To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Overheal

One thing I will say for that study is that even with that limited test using pallets of timber on bare floor, they still created a fire simulation that reached over 1000°C. So if anybody tries to say there is no possible way WTC 7 or any office fire could have gotten that hot ....

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

One thing I will say for that study is that even with that limited test using pallets of timber on bare floor, they still created a fire simulation that reached over 1000°C. So if anybody tries to say there is no possible way WTC 7 or any office fire could have gotten that hot ....

And at that temp, here's the corresponding strength of the steel

Overheal

Yep now imagine you have more than a single room (as it was the simulation), you have multiple rooms and floors on fire, fully loaded with office material and/or debris, getting heat-soaked at those temperatures for twice as long or longer.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah before I dive into this paper I note a couple things namely: the test building was only 8 storeys, the trade center buildings experienced much heavier top loads (including much of the bulk material from a fully laden commercial airliner. Also, the WTC was a steel-frame with an aluminum exoskeleton, this study involved a composite steel/concrete frame. Concrete is a ceramic with double the heat capacity of steel and 1/45th the thermal conductivity. The test is not analogous to the WTC.

As you well know rust is Iron oxide. Impossible chemical change if there no Iron and Oxygen present. They only observed the Iron oxide when the steel cooled. During the fire, this hot liquid mixture of Iron and Sulphur started to corrode and melt down the steel. They are estimating ( a theory) 1000c heat + the sulphur breakdown the steel. They are observing this after it happened they have no bottle of this liquid to test and analyse it. They only saw the cooling phases around the Steel ie Iron oxide and Iron sulphate phase.

My opinion has not changed. Are you ruling it out because FEMA did not say it was a physical change and they believe heat was lower ( as the melting process was helped by the presence of sulphur) Still the liquid of Iron could have been seen in hot rubble with the steel on fire? FEMA and NIST can replicate this and they have not done so, end of the story as far I am concerned. I am willing to look at new evidence if you have video an experiment showing 1000c heat and sulphur breaking down A36 steel.

I realise this. How how many floors were on fire when the planes hit? Its comparable, as only about 8 to 10 floors on each tower were on fire. If the fires were truly great why don't we see intense flames breaking windows? The top towers should be engulfed in flames all you see it at the end was smouldering smoke and areas of fire on some floors at the end before the collapse.

The planes disintegrated and even big pieces of the planes (engines) were found on a street in New York. The plane is mostly aluminium and it not going to weigh that heavy after it got blown up. The Twin Towers were built to resist jet fuel plane impacts.

The steel beam only sagged and the fires never collapsed the building (it’s a fact we can't ignore). If debunkers are claiming the steel softened and buckled gave way they have to explain why tests have shown this does not happen.

Yes exactly there columns are concrete and the columns in towers are steel. Which one is better to hold loads?

Not true. Video provided and link to photographs.

Jet Fuel is a non-starter (jet fuel ignited when the plane hit the towers) you saw the big fireball on TV right? NIST they made the claim- the jet fuel fires died out about 10 to 15 minutes after the crash. Yep, the Carrington steel beam was unprotected and still only sagged during this very hot fire, is this not prove?

You can even see the demolition squibs on video and you can the top portion of the building exploded into dust. Concrete does not turn to powder in mid-air, it falls away and then breaks into pieces when it finally hits the ground.
https://www.steelconstruction.info/File:Cardington_office_fire_test_before.p

By the way, the 8 men doing over the weekend was about the nanothermite only. If they rigged the building ie standard controlled demolition that takes a lot longer to finish and complete.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The steel beam only sagged and the fires never collapsed the building (it’s a fact we can't ignore)

It's your opinion.

Just like it's your opinion that Larry S, his insurers, Saudi princes, CIA Mujahideen, Bush, Rove, Cheney, military, businessmen, NIST investigators, NORAD, Pakistani ISI, Biden and 8 "men" all conspired together to secretly blow up all 3 buildings

By the way who regarding the Pentagon attack was involved in your plot?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's your opinion.

Just like it's your opinion that Larry S, his insurers, Saudi princes, CIA Mujahideen, Bush, Rove, Cheney, military, businessmen, NIST investigators, NORAD, Pakistani ISI, Biden and 8 "men" all conspired together to secretly blow up all 3 buildings

By the way who regarding the Pentagon attack was involved in your plot?

Despite what you say there evidence. This video is evidence the CIA is covering up what they knew and when.

