WTC - Building 7

[BlackCat]

Well, this could be interesting

What I have heard is that airplane fuel was burned fast but managed to spread the fire.

According the planes fuel carrying - IIRC, they were designed to take a hit from planes, but those thingies get bigger by time.

[Berzerker]

I heard the amount of paper helped keep the burn going

eh, maybe not... this thread is a testament to my ignorance

[Asher]

I really don't think paper burns long enough or hot enough to collapse a building. No matter how much of it there was.

Jet fuel, on the other hand...

[Asher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Safety_concerns_regarding_aircraft_impacts

The structural engineers working on the World Trade Center considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building.[8] Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers working on the design of the World Trade Center, has since claimed to have personally considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner—a Boeing 707—which might be lost in the fog and flying at relatively low speeds, seeking to land at JFK Airport or Newark Airport. However, Robertson has provided no documentation for this assertion.[8][9]

NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200 page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the WTC 1; the copy was lost in WTC 7.[10] In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."[11] In its report, NIST stated that the technical ability to perform a rigorous simulation of aircraft impact and ensuing fires is a recent development, and that the technical capability for such analysis would have been quite limited in the 1960s.[12][note 1]

[Asher]

The light construction and hollow nature of the structures allowed the jet fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area of the impacted floors. The fuel from the planes burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour or hour and a half.[18] It has been suggested that the fires might not have been as centrally positioned, nor as intense, had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft. Debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which would then not have become unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.[19][20] The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above.[21]

.

[BlackCat]

That is where you are wrong. When the airplane hits the building all of the fuel will be released and more or less instantaniosly ignited. This means short burning time.

Wrt. the burning capability of paper, furniture etc., may I suggest that you ask your brother on the specifics


Edit: Dang, you have in the meantime documented what I said

[Asher]

That is where you are wrong. When the airplane hits the building all of the fuel will be released and more or less instantaniosly ignited. This means short burning time.

Yes, it is a very short burning time but the intensity of the fire was far greater than the after-fires.

Wrt. the burning capability of paper, furniture etc., may I suggest that you ask your brother on the specifics

Furniture is very different from paper.

[BlackCat]

Yes, it is a very short burning time but the intensity of the fire was far greater than the after-fires.

Yeah, but you forget that the steel beam was protected by concrete. IIRC, that concrete should be able to protect the beams for some 10-15 minutes of intense fire. I have seen some numbers on the effect of the fuel and it really isn't much.

Furniture is very different from paper.

Furniture, paper, whatever, that gave much more than the fuel.

[HalfLotus]

I feel compelled.

From http://www.ae911truth.org/

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a second before the building's destruction

3.Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

7. Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

10. Chemical signature of thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

[Hauldren Collider]

Unbelievable!

[KrazyHorse]

Unbelievable!

[KrazyHorse]

**** you, HC

[Berzerker]

[BlackCat]

[Hauldren Collider]

OH MY GOD, I just realized--

HalfLotus' join date is September 2001! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!