WTC Building 7

[Antares]

Why did it fall?

Why is the government lieing to us?

[Dive to Survive]

Why did it fall?

Why is the government lieing to us?

Curious, how is the government lieing to us?

[Antares]

Umm, the government basically says that it collapsed because there were fires inside the building.

Unfortunately, thats really close to impossible for just the office fire to bring the whole steel structured building down.

So what REALLY happened and why are they hiding it from us?

[Dive to Survive]

Do u mean like 9/11 or the new building?

[Raptor22]

Umm, the government basically says that it collapsed because there were fires inside the building.

Unfortunately, thats really close to impossible for just the office fire to bring the whole steel structured building down.

So what REALLY happened and why are they hiding it from us?

Yes it can, 1970s building codes do not require explosive or accelerant (jet fuel) resistant fire protection coating on the steel beams in the buildings. The impact of the Jets in the main WTC buildings, and the force of the collapse of 1&2 was enough to knock the fire retardant off the beams of WTC 7 leaving it vulnerable to the fire and weakening the structure until inevitable collapse.

[Commander Thor]

Taken from http://wtc7.net/buildingfires.html :
The official explanation that fires caused the collapse of Building 7 is incredible in light of the fact that fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse, before or after September 11th, 2001.

Steel-framed high-rises (buildings of fifteen stories or more) have been common for more than 100 years. There have been hundreds of incidents involving severe fires in such buildings, and none have led to complete collapse, or even partial collapse of support columns.

Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".

Research indicates that even if a steel-framed building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse.

Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Performance Study (http://wtc7.net/femareport.html) contains the following:
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

In building fires outside of such laboratory experiments, steel beams and columns probably never exceed 500º C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360ºC.

Steel structures just don't collapse, especially not symmetrically.
Anyone who believes that the two twin towers and building 7 failed because of a simple fire (Even it it was somehow fueled by jet fuel (Which never touched building 7)), are retarded, simple as that.

[Antares]

Yes it can, 1970s building codes do not require explosive or accelerant (jet fuel) resistant fire protection coating on the steel beams in the buildings. The impact of the Jets in the main WTC buildings, and the force of the collapse of 1&2 was enough to knock the fire retardant off the beams of WTC 7 leaving it vulnerable to the fire and weakening the structure until inevitable collapse.

Okay, first off WTC was never hit by a plane so jet fuel is completely ruled out. Not a factor in this collapse. Now the impact of it knocked off the fire retardant? If that is the case, we have never heard about any other buildings having it knocked off. Plus, the only fires that were in the building included paper and other random office stuff, all things that really really would not become hot enough to melt or even really weaken steel since the technical melting point is over 2,000 degrees F


EDIT: I just want to clarify that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 in my opinion are possible...its just WTC7 that raises some questions because the government really...isnt giving the american public all the details.

[Raptor22]

Taken from http://wtc7.net/buildingfires.html :


Steel structures just don't collapse, especially not symmetrically.
Anyone who believes that the two twin towers and building 7 failed because of a simple fire (Even it it was somehow fueled by jet fuel (Which never touched building 7)), are retarded, simple as that.

You are a dipshit. The force of the initial collision with the aircrafts blew the fire retardant off the beams in 1 and 2 WTC. The fire with the jet fuel reached 1800* and the melting point of the steel was significantly reduced with the fire retardant gone allowing the beams to weaken and eventually cease to bear the weight of the 20 floors atop it. The force of the 2 skyscrapers coming down was enough to blow the retardant off of the beams in WTC7 weakening them to several hours of bombardment by flame. How many skyscrapers have had big-old jet airliners (music reference ftw) fly into them and not fallen down?

[CaptainObvious]

Taken from http://wtc7.net/buildingfires.html :


Steel structures just don't collapse, especially not symmetrically.
Anyone who believes that the two twin towers and building 7 failed because of a simple fire (Even it it was somehow fueled by jet fuel (Which never touched building 7)), are retarded, simple as that.

The argument your link makes is extremely fallacious. It says it's never happened before. Yes, neither have such large and heavily-fueled jetliners been flown into skyscrapers like that before. Then, to back that this could not happen - as if the writer recognizes the fact that the preceding point was not a useful argument in any way - he points out that other fires caused less damage. OK... so what? The fire in WTC was concentrated around the impact point of the jetliners, where the massively high temperatures caused by the jet fuel were enough to cause collapse. A normal skyscraper fire, even if it burned 38 floors, would not necessarily cause the concentrated weakening of the steel required for a collapse.