Richard Clarke was the terrorism chief for President Bush (White House)

He downplays and theorising they hide this evidence from the FBI to recruit the Pentagon Hijackers as double agents. I don't believe this for a second. The rest of the information is further proof of a cover-up all the way to top of the intelligence services.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Despite what you say there evidence. This video is evidence the CIA is covering up what they knew and when.

Richard Clarke was the terrorism chief for President Bush (White House)

He downplays and theorising they hide this evidence from the FBI to recruit the Pentagon Hijackers as double agents.

So you're adding Richard Clarke to the list also?

What about Pentagon officials who are potentially withholding video surveillance, are they in on your plot?

Also, witnesses who specifically back the government line (their statements are Exactly in line with the official narrative) are they in on it? or paid? or coerced?

How about the NTSB (National Transport Safety Board) who conducted the investigation, they are literally the ones who came up with the official story, e.g. that the plane hit at 530 mph, and came from the direction it did, are they in on the plot also?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So you're adding Richard Clarke to the list also?

What about Pentagon officials who are potentially withholding video surveillance, are they in on your plot?

Also, witnesses who specifically back the government line (their statements are Exactly in line with the official narrative) are they in on it? or paid? or coerced?

How about the NTSB (National Transport Safety Board) who conducted the investigation, they are literally the ones who came up with the official story, e.g. that the plane hit at 530 mph, and came from the direction it did, are they in on the plot also?

Why don't you listen to the video? Instead of relying on your own opinions. Richard Clarke is saying there was a cover-up and he was kept out of the loop. He should have gotten this information these guys were inside America to carry out attacks.

Cheerful Spring

If you watch the video guys you learn the CIA knew in July 2001 the names of Pentagon Hijackers and did not tell Richard Clarke and others. They even kept this information secret during White House terrorism meetings.

These guys should be in jail for their crimes not walking around living off million dollar pensions.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you watch the video guys you learn the CIA knew in July 2001 the names of Pentagon Hijackers and did not tell Richard Clarke and others. They even kept this information secret during White House terrorism meetings.

I've seen the video before

So now you're claiming that the hijackers were actually real Al Qaeda (before you claimed they weren't)

Was it Hani who flew the plane into the Pentagon? (before you claimed it was impossible for him to fly the plane into the Pentagon)

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've seen the video before

So now you're claiming that the hijackers were actually real Al Qaeda (before you claimed they weren't)

Was it Hani who flew the plane into the Pentagon? (before you claimed it was impossible for him to fly the plane into the Pentagon)

The CIA had the names of the terrorists in July 2001 and did not tell anyone, you don't find this suspicious I betting? 3,000 people died and the CIA has not said why this happened? There should be a new investigation about this.

I always said the hijackers were funded by Saudi officials and Pakistan ISI and CIA was involved or at very least allowed this attack to happen. The terrorists did not knock down the buildings if they did then this is being covered up. I doubt it was them.

Al Qeada was used you think they had the funding and logistics to pull this off. This was a state-sponsored false flag attack. The hijackers are mostly patsies some of them may have been unaware of the bigger plot.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The CIA had the names of the terrorists in July 2001 and did not tell anyone

The CIA had the names of the actual hijackers (the 19) but didn't tell anyone..

I always said the hijackers were funded by Saudi officials and Pakistan ISI and CIA was involved or at very least allowed this attack to happen.

Because the hijackers were being paid by them (the CIA) and Saudi officials and Pakistan intelligence in order to allow them to attack..

The terrorists did not knock down the buildings if they did then this is being covered up.

But they didn't hijack or fly the planes..

Al Qeada was used you think they had the funding and logistics to pull this off. This was a state-sponsored false flag attack. The hijackers are mostly patsies some of them may have been unaware of the bigger plot.

So if the hijackers weren't Al Qaeda, and they were paid, and they didn't hijack any planes.. they were paid to do nothing? where did they go?

Who hijacked and flew the planes then? what were their names?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The CIA had the names of the actual hijackers (the 19) but didn't tell anyone..



Because the hijackers were being paid by them (the CIA) and Saudi officials and Pakistan intelligence in order to allow them to attack..



But they didn't hijack or fly the planes..



So if the hijackers weren't Al Qaeda, and they were paid, and they didn't hijack any planes.. they were paid to do nothing? where did they go?

Who hijacked and flew the planes then? what were their names?

Waffle no response than more deflection.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Waffle no response than more deflection.

I'm asking you questions about your 911 theory, which is the point of this entire thread

You claim the CIA and Saudis and Pakistan intelligence services paid a bunch of guys to .. not do anything

A very reasonable question is then: who hijacked and flew the planes? what were their names? why did they do it?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Waffle no response than more deflection.

