[Kanda444]

....i posted a link explaining how it collapsed. from that explanation, what do you feel is incorrect?

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. 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. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

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.

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."

In fact, due to this incident, fire code has changed in the US to help prevent fire induced progressive collapse.

In other words: while people are debating what happened online based on limited knowledge of fire and building code (for example, I never hear truthers mention that the twin towers had an atypical steel truss layout....one that resulted in the tower's collapse as the outside of the building was designed to carry more of the structure's weight than the inside support columns) while, in real life..... building code officials understand what happened and have taken steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. the claim that the collapse of building seven was the first of its kind...is true. A lot of time and money has been invested into researching this. They even checked the explosives theory in an attempt to appease conspiracy theorists. Why ignore the science?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by MrCorpse ↗

Nope, I'm being very reasonable and offering you an opportunity to put forward your position which I will either argue against, or if you make a valid point I will accept it, because as I've stated I am open to other points of view if they make sense. You on the other hand are just being evasive, childish, and yes, moronic. If you choose to respond with your position then that would be great, if you're just going to keep going around in circles like you have been there isn't much point in continuing this discussion.

I have put my point across ten times moron, as you well know. How many infractions did you get for trolling outside of the cooler again? Yea exactly. Evasive? How is pointing you in the right direction evasive. You are trolling and you know it fool.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

....i posted a link explaining how it collapsed. from that explanation, what do you feel is incorrect?



In fact, due to this incident, fire code has changed in the US to help prevent fire induced progressive collapse.

In other words: while people are debating what happened online based on limited knowledge of fire and building code (for example, I never hear truthers mention that the twin towers had an atypical steel truss layout....one that resulted in the tower's collapse as the outside of the building was designed to carry more of the structure's weight than the inside support columns) while, in real life..... building code officials understand what happened and have taken steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. the claim that the collapse of building seven was the first of its kind...is true. A lot of time and money has been invested into researching this. They even checked the explosives theory in an attempt to appease conspiracy theorists. Why ignore the science?

It's all there in the link I provided Sir Trolls A Lot, he thinks one paragraph will cover it, you have to read the whole thing, at the end it tells you exactly why building 7 came down. Soppy bollocks pretends he doesn't open links even though he has done it ten or more times. Kids will be kids.

I am done talking to that clown, he needs to grow the fuck up.

[MrCorpse]

Originally Posted by Top Gear ↗

I have put my point across ten times moron, as you well know. How many infractions did you get for trolling outside of the cooler again? Yea exactly. Evasive? How is pointing you in the right direction evasive. You are trolling and you know it fool.

So transparent, obviously this is not trolling and it's actually quite insulting to the moderators that you think they're basic enough to be tricked by you here. Did you report posts too? The only person being disruptive in this thread is you, for constantly trying to turn a discussion about the WTC into a discussion about whether I'm trolling. Now, although I have been shown time and time again that you are less capable in most ways than pretty much everyone else here, I am sure that not even you would be silly enough to think that asking for an explanation for your point of view is trolling.

[MrCorpse]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

....i posted a link explaining how it collapsed. from that explanation, what do you feel is incorrect?



In fact, due to this incident, fire code has changed in the US to help prevent fire induced progressive collapse.

In other words: while people are debating what happened online based on limited knowledge of fire and building code (for example, I never hear truthers mention that the twin towers had an atypical steel truss layout....one that resulted in the tower's collapse as the outside of the building was designed to carry more of the structure's weight than the inside support columns) while, in real life..... building code officials understand what happened and have taken steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. the claim that the collapse of building seven was the first of its kind...is true. A lot of time and money has been invested into researching this. They even checked the explosives theory in an attempt to appease conspiracy theorists. Why ignore the science?

Sorry Kanda, but that explanation sounds like a load of bollocks to me. So a fire caused a 47 story building to collapse in the same way as in a controlled demolition? Seems legit.

I'd love to see this theory tested by creating the same set of circumstances in a similar old building ready to be demolished and see if they can get a result that is anything close to that. Are there any other historical cases of buildings this size collapsing in this way due to fire? You're a smart guy, hope you're not just taking the official story as Gospel because they told you!

For the record I don't have a position on how it did come to collapse. I have never claimed it was the US government or anything else, I just find the official story pretty unlikely.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by MrCorpse ↗

Sorry Kanda, but that explanation sounds like a load of bollocks to me. So a fire caused a 47 story building to collapse in the same way as in a controlled demolition? Seems legit.

I'd love to see this theory tested by creating the same set of circumstances in a similar old building ready to be demolished and see if they can get a result that is anything close to that. Are there any other historical cases of buildings this size collapsing in this way due to fire? You're a smart guy, hope you're not just taking the official story as Gospel because they told you!

For the record I don't have a position on how it did come to collapse. I have never claimed it was the US government or anything else, I just find the official story pretty unlikely.

That's the thing.....there are no similar old buildings.

What you've yet to do it explain why the theory listed is false. Personal incredulity doesn't disprove science. The 'suuuure, that sounds legit' argument is the same response theists have when confronted with evolution evidence.

