! Worked a bit with a team of engineers who did a mockup of the whole thing in CAD it pretty much happened as you describe.

Edit: here is an article that talks about it.

[Chimensch]

If I remember correctly, WTC7 was missing one corner which was bearing a significant load.
And as I said before about the collapse of the WTC towers themselves: the fire doesn't have to be hot enough to melt the steel in order to make the building collapse.
It just has to be hot enough that the metal starts to give away to the increased stresses of an unbalanced load. Once it starts to give, the stresses will increase and there is only 1 outcome.

Then how come no skyscraper has ever collapsed after fire damage except for the three that fell on 9/11?

[LX_Emergency]

Maybe because no skyscraper had ever had the added impact of an airplane hitting it? I think that a large part of the problem was the forces of the plane hitting it and adding it's weight+speed to the outcome. Afterall in order to get airborne don't those things fly over 300 km/h? and don't they weigh thousands of kilos?

That's a pretty hefty blow. It could smash away part of the carrying structure and send a shock throughout the building that causes the rest to give way.


Offcourse I'm not an engineer so I don't know for sure, neither do I know the right equations to let loose on it.

But I'm sure someone will chime in soon.

[Chimensch]

Maybe because no skyscraper had ever had the added impact of an airplane hitting it?

The Empire State Building was hit by a bomber in the 1940s. There was a fire but it didn't collapse. I saw the documentary "Loose Change" and several others and a WTC architect said that they had allowed for a plane hitting the towers. There was also a clip of Larry Silverstein saying that they had decided to "pull" WTC 7. When I look at the video of WTC, I see a controlled demolition. It seems to me that people who don't want to admit the obvious will cling to any straw to avoid having to deal with the consequences of acknowledging what really happened.

[Nickelking]

The Empire State Building was hit by a bomber in the 1940s. There was a fire but it didn't collapse. I saw the documentary "Loose Change" and several others and a WTC architect said that they had allowed for a plane hitting the towers. There was also a clip of Larry Silverstein saying that they had decided to "pull" WTC 7. When I look at the video of WTC, I see a controlled demolition. It seems to me that people who don't want to admit the obvious will cling to any straw to avoid having to deal with the consequences of acknowledging what really happened.

Sorry but if that was a controlled demolition it was really the worst one ever done. Not to mention the whole fact that demolishing from x stories high (which wouldn't be done in a controlled demolition) and making the planes fly into that same level, would be quite tough... and lots of other stuff.

Don't get me wrong I'm a great proponent of skepticism; but in this case there's not much grounds for it.

[riooso]

No there was a conspiracy to blow up the WTC buildings and it was perpetrated by numerous Muslim individuals that eventually carried out the plans that they conspired to commit. The WTC buildings were engineered to use a minimum of material and labor to obtain a strong structure. Steel bends and warps under compression and heat. I do not know what is not acceptable! Is it more acceptable for someone to believe that the power structure in the US did it?

Later,
Richard

[Dicestone]

The Empire State Building was hit by a bomber in the 1940s. There was a fire but it didn't collapse. I saw the documentary "Loose Change" and several others and a WTC architect said that they had allowed for a plane hitting the towers. There was also a clip of Larry Silverstein saying that they had decided to "pull" WTC 7. When I look at the video of WTC, I see a controlled demolition. It seems to me that people who don't want to admit the obvious will cling to any straw to avoid having to deal with the consequences of acknowledging what really happened.

Yah, And don't forget all that weight from KING KONG !

[thebigspendur]

The Empire State Building was hit by a bomber in the 1940s. There was a fire but it didn't collapse. I saw the documentary "Loose Change" and several others and a WTC architect said that they had allowed for a plane hitting the towers. There was also a clip of Larry Silverstein saying that they had decided to "pull" WTC 7. When I look at the video of WTC, I see a controlled demolition. It seems to me that people who don't want to admit the obvious will cling to any straw to avoid having to deal with the consequences of acknowledging what really happened.

Very true and those who have this irrational belief in conspiracies will find them with ease.

The empire state building only had a few floors involved and the plane was smaller, lighter, slower and had far less fuel.