Again you are mirroring things said to you with no understanding of what you are actually saying.

Dohnjoe asked some pretty direct questions and again you avoid answering them.
We know you don't know the answer.
You know you don't know the answer.
We all know it's because the conspiracy explanation is hilariously weak and nonsensical and undermines your entire position.
Why not just admit it. You aren't really fooling anyone.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

As you well know rust is Iron oxide. Impossible chemical change if there no Iron and Oxygen present. They only observed the Iron oxide when the steel cooled.

Perhaps you didn't take the time to read and reflect upon what I wrote: the only reason I mentioned rusting was to better illustrate to you what sulfidation is, to a layperson:

http://www.materialsperformance.com/uploads/documents/Magazine/2009/AUG%202009%20Basics.pdf

Sulfidation is a corrosion attack on a metal, which is a very similar process to rusting. The difference is, sulfidation occurs with sulphur, and it occurs at high temperatures - like you might find in, a fire.

During the fire, this hot liquid mixture of Iron and Sulphur started to corrode and melt down the steel. They are estimating ( a theory) 1000c heat + the sulphur breakdown the steel. They are observing this after it happened they have no bottle of this liquid to test and analyse it. They only saw the cooling phases around the Steel ie Iron oxide and Iron sulphate phase.

How in the Jesus would you have a bottle of a Eutectic Iron-Sulfide mixture, if the compound has a melting point of 985 C? It's not so much a theory as it is a well understood type of corrosion in metallurgy. Truthers don't have a bottle hanging around of molten steel either but this doesn't seem to bother them.

Sulfidation is especially a problem in gas turbine systems: contrary to your insinuation, this is not some 'wonder-theory' of FEMA's that only ever happened at Ground Zero to explain this metal sample. Sulfidation is a hot corrosion process that happens every day in industry. You can go online and browse through literally thousands of examples of sulfidation corrosion on different systems:

My opinion has not changed. Are you ruling it out because FEMA did not say it was a physical change and they believe heat was lower ( as the melting process was helped by the presence of sulphur) Still the liquid of Iron could have been seen in hot rubble with the steel on fire? FEMA and NIST can replicate this and they have not done so, end of the story as far I am concerned.

Again why do they need to. There is a whole wide world out there of sulfidation corrosion on steel systems, why do FEMA and NIST specifically need to do this? And furthermore what would that prove? If they had: you'd just complain that it was NIST and FEMA, and try to argue that it just proves they're 'in on it' and covering their tracks.

I am willing to look at new evidence if you have video an experiment showing 1000c heat and sulphur breaking down A36 steel.

Google it. Sulfidation. Steel. Carbon Steel at that.

I realise this. How how many floors were on fire when the planes hit? Its comparable, as only about 8 to 10 floors on each tower were on fire.

How is that comparable?! "Ah jeez, one bare room of wood palletes here, 8 floors of exploded airliner and offices furnishings there - apples to apples, Ted."

If the fires were truly great why don't we see intense flames breaking windows?

The top towers should be engulfed in flames all you see it at the end was smouldering smoke and areas of fire on some floors at the end before the collapse.

You realize the outside of the building is an aluminum exoskeleton and not flammable material right?

The planes disintegrated and even big pieces of the planes (engines) were found on a street in New York. The plane is mostly aluminium and it not going to weigh that heavy after it got blown up. The Twin Towers were built to resist jet fuel plane impacts.

There appears to be a design flaw.

The steel beam only sagged and the fires never collapsed the building (it’s a fact we can't ignore). If debunkers are claiming the steel softened and buckled gave way they have to explain why tests have shown this does not happen.

Frankly I already did. You just refused to listen. That fire test is wooden palletes, in a bare room - single bare rooms in both 40+40 minute tests, inside of an unfurnished 8 story mock-up of a real building, absent real world loading conditions, and absent other real-world sources of combustion.

Yes exactly there columns are concrete and the columns in towers are steel. Which one is better to hold loads?

What kind of load? Thermal? Mechanical? Compression? Buckling? Torsion? Tension? What temperature are we comparing them at? Because Concrete has far better mechanical strength than steel inside of a 1000 C fire.

Not true. Video provided and link to photographs.

