Grand Jury will look at evidence of explosives used to take down WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11

[SirBannedAlot]

It was a 767 that hit the south tower. Full of passengers, roughly 412,000lbs

Calculate the energy involved with that size of a projectile, going just 300mph, which is much lower than it's typical cruising speed.

I will wait for you to get a calculator that can even go that high.

The amount of energy released, even before the damage the fire did by annealing and softening the remaining structure, is on the scale of a large bomb. It's a staggering amount of energy, and so you posting a link about a Cessna hitting a sky scraper is irrelevant...

It's like we are talking about the damage an M1 Abrams main gun does, and you claim otherwise and pull up the specs of a Daisy Red Ryder on Wikipedia as your proof. LOL

 

[SirBannedAlot]

According to the NIST report it was office fires that caused WTC7 to collapse on itself. Nothing about "energy released" from the other buildings has ever been attributed to the collapse. That sounds like something you want to apply to make it all work out in your head.

The fires may have, especially if the foundation or structure took damage when the other towers fell.

Are there any seismic data from ground zero? I mean, in that very concentrated, localized spot, it must have been like a significant earthquake struck, no?

Or so you think that the horrific energy released from the two towers falling, somehow had a magic barrier that contained them so that none of that energy or debris would travel more than 40 feet?

 

[Fatal_Bert]

The fires may have, especially if the foundation or structure took damage when the other towers fell.

Are there any seismic data from ground zero? I mean, in that very concentrated, localized spot, it must have been like a significant earthquake struck, no?

Or so you think that the horrific energy released from the two towers falling, somehow had a magic barrier that contained them so that none of that energy or debris would travel more than 40 feet?

Do you think the debris that hit WTC7 had more energy than the planes that hit other buildings in the links I posted? Because that was my point. No plane of jet fuel hit WTC7. It collapsed in on itself from office fires and if you don't believe that you're a bat **** crazy conspiracy theorist

 

[SirBannedAlot]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

"Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

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."
"

 

[SirBannedAlot]

I know, Wikipedia is a better source of engineering knowledge than Popular Mechanics, but still...

 

[SirBannedAlot]

It even has pretty pictures showing how thermal expansion contributed to the failure, for those that don't science...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

I know, Wikipedia is a better source of engineering knowledge than Popular Mechanics, but still...

What you just posted is exactly what I said that office fires caused WTC7 to collapse in on itself like this.

That doesn't even make sense to you, which is why you have to attribute your own theory of "seismic damage" from the other plane crashes. But it's ok for you to come up with your own theory isn't it?

 

[Fatal_Bert]

It even has pretty pictures showing how thermal expansion contributed to the failure, for those that don't science...

But I thought it was from "energy released" from the other crashes, or "seismic" energy?

Oh, so now that you have read the official report of what caused WTC7 to collapse you will buy it and quit making up your own reasons?

Yep, just plain ol office fires caused it to collapse in on itself like this.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

What you just posted is exactly what I said that office fires caused WTC7 to collapse in on itself like this.

That doesn't even make sense to you, which is why you have to attribute your own theory of "seismic damage" from the other plane crashes. But it's ok for you to come up with your own theory isn't it?

I was doing what you do... theorizing. Sometimes I find it best to do what Limbaugh does... illustrate absurdity by being absurd, and as is the case with Liberals on his show, they fail to pick up on it... ;-)

 

[SirBannedAlot]

But I thought it was from "energy released" from the other crashes, or "seismic" energy?

Oh, so now that you have read the official report of what caused WTC7 to collapse you will buy it and quit making up your own reasons?

Yep, just plain ol office fires caused it to collapse in on itself like this.

A seven hour raging fire with a disabled sprinkler system, caused by... [drum roll]....

Damage caused by the other larger towers falling. :-)