WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[DiveCon]

according to demolition experts the wtc could be done in a day with approx twenty men
and the planning could of been done far in advance and there would of been bits of wire of every description the wtc.. the crime scene was not treated as such and almost all evidence was destroyed and your inane belief that the experts featured at this site are somehow intellectually challenged is ludicrous

BULLSHIT
it would take MONTHS
who ever said that is either a fucking liar or totally insane or BOTH

or he is the owner of one of europe's largest demolition firms

SURE he is

 

[eots]

so you can ignore it once again?

why bother
you seriously need to seek out professional help for what ever deficiency it is that causes you to believe all these fucking conspiracies

what a weasel.. whats the problem ...cant support your lies ??

you are the one lying'

really ??? ...you see that's what you deniers do...you talk of building damage..pancake collapses..diesel fuel generators ..all this stuff rejected by NIST and propagated through things like popular mechanics ...they are not even well versed in the official lies they support
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse
Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment

August 21, 2008


GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”


Shyam Sunder, NIST lead investigator, answers questions at a news briefing on August 21 about NIST's three-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center 7.



“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.
According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.

Citing its one new recommendation (the other 12 are reiterated from the previously completed investigation of the World Trade Center towers, WTC 1 and 2), the NIST investigation team said that “while the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, we strongly urge building owners, operators and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing and/or composite floor systems.” Engineers, the team said, should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.


NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”



Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around Column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 44 and 79, and cascading floor failures. [Download high-res version]

The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.

As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.

Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

fucking moron....

 

[Fizz]

according to demolition experts the wtc could be done in a day with approx twenty men and the planning could of been done far in advance and there would of been bits of wire of every description the wtc.. the crime scene was not treated as such and almost all evidence was destroyed and your inane belief that the experts featured at this site are somehow intellectually challenged is ludicrous]

COULD is not the same as DID.

but even assuming that they only needed the ridiculous amount of only a day's work (and there is no way that is true but let's go with it for a moment) they didnt have that much time. the building was occupied and had people in it until the collapse of the towers. that means they only had six or seven hours. how many witnesses do you have that 20 guys were wiring the building for explosives? none.

obviously your statement that the crime scene was not treated as such is being made by someone that was never there.

but again, we are getting ahead of ourselves. you cant answer this simple question. how does a controlled demolition cause a building to bulge from the 10th to 13th floors HOURS before the demolition? how is that possible? please explain. dont change the subject. dont ask whether the bulge has been proven to affect the collapse. that isnt the question. the question is how a controlled demolition creates a bulge hours before the demolition. if you are going to defend your stance that it was a controlled demolition this really needs to be explained.

 

[DiveCon]

what a weasel.. whats the problem ...cant support your lies ??

you are the one lying'

fucking moron....

yes, you ARE a fucking moron

 

[eots]

according to demolition experts the wtc could be done in a day with approx twenty men and the planning could of been done far in advance and there would of been bits of wire of every description the wtc.. the crime scene was not treated as such and almost all evidence was destroyed and your inane belief that the experts featured at this site are somehow intellectually challenged is ludicrous]

COULD is not the same as DID.

but even assuming that they only needed the ridiculous amount of only a day's work (and there is no way that is true but let's go with it for a moment) they didnt have that much time. the building was occupied and had people in it until the collapse of the towers. that means they only had six or seven hours. how many witnesses do you have that 20 guys were wiring the building for explosives? none.




obviously your statement that the crime scene was not treated as such is being made by someone that was never there.

but again, we are getting ahead of ourselves. you cant answer this simple question. how does a controlled demolition cause a building to bulge from the 10th to 13th floors HOURS before the demolition? how is that possible? please explain. dont change the subject. dont ask whether the bulge has been proven to affect the collapse. that isnt the question. the question is how a controlled demolition creates a bulge hours before the demolition. if you are going to defend your stance that it was a controlled demolition this really needs to be explained.

try reading the NIST REPORT and stop quoting popular mechanics myths


Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

 

[eots]

obviously your statement that the crime scene was not treated as such is being made by someone that was never there

.

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

Former Chief of NIST's James Quintiere, Ph.D

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Fizz]

try reading the NIST REPORT and stop quoting popular mechanics myths[/B]

let me just get a clear confirmation of your position. you are saying that there was no bulge between the 10th and the 13 floors and it is all a myth?? it wasnt there. there were no witnesses. zip. zilch. nada?


