9/11 Third Tower Mystery solved

[Double Trouble]

According to this article, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is about to issue a long awaited report on the collapse of tower seven.

I'm not much into conspiracy theories, especially not ones that would require thousands to be "in the know" without anything leaking out, but there's some things about the official explanation that strike me as odd.

The official conclusion:

"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."

According to the linked story,

That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.

It seems a little strange that tower 7 would be the first and only steel skyscraper ever to collapse from fire, and that all the steel from the building would then quickly get taken away and melted. If this was the first steel skyscraper ever to collapse because of fire, wouldn't the reasonable thing to do be to keep the steel long enough to perform some sort of analysis to see what happened?

The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.

Now if that doesn't raise an eyebrow.... Hmmmm

Discuss.

 

[Aimster]

I saw a clip of it collapsing on some 9/11 conspiracy youtube video. Dont know if it was real but I saw no fire

 

[Brovane]

It seems a little strange that tower 7 would be the first and only steel skyscraper ever to collapse from fire, and that all the steel from the building would then quickly get taken away and melted. If this was the first steel skyscraper ever to collapse because of fire, wouldn't the reasonable thing to do be to keep the steel long enough to perform some sort of analysis to see what happened?

I don't consider it strange because the fire was allowed to essentially burn with no attempts to put it out. How many other steel skyscraper fires were allowed to essentially burn for over 8 hours? Also the foundation of the skyscraper was weakened because of the electrical substation. You take a skyscraper with a weak foundation that wasn't originally designed for the size of building that was built on it and then allow a fire to rage for hours inside the skyscraper to me that it is a recipe for a failure.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ don't forget the damage done to the corner of the building via the falling towers. There are very clear pictures of one corner looking like Godzilla had taken a swipe at it.

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Brovane

It seems a little strange that tower 7 would be the first and only steel skyscraper ever to collapse from fire, and that all the steel from the building would then quickly get taken away and melted. If this was the first steel skyscraper ever to collapse because of fire, wouldn't the reasonable thing to do be to keep the steel long enough to perform some sort of analysis to see what happened?

I don't consider it strange because the fire was allowed to essentially burn with no attempts to put it out. How many other steel skyscraper fires were allowed to essentially burn for over 8 hours? Also the foundation of the skyscraper was weakened because of the electrical substation. You take a skyscraper with a weak foundation that wasn't originally designed for the size of building that was built on it and then allow a fire to rage for hours inside the skyscraper to me that it is a recipe for a failure.

In Feb, 1991, a fire burned for 18 hours in a 38 story building in Philadelphia, PA and did not collapse, even though 8 floors were gutted.

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...world/main649824.shtml

In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.

 

[Aimster]

We needs pics n videos please

 

[Aimster]

Did that building have working sprinkler systems?

 

[libs0n]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Brovane

It seems a little strange that tower 7 would be the first and only steel skyscraper ever to collapse from fire, and that all the steel from the building would then quickly get taken away and melted. If this was the first steel skyscraper ever to collapse because of fire, wouldn't the reasonable thing to do be to keep the steel long enough to perform some sort of analysis to see what happened?

I don't consider it strange because the fire was allowed to essentially burn with no attempts to put it out. How many other steel skyscraper fires were allowed to essentially burn for over 8 hours? Also the foundation of the skyscraper was weakened because of the electrical substation. You take a skyscraper with a weak foundation that wasn't originally designed for the size of building that was built on it and then allow a fire to rage for hours inside the skyscraper to me that it is a recipe for a failure.

In Feb, 1991, a fire burned for 18 hours in a 38 story building in Philadelphia, PA and did not collapse, even though 8 floors were gutted.

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...world/main649824.shtml

In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.

Not all buildings are built the same. Perhaps the design and construction of those ones contributed to their robustness, whereas in this case the reverse occured. To say nothing of the complexity and uniqueness of the fires that consumed them.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Brovane

It seems a little strange that tower 7 would be the first and only steel skyscraper ever to collapse from fire, and that all the steel from the building would then quickly get taken away and melted. If this was the first steel skyscraper ever to collapse because of fire, wouldn't the reasonable thing to do be to keep the steel long enough to perform some sort of analysis to see what happened?

