WTC Building 7 Collapse Compared with Controlled Demolitions

[cbranje]

of disaster. I believe an order to bring the buildings down was given, Larry Silverstein said it himself, and to shoot down Flight 93. Everything else probably happened as we were told.

[cbranje]

I made this video quite a few years ago when I was much younger. I'm not nearly as strong in my convictions about this day as I was back then. For one, the inability of the Bush admin to plant WMD in Iraq places serious doubt on their ability conspire to create an event like 9/11. As a student of science (structural engineer is not my specialty admittedly) the way the three buildings fell just raises suspicion for me. I believe their were pre-wired for controlled collapse for just this sort

[megaprinciples]

Yes, I'll believe what I want, and that is the truth. Thanks for the video!

[munkydotorg]

allowed them to burn for a while, then do a controlled demolition in the exact opposite method that anyone has ever successfully done. To top it off they even go their timing dead on the money on towers 1 and 2, continuously blowing out floor by floor in perfect sync with the building falling, yet none of this had ever been even attempted before. I think we are giving too much credit to government intelligence, and to the govn'ts hired demo team

[munkydotorg]

or we could look at the other side. Say the government conspired to do this, by any means. Ignoring the engineering and physics and all. Basically we are saying the same government, who failed to overthrow castro, failed to overthrow chavez, and failed to "find" wmd in iraq, also was capable of pulling off such an incredibly complex mission. If WTC 1 & 2 were controlled demolitions, it would've been the first time anyone had ever crashed a large airplane into two 110 story buildings,

[munkydotorg]

Or you can believe what this dimbo wants you too.. How about a little sound, and a little bit more truth. More than just fire was involved.

[cbranje]

@munkydotorg

Ok then, tell us what else was involved?

[munkydotorg]

@cbranje read my posts below. very painful with character limits

[munkydotorg]

@munkydotorg but possible i was a bit crude here. my apologies for the dimbo remark. however, i stand by the rest

[sharkeeeee]

@munkydotorg You're blind my friend. There were only SMALL fires in the building. Research and understand! THEY LIED TO YOU AND YOU BELIEVED THEM! Go to sleep now, nothing to see here!

[Ahlywog]

@munkydotorg Maybe so, but NIST's latest Q&A says the fires were sufficient to do the job themselves, without the added damage from the falling debris, despite there being no obvious fires at the onset of collapse. And no amount of fire or damage from debris explains free-fall. An object cannot fall at rates of acceleration reaching gravitational free fall through another object of equal or greater mass. Not possible.

[Thetan1974]

FOX robot Jeffrey Scott Shapiro now makes a desperate attempt to explain that 7 was rigged for demolition and that there's nothing strange about it. Um, is that why namely a CD rigging has been denied through all these years from Silverstien and his fellow debunkers? DID "pull it" really mean pull out the fire men, who was already out, now? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

foxnews. com/opinion/2010/04/21/jeffrey­-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-b­ook-lies-truthers-ground-zero-­sept-shame/

[cbranje]

Heres what I don't get, the planes hit near the 80th floor.

Why would the all the floors from 110 to 0 be obliterated into dust?

Why would building 7 fall some uniformly. It impossible for that collapse to be caused by random fire.

[KevinMerck]

There are now over 800 Architects and Engineers demanding a real investigation into the events of 9/11.

More importantly, over half of the American people want a real investigation.

You don't need to be an engineer to see this was controlled demolition, just a little common sense and a basic understanding of physics, and you must be able to comprehend that kerosene can't melt steel.

Check out A&E and get involved.

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck Funny, I have a firm understanding of physics and engineering, and all i see is a bunch of people who

a) have absolutely no idea what happens with a controlled demolition and

b) have no idea how complex of a system this is.

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck The most glaring of all facts, that absolutely cannot be ignored, is the lack of the sound of any explosion. Watch any implosion video here on youtube, and watch and listen. In order to bring down that building with controlled demolitions, explosions would first occur on a number of floors. Given that this is a steel beam building,

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck a shape charge is used to slice through the beam. Dynamite is also used to kick the beam from its base. It's then follow by controlled demolitions from the bottom, kicking the base out, and allowing the building to collapse downward because of the controlled structurally deformities that precede it.

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck Don't believe me? Watch a few failed demos on here too. This is not something someone can simply rig a few bombs in a few hours, and expect it to fall.

Videos like these only help to skew things to the truthers' perspective. An intentional lack of accompanying audio, and the intentional lack of showing the pre-charges detonating on the example building, showing the work required to bring the building down.

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck So many people scream about the government lying and covering up the truth, when this video also shows how the truthers intentionally lie and distort the truth, by simply taking out of the appropriate context.

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck Finally, nobody said that kerosene (diesel fuel more like it, if i remember correctly) can melt steel. At 550C, approx 1,000F, steel loses 50% of its strength, and given by several ASME standards, has reached a critical point to where the affected steel beam cannot safely support its designed load (this does take into account that safety factors are used when designing anything, and tend to be higher when involving human safety).

