Title: Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11, New Study Finds Source:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth URL Source:https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7?fbc ... L0IDQYyB2d7IvRLn0Qb0pH4Q3b91iA Published:Sep 4, 2019 Author:AE911Truth staff Post Date:2019-09-05 06:15:20 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:10195 Comments:69
On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction.
Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building's debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.
Today, we at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are pleased to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing the draft report of a four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse conducted by researchers in the university's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The UAF WTC 7 report concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
"Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2."
"After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure."
a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building
You would actually need a 'controlled fire' in order to cut steel. The fire would have to be highly concentrated, mixed carefully with oxygen under high pressure in order to even make a dent in steel. An acetylene torch (or nowadays, a plasma cutter) cuts steel.
Thermite will also cut or weld steel depending on what you want it to do.
An uncontrolled fire will not touch steel, which just begins to melt at 2500F.
The steel doesn't need to melt, just soften, and it does that around 1,000°F (500°C).
I have yearly chimney fires that get hotter than that (1000-2000F). The flimsy pipe just glows red without any warping (it is scary though!).
Think about that massive beam hidden deep in the structure. You'd have to heat that beam (probably coated in fire retardant?) way beyond cherry to cause any movement. The joint, which is either welded or riveted, would then have to fail. The joint is designed not to fail, especially with mere warping. Multiple inspectors signed off on the joint as it was created.
The problem with heating, cutting or melting steel is that as you heat the surface, the heat is wicked away by the rest of the steel. Those beams in sky scrapers are massive, probably minimum 3/4 inch plate (although I don't have the exact specs). The possibility of getting any uniform heat into that beam by normal building fire is, well, impossible.
That's why I listen when the engineers speak. They know the exact specs, load capacity, deflection under every temperature, wind velocity, etc. You name it, they know it.
That's an important factor. The building is an integral unit, all the pieces of the building supporting itself as one rigid structure. All that tonnage load would be distributed evenly, by architectural and engineering calculation.
Also, for one beam to move, first, there would have to be space for it to move to. And I'm not talking about some space created by a fire.
Think of how much effort it would take to extricate that beam and replace it. A huge void around the beam would need to be created. Other massive beams that are connected to the beam would need to be disconnected.
In other words, the beam and joint that we are told failed was not just sitting out in space, with a toasty fire heating it up to melting point. I say melting point because somewhere along the beam or joint there would need to be extensive cutting taking place.
Study: Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11. misterwhite: Uh, yeah, it did. Watchman: An uncontrolled fire will not touch steel, which just begins to melt at 2500F. misterwhite: The steel doesn't need to melt, just soften, and it does that around 1,000°F (500°C). Watchman: The problem with heating, cutting or melting steel is that as you heat the surface, the heat is wicked away … misterwhite: The fire burned for 7 hours. Watchman: The flimsy pipe just glows red without any warping misterwhite: Was it supporting 100,000 tons? Watchman: That's an important factor. Watchman:Also, for one beam to move, first, there would have to be space for it to move to. misterwhite: It would soften and sag, causing the end to pull away from the support column.
At every step of the 'controlled fire' experiment they tell you that it does not replicate any situation in the WTC complex.
In fact they tell you important information that confirms what I basically knew: the WTC beams were massive, they were covered in fire retardant, the jet fuel was burned up in seconds.
The toothpick beam they show in the video is not connected at either end. It is given maximum room to move (warp). The fire was controlled and focused directly under the beam.
Not even close to being a true test of the WTC, but it looks convincing to the average American citizen looking for answers.
You should listen carefully to what the architects/engineers say (at great peril in losing their careers)
#20. To: watchman, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#13)(Edited)
At every step of the 'controlled fire' experiment they tell you that it does not replicate any situation in the WTC complex.
This is true.
In fact they tell you important information that confirms what I basically knew: the WTC beams were massive, they were covered in fire retardant, the jet fuel was burned up in seconds.
This is true.
The toothpick beam they show in the video is not connected at either end. It is given maximum room to move (warp). The fire was controlled and focused directly under the beam.
This is true.
Not even close to being a true test of the WTC, but it looks convincing to the average American citizen looking for answers.
That is true.
You should listen carefully to what the architects/engineers say (at great peril in losing their careers)
Since I am a very old man somewhat set in my ways, you will perhaps be ever so kind as to forgive me if I completely ignore the guidance you recommended with regard to any prudent future actions by me.
For, during the course of many long years I have found – as others have also found on numerous occasions - that experts are not always right.
As I said, I am an old man and I have poor eyesight.
Therefore, perhaps I cannot fully capture what is going on in videos I am presenting below. I can however, increase the font size on my computer to read that information which is being presented to me.
With this in mind, can you please explain to me exactly what I am missing when it is said that “fire” caused the collapse of a 17 story building in Terhran Italy.
Another video …
Thank you ever so kindly for this…
It seems that you keep saying what did not cause the collapse of the old 7 World Trade Center based on you “listening carefully” to the “expert” architect and engineer comments.
Well, this old man believes that if those architects and engineers were as damned smart as you wish me to believe they are, then after 18 long years those expert architects and engineers who are “at great peril in losing their careers” can finally both definitively and decisively – and with their great authority – say conclusively what caused 3rd Tower’s Collapse on 9/11.
Can they?
If they cannot, then if you don’t mind, I will continue holding to the belief that …
“… on September 11, 2001, the structure was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA, while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm. The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[7] and at the time, the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire” [At That Time].
I doubt that the Plasco Building even needed a fire to cause it's collapse.
Expressing you doubt does in no way supply any scientifically supporting evidence.
Have you ever watched videos of construction in places like Iran?
No, and I have no need to in the situation here.