This experiment setup was not included in the paper you linked, they ran two tests in the paper, neither of which threw in office furnishings of any kind. However, this actually just better shows even worse sagging - that total buckling failure of the beams was prevented by concrete pillars inside the rooms - the steel spans are quite short. Not at all like the massive spans of floor and ceiling in the WTC towers that lacked similar support: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-97_0.png

Steel spans that sagged this much (look at 0:59 in your video - thats A LOT of sagging, WAY past the fail point) were no more than 9 meters in any one spanned length. the beams at WTC (according to the drawings, http://www2.ae911truth.org/WTC1_blueprints.php) were at double that and the supports were not concrete. The floors themselves were concrete yes, but not the walls or the vertical supports. Here's a clear dimension callout: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment_m.svg/1920px-World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment_m.svg.png?1552519780440



You're seemingly thinking 'but the WTC towers were massive so 8 floors is really small percentage wise' - but you're also not thinking that with scale still comes mass.



For the same reason it should come as no surprise that the South tower collapsed before the North tower despite being hit after the North tower was, given how much more structure there was above the impact point on the South Tower. Once collapse starts, you get big 4 inch thick concrete floors pancaking down until its all over.

Jet Fuel is a non-starter (jet fuel ignited when the plane hit the towers) you saw the big fireball on TV right? NIST they made the claim- the jet fuel fires died out about 10 to 15 minutes after the crash. Yep, the Carrington steel beam was unprotected and still only sagged during this very hot fire, is this not prove?

NIST also reported the fireproofing was knocked off - are you just very selective what you accept and reject from NIST?

You can even see the demolition squibs on video and you can the top portion of the building exploded into dust. Concrete does not turn to powder in mid-air, it falls away and then breaks into pieces when it finally hits the ground.
https://www.steelconstruction.info/File:Cardington_office_fire_test_before.p

This link leads to nothing.

By the way, the 8 men doing over the weekend was about the nanothermite only. If they rigged the building ie standard controlled demolition that takes a lot longer to finish and complete.

Well, they did neither. We have already discussed the lack of aluminum trace that would confirm this. We also have plenty of backyard videos of truthers using thermite to 'prove' the nano-thermite theory, but these attacks on steel were neither instantaneous, nor were they simple to set up - some backyard scientists drilling holes and tapping threads into the steel and manufacturing steel-cased charges to bolt on to the steel? Again what 8 guys have time in one weekend to do that in all the strategic points needed? They aren't Santa Claus. And more to the point - in none of these experiences are the experimenters left looking at pools of molten steel that linger in their backyards for even a couple hours, much less a few months. So what gives? There's a truther flip flop between 'just the right amount of thermite to surgically strike the building down' to 'so much god damn thermite in this baby that there was rivers of molten steel for months afterward.'

That theory again (I probably couldn't repeat this enough) is on the assumption that eyewitness reports are in any way correct - but those eyewitnesses have no way of knowing what kind of molten metal they saw. Firefighters on scene very plainly seem to have worked on the knowledge that hot spots in the rubble were around 1500 F / or 815 C, which is well below the melting point of steel, but well above the melting point of aluminum. Again, lets put the power of and reliability of plain human perception to the test! Here's a photo of molten aluminum and a photo of molten steel.. Can you tell which is which?



The same witnesses claim to have seen "cherry red" steel:



Makes perfect sense to me. Finding molten aluminum in a structure that had a massive aluminum exoskeleton and cherry red steel - both in conditions reported to be 1500 F? Case closed boys, pack it in.

Dohnjoe

Excellent post

King Mob

One thing that needs to be pointed out:
The towers were designed to survive a hit from an airliner.
Cheerful how neglects to mention how this was assuming that it was a smaller airliner, traveling at low speed and with little fuel.
The towers were not designed with the idea in mind of people slamming fully laden, larger jets into the buildings at full speed.
This has been explained to him before many times, yet he still makes this claim...

Overheal

I'd also like to point out you're viewing the Cardington Fire test from a vantage point just several feet away from the windows. You're also looking at a window:wall ratio in the range of 1:2.

In virtually all of the WTC footage you're getting photography from the ground - almost a kilometer away from the fires in some cases! The fires you say are 'smouldering' in the WTC are as blazing if not more blazing than the Cardignton fire, you're just seeing it from further away. Like this?



That's a lot of aluminum exoskeleton. You can barely make out a window to begin with in most photos.

That's more than one floor burning - and that goes basically half the width of the building, so 100 meters. The Cardington building as a whole was only 45 meters wide (and only 21 meters length), that video you posted shows fire blazing out of 2 windows - a span of 18 meters total. Meanwhile the WTC was 208 meters square with an open floor plan - not the compartmentalized testing Cardington did!