I don't consider it strange because the fire was allowed to essentially burn with no attempts to put it out. How many other steel skyscraper fires were allowed to essentially burn for over 8 hours? Also the foundation of the skyscraper was weakened because of the electrical substation. You take a skyscraper with a weak foundation that wasn't originally designed for the size of building that was built on it and then allow a fire to rage for hours inside the skyscraper to me that it is a recipe for a failure.

In Feb, 1991, a fire burned for 18 hours in a 38 story building in Philadelphia, PA and did not collapse, even though 8 floors were gutted.

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...world/main649824.shtml

In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.

Answer these questions for me please... did any of those buildings have big fuel tanks located within the building (as in large diesel tanks for fueling generators)? Also did any of those buildings you mention receive severe damage from an adjacent structure collapsing (yes I know all the conspiracy theorists say there was minimal damge but in reality huge chunk was taken out of the building)? Did any of those buildings you mention have slightly different engineering than a standard building (as in the support columns being closer to eachother than normal)?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Brovane

It seems a little strange that tower 7 would be the first and only steel skyscraper ever to collapse from fire, and that all the steel from the building would then quickly get taken away and melted. If this was the first steel skyscraper ever to collapse because of fire, wouldn't the reasonable thing to do be to keep the steel long enough to perform some sort of analysis to see what happened?

I don't consider it strange because the fire was allowed to essentially burn with no attempts to put it out. How many other steel skyscraper fires were allowed to essentially burn for over 8 hours? Also the foundation of the skyscraper was weakened because of the electrical substation. You take a skyscraper with a weak foundation that wasn't originally designed for the size of building that was built on it and then allow a fire to rage for hours inside the skyscraper to me that it is a recipe for a failure.

In Feb, 1991, a fire burned for 18 hours in a 38 story building in Philadelphia, PA and did not collapse, even though 8 floors were gutted.

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...world/main649824.shtml

In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.

Did any of those buildings have this type of structural damage? link

Also, all steal buildings are not made the same. There are HUGE differences between the Empire State building, the WTC and the Sears Tower.

Also, go read the story about the Citibank tower that was built incorrectly and could have fallen over if a Hurricane hit NYC.
link

Then drive a Chinese SUV into a wall at 35MPH followed by a German one of the same size and weight and see which one you walk away from.

In other words, you can't compare one building to another!!!! There are to many variables involved from design to construction.

 

[herm0016]

pj is right. there are so many factors that it is impossible to know with out rebuilding the thing from the pieces, just like a airline crash. the huge gash in the lower floors weakened the entire building by putting the weight of that corner onto nearby columns. it looks like it took out part of the corner column, and probably took out or severely weakened 3 or 5 more putting more stress on the entire building, plus the shock wave from the other towers falling, any weight of debris on or in the building, fires on multiple floors, could have been a water main broke on top too, adding more weight, or any number of other things.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: herm0016
pj is right. there are so many factors that it is impossible to know with out rebuilding the thing from the pieces, just like a airline crash. the huge gash in the lower floors weakened the entire building by putting the weight of that corner onto nearby columns. it looks like it took out part of the corner column, and probably took out or severely weakened 3 or 5 more putting more stress on the entire building, plus the shock wave from the other towers falling, any weight of debris on or in the building, fires on multiple floors, could have been a water main broke on top too, adding more weight, or any number of other things.

Fair enough, that makes sense. I don't have any reason to believe that it couldn't have happened the way they say it did. But that just makes it even stranger that they wouldn't want to do a full reconstruction and analysis, no? Why haul the steel away and melt it down quickly?

 

[SSSnail]

It's kinda funny how the corner was weaken (let's say I buy that theory for a dollar), but funnily enough, the middle collapsed first. And, miraculously, everything just fell perfectly almost like it was planned. I'm not saying anything...

 

[nick1985]

OH MY GOD THE US GOVERNMENT DID IT! YOU CONVINCED ME

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
It's kinda funny how the corner was weaken (let's say I buy that theory for a dollar), but funnily enough, the middle collapsed first. And, miraculously, everything just fell perfectly almost like it was planned. I'm not saying anything...

