Visible explosions in WTC7.The video you did not know exists...

Yes.

They all do overall. The load bearing method used is the same. And steel response to fire is the same. How is the steel supposed to respond differently to fire just because the mere shape of that steel is different? You just go sneaky on technical details which are unrelated to Hannibal's question, who asked what other buildings of the same type had fires and stood. And I showed that there are.

Yes of course, unless you show me a building identical to Build 7 somewhere else in the world that totally disintegrated in 7 seconds because of fire.

I'm not a structural engineer. Still the fact stands that Build 7 is the only steel building in history turned to a pile by fire. The only one. A pile...and that NIST refuses to show the computer program they used to model its collapse. While ANY other in the world, regardless of their particularities remained standing and maintained the same shape. Therefore all your technical details kinda prove that no matter how you build it, as a qualified structural engineer you're gonna make it stand to fire.

For an event as unique in history as the only skyscraper destroyed by fire, NIST refuses to show the computer program they used to model its collapse which is of great interest for universities around the world to analyze. For the sake of transparency and to eliminate all doubts, they would be expected to show that but they continue to choose not to.

 

Post #199

How about it?

 

This...

Followed by this...

Says it all.

Your 7 second timeframe is garbage as has been explained to you. WTC7 did not TOTALLY collapse in 7 seconds and you're looking like the fool saying so.

Really? You just said above that you're not a structural engineer. Please explain how a structural engineer designs a structural system so that it will resist collapsing due to the weakening of certain components of the system due to fire. Please show me the design criteria and calculations used to design a building to resist weakening/failure due to fires. If this were truly the case, there would be no need to FIREPROOF STEEL now would there.

By your own admission, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. This is one of the reasons you ignored all the DIFFERENT characteristics I listed between the structures you listed and WTC7.

 

I'm not the author of post #199.

 

By shape I mean their core and outer columns which are not affected by local events or by the smaller structural details like truss design etc. That's what we see in all my examples. Fire does indeed weaken steel but there is structural redundancy as well as no chance of spreading heat uniformly into all the inner plus outer columns.

Then what was it? 8-9? Big difference.

You've never designed a structure for a skyscraper, let alone a tube structure. That I just know. What's the tallest building of your design?

The North Tower caught fire in 1975 and had rather limited fire proofing. There were no sprinklers either. The building was ok nevertheless.

 

Tell you what. You go watch a video of the TOTAL collapse, from when the penthouse fell into the building, and tell me what timeframe you get.

 

Never said a thing about a 'website',and you KNOW what study I mean,since we're talking about building 7

 

Again,I never said you quoted ANY website....just the study.

Stop spinning.

 

You just don't get it,do you?

It wasn't JUST because of the fire,no matter HOW you misinterpret things

 

Show the post number!

 

<sigh> ANSWER it

 

Show me the post number.

 

<sigh>...where did you get the notion that the NIST said 7 collapsed ONLY by fire?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IkiLxdn-5Q

Thirty seconds into the video, check it out.

 

They weren't looking for it. They certainly weren't looking for nanothermite traces either.

- - - Updated - - -

What part of the official report confirms this?

 

<sigh> asked and answered

 

a three word rebuttal,
what no links to answers?

and if not "nanothermite" what sort of
accelerant or incendiary/explosive was used
atom bombs? ...... what?

the physics of the "collapse" event
clearly points to the need for an additional
source of energy for the "collapse" to happen
as it did.

 

Nothing but fire and aircraft damage,sorry to spoil your fishing for made up answers

 

Still you supply no substantive rebuttal,
the fact is that in order to get WTC1,2 & 7
to "collapse" as was observed, there would
have to be an additional source of energy
available in the buildings, not jet fuel, and
not the potential energy of the structure, but
something that was planned to happen exactly
as it did, this is the product of intelligent design.

 

No,you're STILL wrong.

Nothing but structural damage from impacts,fire and gravity was needed

NO 'additional energy'

 

Picture this: the top 15% of a skyscraper
collapses down upon the remaining 85%
and causes total destruction of 93 stories
of skyscraper. Just exactly how does that
happen without a bit of intelligent design?

 

Here you go, some reading for the truthers. Careful, it has math.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

 

Gravity

You've been told this time and again,yet you keep going in circles,asking the same thing

 

Because GRAVITY is not sufficient to explain the
uniformity of the collapse event, + the fact that
it depends on the vulnerability of the connections
to the outer wall and core. These connections would
have to fail simultaneously and do so at every floor
all the way down the tower. additionally, at the point
that the "collapse" event reached the 36th floor or the
first skylobby level, the steel in the supporting box columns
would be significantly thicker than the structure above and
would resist breaking much more than the upper bits, why
then should the core & outer wall columns simply give up
and "collapse" right on time for the event to happen as it did?
there was plenty of opportunity for load redistribution that is
the rubble from above rather than totally destroying a floor,
would punch holes in the deck and then rubble would drop
from deck to deck until all if its energy had been expended
without ripping out any of the floor trusses. Why then should
one consider any single mode of failure any more or less probable
than any other? The event as documented on 9/11/2001
that is the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7 had to have been the product
of intelligent design.

 

Again,the collapses weren't uniform...you keep running in circles...And gravity WAS sufficient.