No steel skyscraper has collapsed the way WTC7 did due to fires. This video from an earlier post explains it nicely.



What are your credentials colonel? Have you called a engineering firm?

Controlled Demolitions Inc. was asked about what the phrase "pull it" meant and to much of Larry Silverstein's demise it does mean "take the building down".

BTW where is a video or some pictures of these steel skyscrapers collapsing like WTC7 did? Surely if they exist someone would have posted something by now....or maybe not.

I can find quite a few pictures of steel skyscrapers that burned for much longer than WTC7 did but never collapsed though.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut What are your credentials colonel? Have you called a engineering firm?

colonel is a qualified civil engineer, so eminently more qualified than anyone else here to talk about the conditions of any of the collapses.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Controlled Demolitions Inc. was asked about what the phrase "pull it" meant and to much of Larry Silverstein's demise it does mean "take the building down".

give us a source will you? coz thats not what "pull it" means, and even if it was, what the fuck does silverstein have to do with it? why on earth is he suddenly in charge of the demolitions?

all of your arguments fail the common sense test.

___________________

quote:

colonel is a qualified civil engineer, so eminently more qualified than anyone else here to talk about the conditions of any of the collapses.

Good to hear, maybe they will have more of an interesting approach than you at this.

quote:

give us a source will you? coz thats not what "pull it" means, and even if it was, what the fuck does silverstein have to do with it? why on earth is he suddenly in charge of the demolitions?

Silverstein said they made the decision to "pull it", WTC7 that is.

Pull it does mean to take it down. If you are going to state that he meant pull the firefighters out like all the BS sites you get your info from please explain what the fuck a lease holder of a building is doing commanding these firefighters then.

You make no sense and yet still have not produced a vid/pic of any steel skyscraper which collapsed like WTC7 did due to fires.

Keep talking champ.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Good to hear, maybe they will have more of an interesting approach than you at this.

not at all. he and i agree to a T. unlucky mate.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Silverstein said they made the decision to "pull it", WTC7 that is. Pull it does mean to take it down. If you are going to state that he meant pull the firefighters out like all the BS sites you get your info from please explain what the fuck a lease holder of a building is doing commanding these firefighters then.

haha, oh, so he can command the demolition teams, but not the firefighters? you really are a funny one. there is no evidence that his comments are a command to anyone, but you fail to see that too.

so you think silverstein was in on the top-secret plot, and blabbed it to the entire world? you have an impressive imagination. but you'll stick to that, and ignore any later clarifications coz they dont suit your opinion.

quote:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

so, you're more willing to accept that the building lease owner was in on the plot, had the command of the demolition teams and then told the news about it, than you are to accept the above clarification. man your commitment to research and common sense is a joke.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You make no sense and yet still have not produced a vid/pic of any steel skyscraper which collapsed like WTC7 did due to fires. Keep talking champ.

this isn't even a valid argument, which you would know if you understood anything. by your failed logic, it would never be possible to have a "first occasion" of anything. idiot.

___________________

quote:

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

link

ive posted the following for you before, but you obviously failed to understand it the first time. this is why your "never before" argument is completely bogus

quote:

A challenge to conspiracy theorists: 1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high 2) Which takes up a whole city block 3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design 4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7) 5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result. 6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours 7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts. And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Good to hear, maybe they will have more of an interesting approach than you at this. Silverstein said they made the decision to "pull it", WTC7 that is. Pull it does mean to take it down. If you are going to state that he meant pull the firefighters out like all the BS sites you get your info from please explain what the fuck a lease holder of a building is doing commanding these firefighters then. You make no sense and yet still have not produced a vid/pic of any steel skyscraper which collapsed like WTC7 did due to fires. Keep talking champ.

unlike 911, most fires in buildings do not draw every major news agency on the planet armed with camera crews on the ground and in the air covering the event from every conceivable angle.


for example in the year 2005 there were 28,455 structural fires (building fires) in New York City ALONE. now granted i do not watch CNN 24 hours a day, but i dont think i saw any of these on the news. While i can appreciate there is hundreds of videos of what happend on 911 floating around the internet like loose change (pun intended), not every major incident on this planet is so sensationalized. there are fires all across north america every day in buildings from your house to light industrial and high rise buildings. and each one of them is different. Its hard to explain to non engineers why you cant compare one building to another especially when it comes to FMEA (failure mode effect analysis). lets take a plastic bottle for example. take the cap off and put the bottle over the end of a stick and hold it over a fire. Can you honestly say that if you melt the bottle, then take video of the melting, then do the same thing all over again with an identical bottle that it will melt in the same way?

every building is different. even buildings that are built from the same blueprints are different. buildings are designed on a series of educated guesses. No one can quantitatively predict the actual loads on a structure to any degree of precision. slight variations in the structure that inevitably happen moving from paper design to as built conditions can drastically change the way a structure behaves.


Just because there isnt video proof of it on google videos or youtube, doesn't mean it doesnt exist or that its not possible. Steel structures always behave very poorly in fire conditions.

for those of you who need pictures and fancy charts here are a couple pics i have dug up


Simple light industrial building fire...... note all the roof beams are warped and twisted.... roof did not collapse as roof loads are minimal.

So lets quickly recap...