Also, please watch calling people retarded. Keep it civil.

[Sugaree]

Okay, first off WTC was never hit by a plane so jet fuel is completely ruled out. Not a factor in this collapse.

You've been watching too many conspiracy videos on youtube haven't you? Exactly, WTC 1 and 2 were never hit by a plane. I mean, sure, only an entire city saw planes go into the buildings. Oh yeah, there sure weren't any planes. Jet fuel, though not being hot enough to burn immediately fast, you can leave it long enough so that it WILL melt something.


Now the impact of it knocked off the fire retardant? If that is the case, we have never heard about any other buildings having it knocked off. Plus, the only fires that were in the building included paper and other random office stuff, all things that really really would not become hot enough to melt or even really weaken steel since the technical melting point is over 2,000 degrees F

The fire retardant covering the steel support beams was knocked off because the force of a plane going a few hundred miles an hour takes you for a ride. The second building to be hit was damaged critically because it's corner support beam was pretty much the epicenter of the resulting explosion from airplane number two. Once again, you are completely ignoring the effects an explosion has from it's force can do. The explosion in tower two was large enough to pretty much eliminate any traces of fire retardants. I state again: Even though jet fuel can't burn to the degree to melt steel, when you have things like burning paper, computers, monitors, office furnishings, etc. then you're going to get some melting.


EDIT: I just want to clarify that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 in my opinion are possible...its just WTC7 that raises some questions because the government really...isnt giving the american public all the details.

Wait a minute here...the first two collapses are "possible"? Have you not noticed a huge empty piece of sky where they once were? I have my doubts as to what exactly collapsed WTC7, but we can only speculate. You really want the government to give you every single detail? Ok then, go up to Capitol Hill, politely ask for the documentations on September 11th, and come back here.

The government lies...EVERY government lies. Some more than others. The unknown rebel from the Tiananmen Square protests who held the tanks was killed, yet there was no record of his death. Why? Because the Chinese government covered it up. Everybody LIES, even governments. If the United States government feels the need that certain information be held from public knowledge for a few years, then you need to learn to accept it. Yeah, I don't like it either, as there probably IS more information that published in all the commissions. But is there anything we can do? No, because that information is kept private for a reason. Now we may not know that reason, but it's better than being kept away from new information for a reason than no reason at all.

[belfordrocks]

Amen Murdoc. Truths have been twisted and I don't think anyone can escape that fact. But quite often these had to be done to protect ourselves from ourselves- this is really one of those situations where you just have to trust the better judgement of the government.

[Sugaree]

Amen Murdoc. Truths have been twisted and I don't think anyone can escape that fact. But quite often these had to be done to protect ourselves from ourselves- this is really one of those situations where you just have to trust the better judgement of the government.

Even though the government has judgment, it's not always for the better. I would like to live to see the day where all information on the attacks are released to the public. However, I don't think I will namely because we can't handle truth as a society. We're incredibly prone to reject facts that we know are true. In other words, we say we can handle something we really can't. The truth may be devastating, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Don't always trust the government. Reject false icons.

[Antares]

You've been watching too many conspiracy videos on youtube haven't you? Exactly, WTC 1 and 2 were never hit by a plane. I mean, sure, only an entire city saw planes go into the buildings. Oh yeah, there sure weren't any planes. Jet fuel, though not being hot enough to burn immediately fast, you can leave it long enough so that it WILL melt something.




The fire retardant covering the steel support beams was knocked off because the force of a plane going a few hundred miles an hour takes you for a ride. The second building to be hit was damaged critically because it's corner support beam was pretty much the epicenter of the resulting explosion from airplane number two. Once again, you are completely ignoring the effects an explosion has from it's force can do. The explosion in tower two was large enough to pretty much eliminate any traces of fire retardants. I state again: Even though jet fuel can't burn to the degree to melt steel, when you have things like burning paper, computers, monitors, office furnishings, etc. then you're going to get some melting.