(please say yes and prove to us what an idiot you really are)

 

[Terral]

Hi Eots with Mr. Fizz mentioned:

try reading the NIST REPORT and stop quoting popular mechanics myths[/b]

let me just get a clear confirmation of your position. you are saying that there was no bulge between the 10th and the 13 floors and it is all a myth?? it wasnt there. there were no witnesses. zip. zilch. nada?

(please say yes and prove to us what an idiot you really are)

The idiots are trying to prove by innuendo (they have NO CASE) that WTC-7 came crashing down into its own footprint at free fall speed ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Mr. Fizz Says 'This' Happened From Building Fires[/ame]

...from building fires. Okay, Mr. Fizz. Please provide 'your' precedent for any modern-day skyscraper collapsing CD-style into its own footprint from building fires! Then explain why this ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"]This Is Obviously A Controlled Demolition Implosion[/ame]

... cannot possibly be caused by Controlled Demolition (AE911Truth.org). Mr. Fizz (and Gam) believes in his heart of hearts that this cannot possibly be "Controlled Demolition" . . .

. . BECAUSE????

Here is 'the 911Truth' about this Mr. Fizz and this Mr. Gam Official Cover Story Stooges cool:): Neither of these cartoon characters have written any thesis paper proving that "WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires" 'and' they never will. These guys are here to run diversion for the Official Govt Cover Stories, which means doing little more than throwing stones at real 911Truthers (like me) and throwing a ton of dust into the air to deliberately confuse these USMB readers. Mr. Fizz obviously thinks that we are idiots, even though I am likely the most qualified USMB member (#3) to write on these WTC Topics. Here are the facts:

WTC-7 stood about 350 feet 'away' from WTC-1, which collapsed straight down into its own footprint.

Click Here For WTC-7 Photograph

You can see by the evidence in this photograph that the upper half of WTC-7 is standing 'above' the debris coming from the WTC-1 implosion!!!! There is simply NO WAY that any WTC-1 or any WTC-2 debris caused fires in the upper half of WTC-7!!! There is no way that any fires were created on the WTC-7 side facing 'away' from the Twin Towers.

You cannot see any signs of 'fire' through any of the unbroken windows! Zip, zero, nada, NONE. And yet, just a few minutes later and we see this:

Note the telltale 'Kink' in the roof line saying that the center columns were blown out first, so the outside walls could collapse 'inward' during the 'Controlled Demolition' Process.

Now look at the little pile that MUST include the 'cutting' of thousands of massive red-iron girders, columns and beams!!! How did all the columns and beams in the 'upper half' of the skyscraper get 'cut,' so that WTC-7 collapsed into this neat little pile??? Gam and his Mr. Fizz partner have no answers 'and' they actually think that asking a ton of stupid questions is going to make their "Building Fires Did It" Case!

All I see is a couple of Govt Stooges whining and complaining and throwing a lot of Official Cover Story Dust into the air, because they have NO "Building Fires Did It" Case at all.

Watch The Short WTC-7 Implosion Video And Decide For Yourself

However, if anyone here wishes to follow in their Official Govt Stooge stupidity, then thanks for proving my thesis to be 100 percent accurate (#9) . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[eots]

try reading the NIST REPORT and stop quoting popular mechanics myths[/B]

let me just get a clear confirmation of your position. you are saying that there was no bulge between the 10th and the 13 floors and it is all a myth?? it wasnt there. there were no witnesses. zip. zilch. nada?


(please say yes and prove to us what an idiot you really are)

there are accounts of first responders of a bulge there are other reports from first responders that say the building was stable and made no sounds...my position is simply the facts..as of 2007 the lead fire investigator at NIST had seen no testimony..pictures or detailed descriptions of the damage..it is not included in the NIST computer models as was determined to have played no significant role in the collapse..that building fires ALONE caused the collapse...so please dispute these facts that are a matter of public record and prove to me what an idiot you are

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w

What is that? A whole 6 stories? whoopee.......

 

[eots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w

What is that? A whole 6 stories? whoopee.......

ever heard of a scale model ..so in your limited intellect you believe the size of the structure is relevant ? are you implying that NIST considers the size of the building a contributing factor in the collapse ???...can you explain how that works ??

 

[SFC Ollie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w

What is that? A whole 6 stories? whoopee.......

ever heard of a scale model ..so in your limited intellect you believe the size of the structure is relevant ? are you implying that NIST considers the size of the building a contributing factor in the collapse ???...can you explain how that works ??