For it was long ago during my youthful days gone past that I educated myself to never tie things together by “assessing associations in observational studies” – as you may be trying to do here. An association does not prove that one thing caused the other since there is no true cause-and-effect relationship evidence of proof. Therefore, watching “videos of construction in places like Iran” will not tell me anything about how the Plasco Building was constructed.
With all this in mind, it is until I am shown convincing evidence otherwise, that I must continue to believe the official finding as stated: “The fire was determined to be the sole cause of Plasco’s collapse.”
Expressing you doubt does in no way supply any scientifically supporting evidence.
Therefore I read a journal review by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, International Journal of High Rise Buildings, Preliminary Modelling of the Plasco Building.
Conclusion: The Plasco collapse is only SIMILAR to the WTC collapse. The final sentence of the conclusion is that the similarities have NOT actually been found and significant further studies are required.
Of note: the authors believe that it is extremely important for structural engineers to analyze major failures with great care and dedication, such as is routine in other industries, in order to promote robustness/resilience of buildings that have similar vulnerabilities.
That is why all of our architects and engineers need to study the WTC collapse and be given our utmost support.
The Institute of Northern Engineering is conducting such a study and are at this moment reaching conclusions that differ from the official report.
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
#40. To: watchman, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#36)(Edited)
I stated:
Expressing your doubt does in no way supply any scientifically supporting evidence.
You replied:
Therefore I read a journal review by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, International Journal of High Rise Buildings, Preliminary Modelling of the Plasco Building.
The word “preliminary” immediately grabbed my attention.
With that aside, I ask that you please go right ahead and read to me.
Which you did:
Conclusion: The Plasco collapse is only SIMILAR to the WTC collapse. The final sentence of the conclusion is that the similarities have NOT actually been found and significant further studies are required.
Of note: the authors believe that it is extremely important for structural engineers to analyze major failures with great care and dedication, such as is routine in other industries, in order to promote robustness/resilience of buildings that have similar vulnerabilities.
That is why all of our architects and engineers need to study the WTC collapse and be given our utmost support.
I find that I have become most inquisitive over time so as to become inordinately curious about things I am told by other people. I may well attribute this to my advancing age.
It is because of my inquisitive nature that I would like to read directly from the source the “conclusion” – which you summarily read to me – in its entirety and consider the context. And – forgive me, please, with all respect – not have you try to tell me what it said.
I was going to ask you to cite your source, but in the meantime through diligent research I “therefore find I also read a journal review” titled Preliminary Modeling of Plasco Tower Collapse by authors from Department of Building Services Engineering, the Hong Kong Polytechnic, Hong Kong, China.
I read it a wee bit differently than what you told me.
I will share with you what I read by presenting a direct quote and citing the source:
5. Conclusions
The authors believe that it is extremely important for structural engineers to analyze major failures with great care and dedication, such as is routine in the aerospace industry. This will help the profession learn from these failures and help improve the robustness and resilience pf the buildings and urban structures that may similarly vulnerable through appropriate strengthening and retrofit. While this particular analysis is not conclusive at this initial stage of investigation, the authors feel that the structural system of the Plasco Tower has considerable similarity to that of the WTC Towers specifically the two floor systems, and collapse mechanisms described by Lange el al. (2012) could very well be responsible for the collapse. However, this so far has not been found and significant further studies are required.
Uh, did you catch where it stated that “significant further studies are required.” I am pretty sure that means before any scientific conclusions can be reached, right?
You went on to say:
The Institute of Northern Engineering is conducting such a study and are at this moment reaching conclusions that differ from the official report.
Thank you for letting me know this and I ask that you please let me know the “end results” when the INE “completes” the study they are currently “conducting” and can definitely support definitive conclusions after the have finally “reached” those conclusions.
In the meantime, and after considering all the information – or the lack thereof – that we have exchanged, I sincerely hope you can understand how I must continue holding to the my belief that:
“… according to FEMA, while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm. The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires, and at the time, the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.”
That is why all of our architects and engineers need to study the WTC collapse and be given our utmost support.
Archtect: Well, I finished the design of the building. It meets all the engineering standards and will cost $10 million.
Buyer: Ah. But will it survive a fully fueled 767 crashing into it at 600 mph, extensive structural damage, and fires burning out of control for 7 hours?
Architect: Sure. But that will bring the cost to $100 million. Still want the building?
That is why all of our architects and engineers need to study the WTC collapse and be given our utmost support.
Archtect: Well, I finished the design of the building. It meets all the engineering standards and will cost $10 million.
Buyer: Ah. But will it survive a fully fueled 767 crashing into it at 600 mph, extensive structural damage, and fires burning out of control for 7 hours?
Architect: Sure. But that will bring the cost to $100 million. Still want the building?
And even then – there may be no guarantee because the scale of the destruction in the 9/11 attacks initially puzzled engineers, who had expected the buildings to survive airplane impacts.
"In September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published the results of its investigation into the collapse. The investigators did not find anything substandard in the design of the twin towers, noting that the severity of the attacks was beyond anything experienced in buildings in the past. They determined the fires to be the main cause of the collapses, finding that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns, causing them to bow and then to buckle. Once the upper section of the building began to move downwards, a total progressive collapse was unavoidable.”
who had expected the buildings to survive airplane impacts.
Both buildings survived the airplane impacts. It was the fire started on multiple floors by the jet fuel coupled with the failure of the sprinkler system coupled with the exposed steel beams that caused the collapse.
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. -- "Interim Report on WTC 7" (PDF). Appendix L. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2004. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 9, 2007.
Responding with ridicule to someone with pseudobulbar affect (PBA) as shock treatment has also been known to help the individual suffering from (PBA) in addition to application of proper medication.