Because a structure will not shift loads to different parts of the building, acting as a single load-bearing structure, whereby any structural deficiency, say, in the middle of the building, won't fail. However, where the actual damage is the only part of the building that can fail.

SSSnail, are you a structural engineer? I have a friend who is and says it's normal to expect that the structure displacing loads elsewhere may fail in a place different from where the actual damage is.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SSSnail
It's kinda funny how the corner was weaken (let's say I buy that theory for a dollar), but funnily enough, the middle collapsed first. And, miraculously, everything just fell perfectly almost like it was planned. I'm not saying anything...

Because a structure will not shift loads to different parts of the building, acting as a single load-bearing structure, whereby any structural deficiency, say, in the middle of the building, won't fail. However, where the actual damage is the only part of the building that can fail.

SSSnail, are you a structural engineer? I have a friend who is and says it's normal to expect that the structure displacing loads elsewhere may fail in a place different from where the actual damage is.

Dont offer him any factual information, he wants to believe the Government blew up the building. We wouldnt want to get in the way of that...

 

[SSSnail]

What's that building in Oklahoma that was blown a gash right in the middle of it? Ah fack it... you guys are right. I'll just put some more layers on my tinfoil beanie.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
What's that building in Oklahoma that was blown a gash right in the middle of it? Ah fack it... you guys are right. I'll just put some more layers on my tinfoil beanie.

Because *EVERY* building is built *IDENTICAL* to each other and *EVERY* building will fall the *EXACT* same way because of it.

Interesting hypothesis. I guess such simple minded thinking makes things easier to understand in life, eh? Too bad such mongoloid thinking also makes you look ridiculous to everybody else.

 

[SSSnail]

There you go with your holier than though attitude, stop it dude, you'll just be a bigger ass than you already are. Allow me to blurb out some more mongoloid single cell thinking of ridiculous proportion.

Not *EVERY* building is built *IDENTICAL* to each others, but they all have to obey some very basic *STRUCTURAL* laws and another thing calls *GRAVITY*. Since neither of us are educated in the matter, I suggest we both STFU and believe what we want? You can start with not being an *ASS*, and have to resort to personal attacks. It makes you look like a *GIANT ASS*, really.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Isn't there a thread just for this stuff?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There you go with your holier than though attitude, stop it dude, you'll just be a bigger ass than you already are. Allow me to blurb out some more mongoloid single cell thinking of ridiculous proportion.

Not *EVERY* building is built *IDENTICAL* to each others, but they all have to obey some very basic *STRUCTURAL* laws and another thing calls *GRAVITY*. Since neither of us are educated in the matter, I suggest we both STFU and believe what we want? You can start with not being an *ASS*, and have to resort to personal attacks. It makes you look like a *GIANT ASS*, really.

Google Occam's Razor.

If you're right, one of the most incompetent and leak-filled presidential administrations in American history pulled off the most well-covered up event in all of human history, without a single person spilling the beans, and kept it secret for 7+ years. Richard Nixon was probably the most paranoid human being on the planet in the 70's but even that didn't keep Watergate a secret for 7 years.

Somehow, I don't think you're right.

 

[MadRat]

There is some other theory out there about convenience and if its too good to be true then it probably was too good to be true. The collapse of wtc7 was convenient for some real scoundrels.

 

[SSSnail]

What's that word that describe the condition where most people will dismiss something because it's just too obvious to believe or to be true? I couldn't google for it, can someone with half a brain please clue me in?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
What's that word that describe the condition where most people will dismiss something because it's just too obvious to believe or to be true? I couldn't google for it, can someone with half a brain please clue me in?

You

Its an idiotic conspiracy theory.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There you go with your holier than though attitude, stop it dude, you'll just be a bigger ass than you already are. Allow me to blurb out some more mongoloid single cell thinking of ridiculous proportion.

Not *EVERY* building is built *IDENTICAL* to each others, but they all have to obey some very basic *STRUCTURAL* laws and another thing calls *GRAVITY*. Since neither of us are educated in the matter, I suggest we both STFU and believe what we want? You can start with not being an *ASS*, and have to resort to personal attacks. It makes you look like a *GIANT ASS*, really.

What's funny is that I am spot on. 95% of the population knows it. Enjoy your 5% though, every population has them.