• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

WTC building 7. Let's revisit history.

Stanyon

WWMRD?
Rosie O 'Donnel of the popular television news show "The View" said it was it the first time in history that fire melted steel.
Think about THAT!
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Anyone here that has architecture/engineering background I want your opinion. Do you think a 52 floor, all steel framed(I-beam and connectors) and concrete building that was damaged on one side, maybe two sides by scattered fires would free fall all at once, equal all over, at the exact same time?
I'm a civil engineer. I think the collapse of WTC 7 is consistent with it being caused by fire.

(Incidentally, this made WTC 7 the only steel skyscraper to have collapsed from fire.)
Well, no. Off the top of my head, I can think of two other steel skyscrapers - right near WTC 7 - that collapsed from fire.

Countless other steel buildings have also collapsed from fire.
This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or anything else.
I don't believe that for a second.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Rosie O 'Donnel of the popular television news show "The View" said it was it the first time in history that fire melted steel.
Think about THAT!
She's an idiot who has no idea what she's talking about. Why? Because fire isn't all created equal and doesn't all have equal tempuratures, and you don't have to melt steel to cause structural failure.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If what has happened on 9/11 had any impact on the science, you'd expect to see that in the textbooks on construction (and demolition). Do you?
The danger of fire to steel buildings was already in engineering textbooks.

I remember a significant amount of discussion on it in the fire protection engineering textbook I was using in early 2000. The book was probably at least 10 years old at that point.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
As for the specific case of how the buildings collapsed, I'm not an expert so I have to go with the real experts. The association of architects and engineers (don't remember the exact name) thinks it's impossible for a building to collapse in that way with the damage received.
Not the association of architects and engineers; just a group of them.

They used to have a list of its members; I remember being struck by the fact that the vast majority of the members were landscape architects, computer engineers, and others in disciplines that have nothing to do with structural engineering or building science.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Here's the thing I realized a while back about WTC 7, or at least the conspiracy theories around it:

Nobody brings up Building 7 until their conspiracy theories about Buildings 1 and 2 have been smacked down so hard that they're forced to concede (or just leave the debate).

Now... this is never their opener. People like @We Never Know never come right out and say "after long deliberation, I ended up at the point where it was untenable to argue that WTC 1 and 2 were destroyed in a controlled demolition." Conspiracy theorists tend not to acknowledge that they were wrong, even if we can infer this from their behaviour.

But think about what it would mean for Building 7 to have been collapsed by a controlled demolition given that there were two giant buildings collapsing due to plane impact and fire next door at the same time.

It's ridiculous.

Do you think that the conspiracy theorists would have given up on their wild theories about Buildings 1 and 2 if they thought they were viable at all?

So any time you see someone bring up conspiracy theories about Building 7, remember that it's only because they realize that they'd be laughed out of the room if they tried the same thing for Buildings 1 and 2.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
I'm a civil engineer. I think the collapse of WTC 7 is consistent with it being caused by fire.


Well, no. Off the top of my head, I can think of two other steel skyscrapers - right near WTC 7 - that collapsed from fire.

Countless other steel buildings have also collapsed from fire.

I don't believe that for a second.
Quite.

I see here that softening of steel starts to set in above about 500C: Can Steel Buildings Collapse Due To Fire | Coast To Coast Carports

No problem getting that sort of temperature in a burning column, I'd have thought, due to the ideal setup for convection. This link indicates it can easily be 1000C : Engineers test effects of fire on steel structures

Move along, ladies and gents, there's nothing to see here......
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
China built two hospitals in 7-10 days. If we want something to happen, we can make it happen.
First, I should acknowledge that your question about
controlled demolition is a good one because this building
fails in a more suspicious manner than the twin towers.

I don't doubt that our government could rig a building for
controlled demolition in 7-10 days. But doing so would be
apparent to management, maintenance staff, & tenants.
That would require that the project be kept secret by the
thousands of people involved

Could even the towering intellect Prez GW Bush have
managed such a project requiring sophisticated planning
& execution? And no one, even to this day has spilled
the beans their role? Destruction as a result of the
attack by the Saudi terrorists is just so much more likely.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm usually not into conspiracy theories but 9/11 has so many holes in the official story that it is impossible to believe without eyes wide shut.
As for the specific case of how the buildings collapsed, I'm not an expert so I have to go with the real experts. The association of architects and engineers (don't remember the exact name) thinks it's impossible for a building to collapse in that way with the damage received.
If what has happened on 9/11 had any impact on the science, you'd expect to see that in the textbooks on construction (and demolition). Do you?

I don't really consider this to be any kind of "conspiracy theory" at all. Opinions about how the buildings collapsed seemingly have nothing to do with who caused the buildings to collapse.

It could have been a forced implosion caused by either terrorists or the US government.

It could have collapsed due to planes crashing into it, either by terrorists or by US government operatives pretending to be terrorists.

In other words, any attempts to prove that it was a controlled explosion does not do a thing to prove that the US government was behind it. Likewise, the official story never proved who actually did it, nor did it exonerate the US government.

I think the whole "controlled explosion" angle has been a red herring all along (from both sides of the issue).

