Chemist wrote:What questions? Your just handwaving...BADLY!
How can I be hand waving a question that as not been answered?? lol
Chemist wrote:WTC 7 was built on a foundation that was already in place and was too small for it's size. To get around this limitation, transfer girders were installed that would transfer the load from the building on a series of core columns that would be placed in the center of the foundation. Because of this, the transfer girders had to span large open areas. The core columns were already bearing massive loads.
Chemist wrote:No doubt that when debris from the collapse of the North tower struck WTC 7, some of these transfer girders were compromised and the increased loads had to be redistributed to the core columns. Fires started, as we have seen, and the lack of fire supression from the fireman on site or the sprinkler system caused the fires to burn out of control.
Chemist wrote:It was evident that the building would collapse, it was just a matter of when.
It was evident to firefighters on the ground but it is also evident that people were also saying that the building was going to blow up.
Chemist wrote:There have been many test fires done over the decades, and it hardly matters if it was NIST that conducted them, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or the National Fire Protection Association. Fires in an office environment without a sprinkler system will fully consume an office space within 2-3 minutes. Unprotected steel beams begin to sag under their own weight withing 20-30 minutes. This is decades of testing and experience with steel framed structures (some of which have been smaller than WTC 7 and still collapsed). That's why we insulate steel.
Very interesting stuff and the steel at WTC7 was coated with Monokote. So it was rated for 2 hours if I remember correctly!
Chemist wrote:Truthers want to convey that there were only a few trash fires at WTC 7 but this wasn't true at all. It was a misrepresentation.
No, debunkers want to portray it as a raging inferno by taking quotes out of context and applying them to their version of events, even though photographic and video evidence shows no sign of a raging inferno at any point. Just a few floor on fires and in some of those floors, the fire wasn't throughout the entire floors.
Chemist wrote:Most certainly, the floors started to collapse first.
At 40% of acceleration to free fall and then onto free fall speeds?
Chemist wrote:The steel trusses only needed to be thick enough to support each floor's own weight.
I know but there is exterior and core columns holding carrying most of the load.
Chemist wrote:For instance, 30 minutes after the north tower was struck, a 911 call from an occupant trapped above the impact zone reported collapsing floors.
And some reported explosion too.
Chemist wrote:The tower wouldn't collapse for another 20-25 minutes.
I do not see the relevance here but anyways.....
Chemist wrote:In the case of WTC 7, which was burning for 7 hours, I'm sure floors were collapsing all through that time.
They might well have been although there are floors where the fires haven't collapsed because we can clear see the fires on each floor which would suggest that the floors are still intact.
Now lets just say that some of the floors start giving away from the fire affected areas, there is still plenty of unaffected areas where the Monokote is still protecting.
So even if there were floor collapsing, unless you are suggest that all the floor had collapsed before the exterior, I do not see your point.
Chemist wrote:That You just don't see them because they are INSIDE.
So if you don't see them, how can you tell all of this??
Chemist wrote:But you only want to say that a 2 second free fall is what's critical, don't you stundie?
Well it is critical because at that point, there was no support or resistance in that building. So how does fires and a single column collapse theory reduce a buildings structural capacity and resistance to nothing in a 40% slower acceleration to free fall speeds??
Chemist wrote:The buildings in the WTC including WTC 7 were built using hollow tube construction.
Chemist wrote:The floors provide a vital function of providing lateral support to the exterior columns.
Why of course.
Chemist wrote:A sagging or failing floors will start pulling the exterior support columns inwards.
So it pulls the exterior support inwards. We do noe see any exteriors pulling inwards in the WTC 7.
Sound like you are trying to use the WTC 1 & 2 to explain how WTC 7 collapsed.
Chemist wrote: Firemen on site were reporting bulges and buckling on the face of WTC 7.
So firefighters saw bulges, buckling and this explains the free fall for 2.5 seconds??
Chemist wrote:This was what was happening, stundie.