I do not claim to be an expert in construction of anything other than a signal tower. I have supervised construction of them up to 185 ft. And I do know this much, The higher up we would go the bigger the chance of a weak link near the bottom failing because of the weight. Now using common sense a 6 story building subjected to the same type of damage as a 47 story building does not compare. But then that's just me and common sense.

 

[eots]

What is that? A whole 6 stories? whoopee.......

ever heard of a scale model ..so in your limited intellect you believe the size of the structure is relevant ? are you implying that NIST considers the size of the building a contributing factor in the collapse ???...can you explain how that works ??

I do not claim to be an expert in construction of anything other than a signal tower. I have supervised construction of them up to 185 ft. And I do know this much, The higher up we would go the bigger the chance of a weak link near the bottom failing because of the weight. Now using common sense a 6 story building subjected to the same type of damage as a 47 story building does not compare. But then that's just me and common sense.

well that would only make sense if building 5 had indeed suffered the same failure as wtc 7 but did not collapse because there was still enough integrity to hold the weight of the building but there was no structural failure in building 5

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w

maybe because it was only 6 stories(thus less weight on the structural members) or maybe because none of the structural members had been damaged by the towers fall and it was JUST fire

notice WTC6, the center of the building DID collapse
and it was a shorter building than WTC5
why??
because it had parts of a 110 story building weaken its structural members

 

[DiveCon]

ever heard of a scale model ..so in your limited intellect you believe the size of the structure is relevant ? are you implying that NIST considers the size of the building a contributing factor in the collapse ???...can you explain how that works ??

I do not claim to be an expert in construction of anything other than a signal tower. I have supervised construction of them up to 185 ft. And I do know this much, The higher up we would go the bigger the chance of a weak link near the bottom failing because of the weight. Now using common sense a 6 story building subjected to the same type of damage as a 47 story building does not compare. But then that's just me and common sense.

well that would only make sense if building 5 had indeed suffered the same failure as wtc 7 but did not collapse because there was still enough integrity to hold the weight of the building but there was no structural failure in building 5

eots, wrong again, what a shock

 

[SFC Ollie]

ever heard of a scale model ..so in your limited intellect you believe the size of the structure is relevant ? are you implying that NIST considers the size of the building a contributing factor in the collapse ???...can you explain how that works ??

I do not claim to be an expert in construction of anything other than a signal tower. I have supervised construction of them up to 185 ft. And I do know this much, The higher up we would go the bigger the chance of a weak link near the bottom failing because of the weight. Now using common sense a 6 story building subjected to the same type of damage as a 47 story building does not compare. But then that's just me and common sense.

well that would only make sense if building 5 had indeed suffered the same failure as wtc 7 but did not collapse because there was still enough integrity to hold the weight of the building but there was no structural failure in building 5

So you finally admit that the damage from the falling towers caused structural damage in WTC7. Very good, you are getting somewhere.

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dbSt0JDUe4[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl8TfCS2jVM&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNf0jkgwZ90&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo3oP4aOFw8&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OfXYjutzk0&feature=related[/ame]

 

[eots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjykKWWEs3w

maybe because it was only 6 stories(thus less weight on the structural members) or maybe because none of the structural members had been damaged by the towers fall and it was JUST fire

notice WTC6, the center of the building DID collapse
and it was a shorter building than WTC5
why??
because it had parts of a 110 story building weaken its structural members

your point is pointless ...yes there was structural damage to wtc 6..but it was not caused by building fires...building fires are the sole cause of the collapse of wtc 7 and damage played no significant role in the collapse according to the NIST REPORT and computer model

 

[eots]

I do not claim to be an expert in construction of anything other than a signal tower. I have supervised construction of them up to 185 ft. And I do know this much, The higher up we would go the bigger the chance of a weak link near the bottom failing because of the weight. Now using common sense a 6 story building subjected to the same type of damage as a 47 story building does not compare. But then that's just me and common sense.

well that would only make sense if building 5 had indeed suffered the same failure as wtc 7 but did not collapse because there was still enough integrity to hold the weight of the building but there was no structural failure in building 5

So you finally admit that the damage from the falling towers caused structural damage in WTC7. Very good, you are getting somewhere.

it is irrelevant...the facts are that NIST states beyond question that the damage played no role in the collapse and building fires alone were the cause...and for what evr reason photos testimony and detailed analysis of the reported damage was withheld from NIST investigators after repeated request until at least 2007...these are the facts ..deal with them...regardless of your opinion