1- no two buildings are alike
2- no two buildings will behave or fail the same
3- just because loose change says so, doesnt mean its true, and in most cases it isnt
4- lots of structures have failed due to fire, hell some have failed to wind alone..... and there is video of that one
5- to test the fire barrier used in the WTC towers in the comfort of your own home. grab a brick and throw it at your interior wall.... see how it goes right through? the WTC designers used Gyprock (common drywall) to provide adequate fire protection to the structural steel. Gyprock however does not like impact from feet, fists, hammers, bricks or even airplanes. once the gyprock is gone, you have exposed steel, which when mixed with fire = PLASTIC DEFORMATION...... things start twisting and bending etc etc.


now while i cant honestly sit here and explain to you with any certainty exactly why WTC 7 collapsed, i can honestly say that controlled demolition is the least likely of all scenarios. I dont think any of you people understand how long it takes to prep a building for implosion. you cant do it in a week even if you had 24 hour un scrutinized access to the site.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?

PKC.... i think i found some solid evidence that the conspiracy theorists were right!!! take a look at this guys home experiment which proves beyond a doubt that 911 was a sham!!!

Proof scroll to bottom
here ill quote the text part for you lazy types but the pictures are GOLD

quote:

Friday, July 7, 2006 Holy nutjobs, Batman! Do these guys ever give up? Whenever I get bored, I just browse the DU archives for a bottomless barrel of entertainment. Why does the left attract so many fucking nut cases? I set up the following experiment using steel rabbit fencing as the steel structure supporting a heavy cement block. Note, this fencing is easily bendable, has no significant rigidity, and was not reinforced in any way. The fencing was bent into an outer square and an inner rectangle (the core): 1_column_structure.jpg Then I damaged the “columns” by cutting them with wire cutters: 2a_cut_outer_columns.jpg 2b_cut_inner_columns.jpg Just inside where the gash was made in the outer wall, I placed a cup of kerosene (jet fuel), and there was newspaper around the bottom on the structure. Then I put a heavy cement block on top, weighing about 15 pounds. I don’t think the wire structure would hold more than three of these blocks, so the “safety factor” was not particularly high. 2_weight_on_columns15.jpg Then I tipped over the cup and lit the kerosene: 5_dying_fire.jpg4_fire.jpg Then fire burned for about twenty minutes, and toward the end, I put my foot on the structure to see if it would extra weight. It still did: 6_structure_supportswt.jpg The structure held up fine after the fire died: 7_dead_fire.jpg After the fire was hot, the “columns” were not hot at all: 8_cool_columns.jpg In a second experiment, I used the same wire fence and block set up, but increased the amount of “airplane damage”, added in newspaper all around the inside of the structure, and soaked everything thoroughly with kerosene. In this expt, the fire was more intense and lasted significantly longer, but… the structure held up just fine. (Sorry no pictures of this one). What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire. And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse. If kerosene/jet fuel/hydrocarbon fires can indeed cause steel structures to collapse, it should be quite simple to show this in an experiment– right? Credit: I didn’t dream this up on my own. Full credit goes to the Democratic Underground moonbats. Once again, they’ve taken a few household items and proven the WTC collapse was a Bush plot to kill Americans and send us to war. I did notice the wedding ring. What would your wife/husband think as she’s looking out the kitchen window, watching you create a chicken wire experiment to prove once and for all that Bush blew up the World Trade Center?

here is the origional LINK

yup its official i have just pissed myself

*edit* fixed the link

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?

Great Post! ^^

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp PKC.... i think i found some solid evidence that the conspiracy theorists were right!!! take a look at this guys home experiment which proves beyond a doubt that 911 was a sham!!!

fucken lol. unfortunately, this is about the standard of your average CT research effort!

great post above, clear and consise and just overflowing with common sense! don't expect those in here to appreciate it tho good to have you back in this thread!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You make no sense and yet still have not produced a vid/pic of any steel skyscraper which collapsed like WTC7 did due to fires.

Might as well beat your skull in with a spanner if you're gonna debate a troll.



Anyone here that's pro-Al Qaeda hear the one about the C-130 that crashed into a building in Iran?

Fuel stoked fire that DIDN'T cause any collapse from a fuel laden plane.

Anyone that could possibly tell us about Iranian building codes will be gladly heard with open minds. Don't let the trolls scare you off.

Oh yeah what about the one where a Yankee baseball pitcher flew his little Cirrus into an apartment building on the Upper East Side?

Or the B-25 that flew into the Empire State Building in July 1945?

EDIT:

quote:

Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe by Joe Calderone New York Daily News January 4, 2002 A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully-resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor. A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated. A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said agency officials had not yet seen the editorial and declined to comment. Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil Engineers, described her group's study as a "beginning" and "not a definitive work." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has joined a group of relatives of firefighters who died in the attack in calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study the collapse. "We have to learn from incidents through investigation to determine what types of codes should be in place and what are the best practices for high-rise construction," Manning told the Daily News. "The World Trade Center is not the only lightweight, core construction high-rise in the U.S. It's a typical method of construction."

We must remember that the average troll knows way more than the professional.

___________________

Last edited by ogvh5150 on May-10-2007 at 00:21

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Or the B-25 that flew into the Empire State Building in July 1945?

no, but your "average troll" knows far more about comparing apples with oranges you fucking halfwit. anyone see the differences here?



also, was the iranian building a "tube in a tube" design? stop making fallacious assumptions filled with shitty logic. but keep calling those of us "trolls", coz we know more than you, thats for sure.

___________________