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

One thing that needs to be pointed out:
The towers were designed to survive a hit from an airliner.
Cheerful how neglects to mention how this was assuming that it was a smaller airliner, traveling at low speed and with little fuel.
The towers were not designed with the idea in mind of people slamming fully laden, larger jets into the buildings at full speed.
This has been explained to him before many times, yet he still makes this claim...

Yup, but truthers circumvent this by relying on the (filmed) claims of one particular building manager. Who clearly oversold it.

Here is the lead structural engineer of the towers speaking after 911:

"It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

Posted in this thread
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109489197&postcount=2239

Overheal

"The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field)."

p = m * v

United Airlines 175 - South Tower
Boeing 767-222
767-200 Max takeoff weight = 136,078 kg
Velocity = 264 m/s

p = 35,924,592 kg-m/s (est. since I don't have the exact 222 MTOW right at the moment)

American Airlines 11 - North Tower
Boeing 767-223 ER
767-223 ER Max takeoff weight = 179,170 kg (767-200ER)
Velocity = 207.778 m/s

p = 36,152,564 kg-m/s

Boeing 707 lost in the fog

707 Max Weight: 112,490.908 kg
Maximum speed below 10,000 feet: 250 knots (128.611 m/s) - let's be real generous and assume the plane is flying the maximum allowed FAA speed for this scenario, in spite of the fog assumed.

p = 14,467,568 kg-m/s

It's not even a close call. They designed it for less than half the experienced crash.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

<snip - my long post - OH>

I will reply tomorrow with a longer post when I get the time.

I just tell you right now the image you have posted below the cat image is not building seven it building 5. You should remove it is is wrong.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I will reply tomorrow with a longer post when I get the time.

I just tell you right now the image you have posted below the cat image is not building seven it building 5. You should remove it is is wrong.

WTC 5 was 9 stories tall, for a start.

" It suffered severe damage and partial collapse on its upper floors as a result of the September 11 attacks in 2001"

Just in case truthers were wondering why it didn't collapse, when it basically did. WTC 7 was 47 stories tall...

WTC5 seems plenty relevant, albeit short compared to its brothers/sisters: it was a steel frame structure that suffered a massive fire and a partial collapse. I can only image if WTC had another even 10 extra stories above the fires, that it probably would have totally collapsed too.

Overheal

Makes you wonder why the Lloyd England's and the Richard Clarke's and the Dick Cheney's had all the forethought to plant thermite, precisely control the demolition of 3 buildings, and keep thousands of people tight-lipped about all this mind you, but not the sense to also control WTC 5 to totally collapse as well? I for one am shocked.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

By the way, the 8 men doing over the weekend was about the nanothermite only. If they rigged the building ie standard controlled demolition that takes a lot longer to finish and complete.

Explain how they could have done it with both types of thermite please. Nano and regular.

Unless you can, youre proving that there was no controlled demoltion.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

Explain how they could have done it with both types of thermite please. Nano and regular.

Unless you can, youre proving that there was no controlled demoltion.

Well we know it can't be a regular demolition that uses explosives, as there's no explosions where there should be and explosions don't result in molten metal.
And now we see it can't be thermite either.

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

Well we know it can't be a regular demolition that uses explosives, as there's no explosions where there should be and explosions don't result in molten metal.
And now we see it can't be thermite either.

So its nano thermite. 8 blokes, one weekend. By Cheerfuls own estimation the lower third of WT7 and..... how many floors in the towers?

Cheerful? How did they do it? Because all of the other stuff is nonsense until this is addressed.

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Well we know it can't be a regular demolition that uses explosives, as there's no explosions where there should be and explosions don't result in molten metal.
And now we see it can't be thermite either.

A wonder explosive that’s only been seen in two cases: the World Trade Center and a tower collapse in Iran, a nation diametrically opposed to the United States - the perfect cover-up partner to be in on the conspiracy! Because it wouldn’t have been simpler to keep using these wonderbombs at dozens of other high rise fires in the years since, in much more geopolitically advantageous situations.

The fools didn’t even collapse the pentagon FFS. Amateurs.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

A wonder explosive that’s only been seen in two cases: the World Trade Center and a tower collapse in Iran, a nation diametrically opposed to the United States - the perfect cover-up partner to be in on the conspiracy! Because it wouldn’t have been simpler to keep using these wonderbombs at dozens of other high rise fires in the years since, in much more geopolitically advantageous situations.

The fools didn’t even collapse the pentagon FFS. Amateurs.

Know what would work though?

Space lasers...

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Know what would work though?

Space lasers...