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck Also around these temps, depending upon the carbon content of the steel, steel reaches what is known as a recrystallization temp. The grain structure of the material changes, resulting in losses in strength and stiffness, along with increased ductility. Search "what is the modulus of elasticity of steel at elevated temperatures," and there is a very good pdf that you can view to show you how much strength steel loses at these temperatures. Don't know what these numbers mean?

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck Google that too. Or buy a book.

When it comes down to it, the system is faaar complex for simple common sense and physics to take hold. This is a multi-variabled situation, that must take into account all details of the fire, structural damage, vibrational anaylsis, the design and loading of the original structure, etc. etc. etc. All of those things that go into the failure analysis and determining the root causes of this building's collapse.

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck This is where computer modeling comes in, due to the inherent complexity of the system. To calculate what happened by hand, you may still be working on it, But computer models have their flaws too, garbage in garbage out as they say, but still present the only complete way to fully model what happened here.

[munkydotorg]

@KevinMerck One thing is apparent though, when observing this collapse from a close up video with sound: there is absolutely no evidence that gives a proper hint that the building was brought down with controlled explosives.

[vnvnation20006]

The only similarity I see is both buildings came down. It's called gravity. I think we learn that in the third grade. WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition. Give one reason why Americans would destroy this building. And don't say for insurance. Larry Silverstein lost an estimated 160 million.  How did he benefit from that?

[KevinMerck]

Obvious controlled demolition.

[kretinkooper]

Obviously an Islamic Jihad Job. No controlled demolition was necessary. Osama loves your bedtime stories.

[TKaussie]

what is it that you people dont get...two 110 storey buildings came crashing down causing structural damage to surrounding buildings. controlled demolitions does the same thing....DESTROY THE STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS AND IT WILL FALL!!!

[RiveraMichaelAnthony]

"No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire."

- Who told you that lie?

[RegimeKillerZero]

name one? beside 1 2 and 7

[RiveraMichaelAnthony]

-Kader Toy factories, all three of them.

-Dogwood Elementary High school.

-Windsor building didn't completely collapse; only the steel frame part.

-Mumbai High North oil platform.

-It's called research.

[RegimeKillerZero]

none of those are very analogous to the type of building we are discussing tho... i appreciate ur research because I never found those examples, but "high rises" have totally different construction methods .... I think maybe I should have been more clear. "I have never found an example of a modern high rise building with steel frame collapsing from a fire." oh and look up the Mandarin Oriental Hotel and compare the size and damage to wtc7... those 2 are analogs

[RiveraMichaelAnthony]

"none of those are very analogous to the type of building we are discussing tho"

-No building is.

Mandarin Oriental Hotel ...

Did that building get a hole punched into it by a 757? Were the fires left unfought? Does that hotel contain tons of flammable office material? Does that hotel even have the same steel structure as the towers?

[RegimeKillerZero]

so there is no precedent for buildings to collapse from fire damage culminating in a "pancake" failure. <--- is that ur point? cuz ur kinda agreeing a lil

no outside forces hotel burst into flame and was engulfed inside of 45min... thats all i got on it but this building did burn that fast and didnt have all the flammable office stuff... idk just seems wierd to me that 7 fell so funny...

even the NIST report basically shrugs ty for the civilized debate so far im goin to sleep

[ColonelAllan]

lego would have held out better. i don't believe steel turns to matchwood from a couple of small fires...do you?

[House3211]

stfu u idiots this is all bullshit there was no demolitions and stop trying to look for conspericies...get ur head out of ur damn ass

[sntrocket]

You can burry the truth, but you can not kill it

[nesquick3415]

Let me tell you something. Building 7 was taken down because it was so damaged from the twin towers.

[cbranje]

Okay that's fine . . . but how come we were never told this??? They tell us it fell on its own due to fire . .

[cbranje]

Do you mean on its own? You can't because the roof of building 7 would have not fallen so evenly as it did.

[gasdorf]

why does the owner deserve to get it rebuilt, what evidence was destroyed in building 7??

i am sure if i had my house leveled the insurance company wouldn't pay to rebuild it if i pulled it?

[gasdorf]

that building cost tax payers money you ass!!

[wilco1234567890]

Dude, there was a 40 levels skyscraper in my town on fire, it was for 1/2 on fire, that ding didn't collapsed, it was just as strong as before, because it was a steelframed building, the other wtc buildings were much more damaged, and they didn't collapsed, you live in a lie, and you're unable to believe there also could be no good people in the government, open your eyes, and you'll see everything perfectly fits

[Thrashed07]

Nice video

[cbranje]

You don't see any similarity between the two clips?

[krizla4]

lol, there's way harder evidence than this to proove it was an inside job ... yet still ... good job.

[cbranje]

Oh I know, I figured this was a good start. Often when talking 911 conspiracy newbies I start with this an example of some of the irrefutable evidence that "something" is not right with the official 911 story.

Maybe I'll compile some more stuff, seems like this is getting a bit of attention.

[bmmcardle]

Very scientific! Amazing! Don't listen to educated people, they are all lying liars paid by the government!