Wait a minute here...the first two collapses are "possible"? Have you not noticed a huge empty piece of sky where they once were? I have my doubts as to what exactly collapsed WTC7, but we can only speculate. You really want the government to give you every single detail? Ok then, go up to Capitol Hill, politely ask for the documentations on September 11th, and come back here.

The government lies...EVERY government lies. Some more than others. The unknown rebel from the Tiananmen Square protests who held the tanks was killed, yet there was no record of his death. Why? Because the Chinese government covered it up. Everybody LIES, even governments. If the United States government feels the need that certain information be held from public knowledge for a few years, then you need to learn to accept it. Yeah, I don't like it either, as there probably IS more information that published in all the commissions. But is there anything we can do? No, because that information is kept private for a reason. Now we may not know that reason, but it's better than being kept away from new information for a reason than no reason at all.


Basically this whole post is discredited because you misread. Read my posts again and then come back to me.

[Sugaree]

Basically this whole post is discredited because you misread. Read my posts again and then come back to me.

I did not misread. I simply made the counter argument to you saying that the steel frame supports could not be melted by jet fuel. I then gave you clear explanations on your point that the government has supposedly lied to us about the entire fiasco.

[belfordrocks]

It's not really about the truth being devastating or otherwise, but releasing all info to the public really could cause shortsighted actions, particularly when everyone's in a state of panic. Perhaps if the truth is to come out, many years later, people would have calmed down sufficiently to exercise their own judgement. Until then, the government's the only ones that could really handle the truth in these circumstances, when everyone else is going 'omg we're all dying noooooo'

[Sugaree]

It's not really about the truth being devastating or otherwise, but releasing all info to the public really could cause shortsighted actions, particularly when everyone's in a state of panic. Perhaps if the truth is to come out, many years later, people would have calmed down sufficiently to exercise their own judgement. Until then, the government's the only ones that could really handle the truth in these circumstances, when everyone else is going 'omg we're all dying noooooo'

After 9/11, there is nothing but paranoia over airplanes. There will always be the fear that we will be attacked again. Will we? Possibly, possibly not. Even if this information isn't released for another twenty or thirty years, people will still be in tatters from 9/11 and there's no hiding that. Will it, in time, die down to where we aren't so completely obsessive over it? Yes, but it's not like it will die out completely. You'll still have the people out there who still believe in conspiracy theories. That is what will keep 9/11 "alive", the conspiracies and mysteries surrounding it. Those will never die.

[kyle56]

How would jet fuel be a factor in the fire's it would have burnt off almost immediatly after the plane hit. Even if fire retardent was knocked off the supports in WTC 7 how would the fires be hot enough to burn through steel.??

I really do believe the Govt took part in 9/11 and i dont care if anyone thinks im stupid.

No one will every know what truely happened on that sad day in US history...

[belfordrocks]

Yes, airplane fires certainly do burn through steel- doubly so sans fire retardent.

The fire aboard South African Airways 295 in 1987 was melting titanium. The heat potential is certainly there.

[CaptainObvious]

How would jet fuel be a factor in the fire's it would have burnt off almost immediatly after the plane hit. Even if fire retardent was knocked off the supports in WTC 7 how would the fires be hot enough to burn through steel.??

I really do believe the Govt took part in 9/11 and i dont care if anyone thinks im stupid.

No one will every know what truely happened on that sad day in US history...

I do hope you don't care, because there's going to be a lot of people thinking you're a bit daft for having that opinion. With good reason. You don't have to "burn through" steel to have a building collapse; if the steel is weakened enough to become pliable, it will no longer play its proper role in supporting the structure. And then it all falls down. That's how it happens.

Everyone here arguing that it cannot happen or anything else is either ignoring - or is ignorant of - the explanations as to how exactly a building could collapse if its primary support structure were weakened. Not fully melted, not burned: weakened. Prominent scientists and engineers have both explained this, and even created simulations that show precisely how it could occur.

The problem with conspiracy theorist types is that you all find one smallthing that strikes you as odd, and therefore ignore all other evidence that the proffered explanation is correct in favor of assuming a massive conspiracy. Because it's really more likely that a government conspiracy - which any of its members would have massive incentives to disclose - perpetrated this massively complex and inordinately difficult coverup than that the lot of you who aren't even out of high school maybe don't have quite a working knowledge of civil engineering and materials science. Sound fair?

