Here's an interesting revelation

[nebula]

The collapse of these structures is particularly significant in that, prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse.

-FEMA WTC Building Performance Study, Executive Summary p.4

Modern buildings don't collapse, period. Except from earthquake or controlled demolition.
Though the 9/11 Commission would almost have you believe that it's a common occurrence.

[wildbilln864]

1. Exactly what .....

I've been screamin! :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Your creative edits are showing, nebula.

Or the creative edits of the place you've cut and pasted from uncritically.

The full paragraph reads:

The debris from the collapses of the WTC towers also initiated fires in surrounding buildings, including WTC 4, 5, 6, and 7; 90 West Street; and 130 Cedar Street. Many of the buildings suffered severe fire damage but remained standing. However, two steel-framed structures experienced fire-induced collapse. WTC 7 collapsed completely after burning unchecked for approxiamately 7 hours, and a partial collapse occurred in an interior section of WTC 5. Studies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. The collapse of WTC 7 caused damage to the Verizon building and 30 West Broadway. The partial collapse of WTC 5 was not initiated by debris and is possibly a result of fire-induced connection failures. The collapse of these structures is particularly significant in that, prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse. Thus, these events may highlight new building vulnerabilities, not previously believed to exist.

So the structures being referred to are WTC 7 and WTC 5. WTC 7 has been shown to have severe structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower, which contributed to the fire's ability to take it down. WTC 5 hardly ever comes up in CT land. And that statement you cherry-pick (or your source cherry-picks) is expressly not about WTC 1 or 2.

Regardless, FEMA doesn't look at either of these buildings as if they were demolished in a controlled fashion. They see "new building vunerabilities" being highlighted. Your implications (or, to be honest, the implications of the site you're cutting and pasting from) are without merit.

[nebula]

4. You make no sense

It applies to only 5 and 7? How does that even make sense?

"The collapse of these structures" is a general statement comparing the WTC collapses to all collapses prior to 9/11. Since it is true that none prior to 9/11 has experienced a fire-induced collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. How does that even make sense??? Read the paragraph!

And on a completely unrelated topic, you might want to check these guys out:

http://www.usplayingcard.com/

Their bulk rates are rather cheap.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Oh, and BTW, could you reveal something for me?

Exactly where (page number) in the 911CR you find them pretending that collapses like WTC 5 or 7 are, as you put it, "common occurrences"?

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Oh, when you were in here before, you seemed to have missed this post.

Exactly where does the 9/11 Commission Report represent collapses like WTC 5 and 7 as common occurrences?

We are going to need a page number on this one.

[nebula]

7. The Commission

conveniently omits or downplays that the towers would be the first modern buildings in history to collapse by fire. That way their fire theory appears more plausible, if they can ignore some inconvenient facts. BY giving the public the impression that it wasn't some bizarre fluke that never happened before. Or else the commission would have a whole lot more explaining to do, wouldn't they?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. This is you: talk talk talk talk talk.

Lots of talk, absolutely no specific page numbers of the Commission Report detailing their "fire theory" and how "they would have you believe" the collapses of 5 and 7 "are common occurrences."

Please provide your specific page numbers from the 9/11CR. Now would be good.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. The problem with that is that the fires were practically out before

before the WTC 'fell' so tell me how they could have induced such an amazing feat?

[Bolo Boffin]

10. That's not true.

I direct you to the NIST Final Report, Supplementary Report 1-5, Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers. The fires were most definitely not "almost out."

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. the fires were practically out

NIST wasn't in the building

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. does that impy you were? (n/t)

[MervinFerd]

18. "NIST wasn't in the building"--So-o-o ...YOU were???

Good Grief! What absurdity!

[Kingshakabobo]

11. Jeez, why do we even need fire departments?

I mean, if a fire started by 10,000 pounds of jet fuel can burn itself out in an hour, why bother with firetrucks and hoses? The firemen should have stayed behind and baked chili in the firehouse.

[nebula]

14. I don't think the fires were completely out

but were contained to the impact zone, and substantially weakened after the initial fireball.
The Twin Towers burned for less than two hours altogether before collapsing. The fires were so weakened by the time of collapse that they were barely visible to the cameras filming them.

Compared to other fires before and after 9/11,

1) huge blazes were visible blocks away
2) And, the fire engulfed many more floors,
3) And, they burned up to 10 times longer

...yet these modern steel-framed structures never came down, after all that. Amazing.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. There was a lot of smoke

yes and there were still pockets of fire but beause of the nature of the building and the nature of 'aircraft' fuel did not spread much after the initial explosion.