Who said I take the official report as gospel? The question was about how the towers fell....and my dad was a buidling inspector at the time (as well as code enforcement and had an application in at FEMA at the time of the attacks).....so, I saw first hand the massive amount of changes to IBC and ICC building codes as a result of this incident.

Think about it like this: it was the first time this had happened to a building....so, what precedent would you have to judge the collapse from to begin with? Every building collapse you would look at would obviously look different. That's what happens when something happens for the first time. To, from there, assume that a government that couldn't even smuggle documents out of an office quietly (Watergate) s suddenly able to create a ruse so elaborate that.... building code officials around the world were so convinced by it (keeping in mind that, as I posted, these theories were tested) that they changed building safety codes....because of a collapse that was actually controlled (which, btw....claiming its a controlled demolition, frankly, illustrate a lack of understanding of what it takes to demo a building in that manner. Most of all... time).

Obviously, I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything....but I have been in the construction industry my entire life and I find it way harder to believe that a controlled demolition took place....that fast an without people noticing a demo crew moving in. "whistle blowers" are eye witness hearsay....the lowest form of evidence in the science world. I would love to see a detailed explanation as to why the theory I listed was wrong (not just personal incredulity) and a evidence based theory to replace it that has better evidence than 'here, watch this video'.

[MrCorpse]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

That's the thing.....there are no similar old buildings.

What you've yet to do it explain why the theory listed is false. Personal incredulity doesn't disprove science. The 'suuuure, that sounds legit' argument is the same response theists have when confronted with evolution evidence.

Who said I take the official report as gospel? The question was about how the towers fell....and my dad was a buidling inspector at the time (as well as code enforcement and had an application in at FEMA at the time of the attacks).....so, I saw first hand the massive amount of changes to IBC and ICC building codes as a result of this incident.

Think about it like this: it was the first time this had happened to a building....so, what precedent would you have to judge the collapse from to begin with? Every building collapse you would look at would obviously look different. That's what happens when something happens for the first time. To, from there, assume that a government that couldn't even smuggle documents out of an office quietly (Watergate) s suddenly able to create a ruse so elaborate that.... building code officials around the world were so convinced by it (keeping in mind that, as I posted, these theories were tested) that they changed building safety codes....because of a collapse that was actually controlled (which, btw....claiming its a controlled demolition, frankly, illustrate a lack of understanding of what it takes to demo a building in that manner. Most of all... time).

Obviously, I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything....but I have been in the construction industry my entire life and I find it way harder to believe that a controlled demolition took place....that fast an without people noticing a demo crew moving in. "whistle blowers" are eye witness hearsay....the lowest form of evidence in the science world. I would love to see a detailed explanation as to why the theory I listed was wrong (not just personal incredulity) and a evidence based theory to replace it that has better evidence than 'here, watch this video'.

In any religious debate I always hold the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am of the opinion that to claim a building collapsed just due to being in close proximity to other buildings which were hit by planes and also some fire is an extraordinary claim, I am yet to see evidence to back this up which I would consider extraordinary.

I offer no other alternative theory and don't feel the need to. This is the same as saying I reject someones notion of a God without offering an alternative God theory. All I am doing is saying that the theory you put forward may or may not be true, and until better evidence emerges I am in no position to say it is true or false. For the time being I can only say it sounds a little far fetched pending more testing or better evidence.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by MrCorpse ↗

In any religious debate I always hold the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am of the opinion that to claim a building collapsed just due to being in close proximity to other buildings which were hit by planes and also some fire is an extraordinary claim, I am yet to see evidence to back this up which I would consider extraordinary.

I offer no other alternative theory and don't feel the need to. This is the same as saying I reject someones notion of a God without offering an alternative God theory. All I am doing is saying that the theory you put forward may or may not be true, and until better evidence emerges I am in no position to say it is true or false. For the time being I can only say it sounds a little far fetched pending more testing or better evidence.

...except you've yet to explain why you feel the theory I listed is unbelievable to you, why you're rejecting the evidence and what you feel you'd have to see in order for it to be good evidence in your mind.

The links I posted....take you to links for data on the tests done. With all sincerity....what is the point of asking for test if you won't look at the ones already done?

[MrCorpse]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

...except you've yet to explain why you feel the theory I listed is unbelievable to you, why you're rejecting the evidence and what you feel you'd have to see in order for it to be good evidence in your mind.

The links I posted....take you to links for data on the tests done. With all sincerity....what is the point of asking for test if you won't look at the ones already done?

Okay, it's not that I find it completely unbelievable but that it sounds like something that could easily be said whether it was true or not.

The evidence I would expect in order to consider it probable would be for there to either be historical evidence of similar things happening, or a recreation of events leading to same result in a controlled environment where I am comfortable results cannot be doctored.

I've seen and been inside many buildings around 50 storeys tall, I just cannot imagine one collapsing due to fire and it will take solid evidence to convince me otherwise.

[MrCorpse]

Here is a video where they mention a few of the things I've previously heard which cause me to have some doubt. Let me know what you think of their position.