[Antares]

I did not misread. I simply made the counter argument to you saying that the steel frame supports could not be melted by jet fuel. I then gave you clear explanations on your point that the government has supposedly lied to us about the entire fiasco.

No you misread.

I was referring to building 7. Not buildings 1 or 2. It is pretty obvious that buildings one and two were hit by a plane and that was the main cause for it to fall out of the sky.

That didn't happen to WTC 7 which is what I am referring to.

There was no jet fuel in WTC 7, no contact by planes, nothing that should cause the whole building to fall down.
However, something had to make it fall down which is why I say the government is holding information or altering it

[Shadoukun]

A moderator made this, wow.

[Mzor203]

A moderator made this, wow.

So moderators suddenly don't have any right to post threads on this forum?

The forum is for debate. The moderator in question started a debate. Everything is well and good in the world.

[Shadoukun]

So moderators suddenly don't have any right to post threads on this forum?

The forum is for debate. The moderator in question started a debate. Everything is well and good in the world.

This forum isn't for debate. I've started debates which turned into people throwing their opinion around. Debates are not opinions. They are claims which you can support to me. People get mad at me because I've not 'made any opposing claims'. I haven't done so because people here don't make any claims I need opposing claims to negate. People don't know how to debate here.

The moderator in question started a thread asking 'why the government is lying to us'. This means we are assuming the government is actually lying to us. An assumption which he hasn't actually provided justification for. So instead I interpret the thread as "Why do you think the government is lying to us." Since he is a moderator of a forum which boasts debate, I am disappointed that he would honestly care what any of you think instead of what you can attempt to prove. Now of course, if he had started this with many likely reasons to believe the government is lying to us and then asked why they would be doing so, that's another story. Because then given that information I can gather that they are actually/likely lying, and begin to speculate on their motive.

This isn't a debate. Or rather, it was a debate started improperly about a completely different issue. Once you answer the question of 'Is the government lying?' then I will begin on the question 'Why?' Until then he should stay away from this place until he learns what 'debating' is.

[Antares]

Umm okay...?

But we need to get back on the topic we were on before the thread derailment.

Thanks

[Raptor22]

No you misread.

I was referring to building 7. Not buildings 1 or 2. It is pretty obvious that buildings one and two were hit by a plane and that was the main cause for it to fall out of the sky.

That didn't happen to WTC 7 which is what I am referring to.

There was no jet fuel in WTC 7, no contact by planes, nothing that should cause the whole building to fall down.
However, something had to make it fall down which is why I say the government is holding information or altering it

It was hit by large amounts of debris and earthquake level force as the buildings surrounding it collapsed, this caused the fire retardant to come off the roof beams of this building too...

There were large amounts of fuel stored in WTC 7 after the 1993 WTC Attack that caused the fires.


As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building.[4] The bottom portion of the building's south face was damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[4] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[27][28]

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[4] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[32] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[33] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[34] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[35] At 5:20:33 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 p.m. EDT the entire building collapsed completely[1]. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. According to FEMA, structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse[1]; nevertheless, it has since been determined that the fires burned out in 20 minutes at any given location as they moved from point to point.[15]

[Giles]

Even if fire retardent was knocked off the supports in WTC 7 how would the fires be hot enough to burn through steel.??

Fire can melt steel. It just takes a while.

A moderator made this, wow.

Mods are allowed to post new threads.

This forum isn't for debate.

Yes, It is.

I don't think the Government had anything to do with the attacks. I think people just need to stop looking for the most complex alternative to a simple action.

[Shadoukun]

Yes, It is.

No one here knows how to debate. So it's safe, for all intents and purposes, to say this place isn't for debating.

[Raptor22]

No one here knows how to debate. So it's safe, for all intents and purposes, to say this place isn't for debating.

How so? I debate for my school and for my club (Im the VP of my HS Conservative Club)...

As long as you refute things with facts and maintain respect its okay.

[Antares]

Lol, theres a conservative club at your school?
Never heard of that at a school.

Anyways,
It was hit by large amounts of debris and earthquake level force as the buildings surrounding it collapsed, this caused the fire retardant to come off the roof beams of this building too...

There were large amounts of fuel stored in WTC 7 after the 1993 WTC Attack that caused the fires.