[hack89]

17. You need to rethink this a little..

Consider:

1. The WTC had an open floor plan with no fire proof sub-divisions on each floor - each floor was basically one huge open space. There was nothing in the building design to stop fires from spreading horizontally.

2. Some of the aircraft fuel was atomized (as evidenced by the fireball). The rest would have been violently sprayed throughout the building as the airplane broke apart as it penetrated the building.


I can't see how you can say that the fires and fuel were localized considering the floor layout and how deeply the plane penetrated the tower.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. It didn't

no one is disputing that the fire spread horiz. We saw it with our own eyes. It didn't go that far down. It didn't become the Towering Inferno did it?

[hack89]

33. I see the problem here

Each floor was approximately 35,000 square feet. Each impact zone encompassed at least three floors so that gives you 105,000 square feet. That is a massive amount of space packed full of combustibles- even if only half of it was on fire there would still be a massive fire (imagine a fire the size of a football field). It makes no difference if the fire spread vertically - it only had to weaken the steel in the impact zone.

Here is a good paper on the physics of the WTC fire from MIT:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

[hack89]

16. The fires were very stong

As described here by an MIT professor.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf


Why do you willfully ignore the fact that besides the fires there was the structural damage caused by the impact of a 767 at high speed? In how many of those other fires did the building suffer sever structural damage before the fires were ignited?

Here is a paper on the aircraft impact:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

[nebula]

19. The airplane impact is irrelevant

WTC7 collapsed, and yet was never hit by any plane.

[hack89]

20. But it had a 20 story gouge in it ...

so it also suffered structural damage prior to the fires.

[nebula]

22. Are you sure the gouge was that big?

Or are you confusing it with the damage sustained to the 40-story Deutsche Bank building--which did sustain a 24-story gash to its facade? Not surprising the Deutsche building sustained heavy damage, since it was right next door to the South Tower.

What is surprising is that it remained standing tall despite being located right next door to the collapsing South Tower. While a similar sized building located a full block away from the Towers--WTC7-- managed to somehow suffer total collapse.

Wow, amazing.


Deutsche building:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank_Building

[hack89]

25. There are eyewitness accounts ....

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...

Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. WTC7 had a fire in it too

before it collapsed

[LARED]

21. The damage to the buildings is relevant

There are significant differences in construction and design between WTC 1-2, and 7.

The impact to tower 1 and 2 is of course relevant to the collapse. The failure was a result of the fires and the damage from the aircraft.

In WTC 7 the building had significant damage from the collapse of 1&2, and fire, and was a very unique design in that there was a massive electrical substation that the structure had to span over.

[nebula]

23. But according to FEMA ...

In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the United States (FEMA) released a report on the collapse. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was due primarily to fires on multiple stories caused by debris from the other two towers, and not to the actual impact damage of 1 WTC and 2 WTC as they collapsed.

The report noted that prior to this collapse there was little, if any, record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building such as 7 WTC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

[LARED]

24. Instead of taking something from a secondary source

go to the actual document to see what it says

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

[nebula]

26. I read the report, have you?

What do you know? It's precisely as described by Wikipedia.

WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 pm. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performace of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact from the collapsing towers. Prior to Sept 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. -FEMA, page 1 of WTC7 Report

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. we are not doubting that

the fires WERE strong initially nobody is disputing that. The fire had died down before the collapse

[hack89]

34. But that makes no sense ...

when you consider the fuel loading of each floor, the initial boost that the jet fuel gave the fires, and the lack of fire fighting why would the fires simply die down? There was tons of fuel and plenty of air - it would defy the laws of science for the fire to simply stop before exhausting all it's fuel.

I also challenge you to show me any significant diminishing of the smoke plume - that is the best indicator of the strength of the fires. It takes a huge amount of energy to loft tons of particulate so high in the air that it can be seen from space. In your world, when you see a massive smoke column on the horizon, do you automatically think "Boy, what a small, weak fire?".

[salvorhardin]

27. Interesting choice of a word there

Revelation? That might work well in church, but in the real world you need a little more than revealed knowledge. But now that I think about it, this is pretty much how the 9-11 Truth movement works. They scour texts and low resolution videos for revelations and then cling to them as if they're the word of god.

[nebula]

31. Are you lost, pal?

Please.

Go find a Scientology forum and spew your nonsense there.

[salvorhardin]

32. Scientology?

You do realize I'm an atheist (and proud member of the neo-con mafia according to Wayne Madsen) don't you? My sig line should have clued you in.