Oh really!! lol
Chemist wrote:The floors were collapsing at that time.
What all of them before the exterior gave way?? lol
Chemist wrote:And that was still hours before WTC 7 collapses.
So the floors failed inside the WTC 7 hours before it actually collapsed.
Instead of 14 seconds for the collapse of WTC7 , maybe you should argue that it took hours?? No!!
Chemist wrote:In light of this, focusing on a two second free fall is a little bit ignorant.
No, watching you giving me lots of waffle but no explanation is ignorant and avoiding the issue.
Now doubt you have fooled yourself that you have addressed the issue of free fall when all you have done is point out the obvious and speculate about the interior state of the WTC 7 based on a hyper inflated fire which is burning on a few floors compared to a shitload of floors that were not burning. To explain that all the resistance and capacity explain the free fall??
I asked how fires and a single columns achieved this and so far. Nothing more than waffles! lol
Chemist wrote:]Now what would you expect would happen when one of those core columns fail, stundie?
The weight load to redistributed.
Chemist wrote:If one column fails, than the remaining columns must support a higher load.
Chemist wrote:Each remaining column would be supporting exponentially higher forces as each one of them failed.
But when this happens, it happens gradually because has the load is increased, not every single columns is going to give away at exactly the same time for there to be free fall speeds.
This is what happened and why your theory falls flat on it's face.
Chemist wrote:And let me tell you, these columns were huge! They won't fail quietly. Welds break and rivets pop. Makes quite a racket. And how would you expect people to describe this noise?
But wait a minute, you guys said that WTC 7 fell silently, therefore not a demolition, but now you are saying it would make a racket and probably expect people to describe the noise as an explosion.
Well they certainly woundn't sound like the explosion sound 6-7 seconds in here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&NR=1
Chemist wrote: Why wouldn't some of them say it sounds like an explosion. Some witnesses also described thunder claps (maybe WTC 7 was struck by lightening?). Others described creaking.
Now where did I say that some of them wouldn't say they sound like an explosion?? lol
A truly appalling attempt at a Wuzel Gummage.
It could well be all of the things, but until there is a definitive source, then we can't rule out that it wasn't an explosions, seeing as you are struggling with the whole freefall concept and how a fire/single column theory makes this happen.
Chemist wrote:But truthers want to latch onto the word "explosion" and take it to literally mean that explosives were used.
That is possibly because lots of people report hearing explosions.
Chemist wrote:Except that thermite isn't an explosive and no traces of any explosive was found.
Another one can't grasp the concept that it is possible that both could have been used.
Chemist wrote:This doesn't boad well for a debate if you're going to claim that WTC7 and the twin towers were destroyed via controlled demolition.
What doesn't bode well is that you still haven't explained the free fall for 2.25 seconds or how goes from resistance to nothing.
Chemist wrote:I just explained it for you in several different ways.
No you havent!! What you have done is used cognitive dissonance as a great way for your mind to accept the free fall when it still doesn't explain how a 47 storey building is reduced to nothing.
Chemist wrote:And the body of evidence supporting a fire assisted collapse is simply huge, while truther can't seem to find one witness.
What is this huge body of evidence?? lol
Chemist wrote:I'd be less worried about what we have to say and more worried about finding those witnesses that can tell you when, where and how somebody was able to install enough thermite to bring down the three largest structures in downtown Manhattan without a million other eyewitnesses noticing.
Well I would be more worried about how a building collapses at free fall speeds and fire when there is plenty of undamaged, unaffected columns to provide resistance.
So according to you, there was these massive fires that the video evidence doesn't show, which caused failure of the interior columns which we can't see, many hours before the collapse and the floors failed one by one when eventually, the final one gave way that initiated the collapse, the other columns which were still intact and trying but failing to resist the collapse, all of a sudden disappeared for 2.25 seconds before coming back a little to provide a small amount of resistance towards the end?? lol
Do you not see the problem?? Of course you don't!! lol
Better try next time. lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.