Yes, it was hit by buildings and yes, some retardant could have possibly been knocked off however if that is the case then why exactly would the whole building collapse the way it did when your source says that "nevertheless, it has since been determined that the fires burned out in 20 minutes at any given location as they moved from point to point". I mean, I get that if the fires were really hot (and I cant imagine why normal office supplies would get even remotely close to the melting point (or somewhere near there) of steel.
And plus, it fell so "prettily", you would think that the fires affected every part of a certain floor or building exactly the same. Seems that if it were a real fire one part would fall first and carry everything else down with it.

Also, the fuel stored at the bottom is irrelevant. It was stored in tanks on the ground floor or basement I believe and was never affected by any fire.

And for the other buildings around, they did not "collapse". The only ones that did were 1, 2, and mysteriously 7. 6 which was between 1 and 7 did not have a full collapse. Just damange from the collapse of 1. And thats according to FEMA. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf


I just want to reiterate that I am sure there were factors that led to the collapse that are obvious. But it seems a little...weird to me that a building a block away caught fire (from what might i add???), then collapsed like a ballerina.
I mean, it just seems logical that something else happened. Was it not up to building codes or something? Was there some...secret hidden inside? I dont know. Im just saying that it seems fishy and I question if the government is telling us everything we need to know.

[Raptor22]

Lol, theres a conservative club at your school?
Never heard of that at a school.

Anyways,


Yes, it was hit by buildings and yes, some retardant could have possibly been knocked off however if that is the case then why exactly would the whole building collapse the way it did when your source says that "nevertheless, it has since been determined that the fires burned out in 20 minutes at any given location as they moved from point to point". I mean, I get that if the fires were really hot (and I cant imagine why normal office supplies would get even remotely close to the melting point (or somewhere near there) of steel.
And plus, it fell so "prettily", you would think that the fires affected every part of a certain floor or building exactly the same. Seems that if it were a real fire one part would fall first and carry everything else down with it.

Also, the fuel stored at the bottom is irrelevant. It was stored in tanks on the ground floor or basement I believe and was never affected by any fire.

And for the other buildings around, they did not "collapse". The only ones that did were 1, 2, and mysteriously 7. 6 which was between 1 and 7 did not have a full collapse. Just damange from the collapse of 1. And thats according to FEMA. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf


I just want to reiterate that I am sure there were factors that led to the collapse that are obvious. But it seems a little...weird to me that a building a block away caught fire (from what might i add???), then collapsed like a ballerina.
I mean, it just seems logical that something else happened. Was it not up to building codes or something? Was there some...secret hidden inside? I dont know. Im just saying that it seems fishy and I question if the government is telling us everything we need to know.

The whole face of the building was knocked off by debris, and there was fuel stored in the building...

[Antares]

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

According to this, the diesel fuel was stored in underground storage tanks and most of the fuel was still in the tanks, therefore the fuel played little to no role in the collapse of the building.

[Perseus]

Lol, theres a conservative club at your school?
Never heard of that at a school.

At my school, they have them. They're called "Young Republicans" and "Young Democrats". My mom forced me to join the republican one and I dropped out after the first meeting because it was stupid and full of a bunch of ignorant people. Politics are dumb, to be honest. I don't see why you people fall in love with it.

[Raptor22]

At my school, they have them. They're called "Young Republicans" and "Young Democrats". My mom forced me to join the republican one and I dropped out after the first meeting because it was stupid and full of a bunch of ignorant people. Politics are dumb, to be honest. I don't see why you people fall in love with it.

Because it dictates my life and your life and everyones life. The decisions made by politicians control our lives. I would like to know what the hell is going on because its MY life that it relates to.

[maestro15]

Please, i dont give a da*n on the 911 myths. they are very misleading. I mean first, WTC 7 collapsed due to debris hitting the building weakening the structure from the fallen wtc south tower. And second Yes planes did hit the two towers, if it didnt, then where the hell are those (excuse me for language) tail numbers for the 767's? next, at 420knots, the plane would have enough force to take down the two towers. As a pilot, i would know all this stuff. ITS ALSO AN INSULT TO ALL THOSE WHO DIED THAT 911 WAS A HOAX. Human nature shows that just one result is not enough and would have to make things complicated!

[Giles]

Human nature shows that just one result is not enough and would have to make things complicated!

Most people that debate here, play devils advocate. Meaning that they just disagree with whatever other people say.