To me, the biggest indictment against the US government is in the fact that they used this event as a pretext for attacking and invading Afghanistan (and later, Iraq). 9/11 was committed with domestic airliners by people who were in the United States legally, so therefore it was an act of domestic terrorism. The only actual threat to the United States was inside our own borders, not on the other side of the planet.

That, in and of itself, is proof of government malfeasance, regardless of whether the buildings were brought down by airplanes or by controlled explosions. Either way, the government's actions after 9/11 prove their wrongdoing (and that's without even going into the fake stories of WMDs in Iraq).

Some people fail to remember that the same bunch who lied about WMDs in Iraq are the same people who gave us the official story on 9/11.

Another way of looking at this question is "Who benefits?" Since 9/11 occurred, the terrorists have been on the ropes. Bin Laden was done away with. Al Qaeda is all but finished. Saddam Hussein is gone. Syria and Iraq are both in tatters, and even ISIS proved to be nothing more than a flash in the pan.

Meanwhile, the US government has been able to expand its power and reach within the Middle East, as we continue our involvement in that region even though the perpetrators and motives behind 9/11 are no longer are alive nor relevant to US foreign policy. Likewise, 9/11 was a good excuse to impose greater restrictions and surveillance upon Americans domestically.

So, who has benefited more since 9/11 occurred? The US government or Al Qaeda?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Wish I knew more to help you out. Unfortunately for me I haven't grown tired enough of arguing with "truthers" and their pictures and videos that are mostly so blurry that at one point in time I forgot more than a few clear videos and pictures of the attack exist.
Well, this was a blast from the past.

(Did you know that staff are now issuing infraction points for bad puns?
It's true....I have proof !)
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't doubt that our government could rig a building for
controlled demolition in 7-10 days. But doing so would be
apparent to management, maintenance staff, & tenants.
That would require that the project be kept secrete by
the thousands of people involved

I'm not so sure of that. I've gone into buildings and seen work crews in there, and I (like most other members of the general public) really don't know exactly what they're doing or why - because it's really no one else's business or concern other than the building's owners and management. So, I doubt it would require "thousands of people" keeping a secret.

I'm not saying that this proves a controlled explosion. I've seen plenty of good arguments against the claim that the WTC was brought down by a controlled explosion, but this just isn't one of them. There are plenty of historical examples of terrorists surreptitiously planting bombs and blowing things up rather quickly with no one noticing until it's too late. That fact alone demonstrates that it could happen.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not so sure of that. I've gone into buildings and seen work crews in there, and I (like most other members of the general public) really don't know exactly what they're doing or why - because it's really no one else's business or concern other than the building's owners and management. So, I doubt it would require "thousands of people" keeping a secret.

I'm not saying that this proves a controlled explosion. I've seen plenty of good arguments against the claim that the WTC was brought down by a controlled explosion, but this just isn't one of them. There are plenty of historical examples of terrorists surreptitiously planting bombs and blowing things up rather quickly with no one noticing until it's too late. That fact alone demonstrates that it could happen.
While you as a passer by wouldn't recognize demolition work,
management & maintenance staff easily would've. The project
would look very different from maintenance & construction.
And the workers would be unfamiliar. Were I there, I'd want
staff to explain & show the work orders.
How on Earth could that be done in secret without all of the
people involved being in on the conspiracy to murder the
tenants & themselves?
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
On the contrary, the sole possible reason for posting this is to reheat stupid conspiracy theories. This was all gone over, in enormous detail, at the time, by engineers and architects who actually knew what they were talking about, as opposed to silly people on the internet with bees in their bonnets of various kinds. This topic is a real tinfoil hat job:
Many architects have spoken out against the official narrative.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Anyone still believe they miraculously found the passport of one of the terrorists in all the rubble?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
While you as a passer by wouldn't recognize demolition work,
management & maintenance staff easily would've. The project
would look very different from maintenance & construction.
And the workers would be unfamiliar. Were I there, I'd want
staff to explain & show the work orders.
How on Earth could that be done in secret without all of the
people involved being in on the conspiracy to murder the
tenants & themselves?

Well, we're talking about large buildings with thousands of people going in and out every day. I suspect it had a large administrative and maintenance staff. The larger the organization, the more likely one will see new and unfamiliar workers, and it might be easier for someone to infiltrate. When I visited the WTC, I don't recall that security was all that tight.

Here's a possible scenario: Government agents could approach the building management and say they suspect the drug cartels have a money laundering operation, and one of their offices is located in the WTC (disguised as an apparently "legitimate" company). So, they could say they need to put in some undercover operatives posing as maintenance personnel, as well as install some "surveillance equipment." Now, of course, it's all top secret and hush-hush, so as far as the rest of the staff and tenants are concerned, they're just some ordinary work crew which has been given the okay by the boss (who himself would not even know what was really going on).

As has been pointed out by many, there aren't that many people who actually have expertise or professional knowledge about engineering or architecture or even really understand how buildings are blown up. If this is true, then very few people would have been able to recognize or notice someone engaging in demolition work, and if their top boss tells them "don't worry about it, they know what they're doing," they would probably just leave it alone.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't know how they brought explosives in. There are multiple theories; but it can be done. It should be investigated.
We can assume a great number of possible things.
But some are more likely vs unlikely than others.
I've long been a property owner & manager.
This experience leads me to see controlled demo
as the most unlikely.
 
Top