Twin Tower explosions explained

[Cute Tink]

Oh, I didn't mean that it was concocted, I just meant I hadn't personally heard of it, but I'm not a chemist! On a basic level it sounds like the metal was hot enough to break the bonds in the water molecules (cringe, chemistry is really not my thang anymore :/ ). Could the metal act as a surface catalyst too?

I haven't done anything with chemistry since my sophomore year of high school. Not really my thing either.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Perhaps he would re-evaluate some of his theory in light of this new possibility.

Again, this study had nothing to do with the collapse of the other building, just the explosion sounds heard before the collapse of the Twin Towers and it also, apparently, gives a way to increase the heat within the towers without the use of demolition equipment

Yes, I understand that. I accept the basis of the chemistry involved, but does the report indicate why/how both buildings failed, with each simultaneously collapsing perfectly into it's own footprint?

I'm also asking if anyone has come across a sound report of how WTC Building 7 (47 stories!) fell into it's own footprint at near freefall speed after burning for only several hours?

 

[Cute Tink]

Yes, I understand that. I accept the basis of the chemistry involved, but does the report indicate why/how both buildings failed, with each simultaneously collapsing perfectly into it's own footprint?

I'm no demolition expert, but I have watched several demolitions. If this were a demolition, that company should be embarrassed. I think it's quite a stretch to say that they collapsed perfectly into their own footprints. However, if this new information is spot on, then it both explains the extreme heat needed to take out the support steel (if memory serves) and the explosions heard by witnesses. From there, it looked to me like simple physics of there being too much weight above the failing building supports causing the collapse.

Since I've also heard from theorists about building pieces flying considerable distances, it seems the "conspiracy theory" has some explaining of it's own to do, or at least a decision needs to be made whether to point out the debris flying away or to insist that they collapsed in their own footprints.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'm no demolition expert, but I have watched several demolitions. If this were a demolition, that company should be embarrassed. I think it's quite a stretch to say that they collapsed perfectly into their own footprints. However, if this new information is spot on, then it both explains the extreme heat needed to take out the support steel (if memory serves) and the explosions heard by witnesses. From there, it looked to me like simple physics of there being too much weight above the failing building supports causing the collapse.

Since I've also heard from theorists about building pieces flying considerable distances, it seems the "conspiracy theory" has some explaining of it's own to do, or at least a decision needs to be made whether to point out the debris flying away or to insist that they collapsed in their own footprints.

I'm not stating it was a controlled demolition. Truth is, I'm undecided at this point. I'm not saying that 9/11 was a "false flag" operation, but I do find curious the manner in which three buildings failed, when only two were hit by planes. Everyone seems to gloss over the fact that a 47 story skyscraper fell 2/3 of free fall speed after burning only several hours. We have literally thousands of documented cases of buildings burning, and hundreds of skyscrpapers burning, and not one of them fell into their own footprint at 2/3 freefall speed.

 

[Cute Tink]

I'm not stating it was a controlled deomlition. Truth is, I'm undecided at this point. I'm not saying that 9/11 was a "false flag" operation, but I do find curious the manner in which three buildings failed, when only two were hit by planes. Everyone seems to gloss over the fact that a 47 story skyscraper fell 2/3 of free fall speed after burning only several hours. We have literally thousands of documented cased of buildings burning, and hundreds of skyscrpapers burning, and not one of them fell into their own footprint at 2/3 freefall speed.

And I'm not saying that it is impossible, but it seems like data is on the side of the story and the more information and studying that comes out, the more it seems like it the official story is right.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

And I'm not saying that it is impossible, but it seems like data is on the side of the story and the more information and studying that comes out, the more it seems like it the official story is right.

I accept the official story.

So how does WTC Building 7 end up like it did?

9/11: WTC Building 7 "Collapse" video compilation - YouTube

 

[selfinflikted]

The normal hallmark of a [Creationist] is to have the idea and then only accept evidence that reinforces said idea. Evidence that contridicts the idea is dismissed out of hand (Or some excuse is found to deny the information).

Tampering with quotes is fun!

 

[Cute Tink]

I accept the official story.

So how does WTC Building 7 end up like it did?

From what I understand, it was impacted by the falling towers and heavy fires were burning for several hours.

Also, from what I've just been reading here: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm, it didn't collapse within it's own footprint and it didn't collapse all at once or all that fast.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

From what I understand, it was impacted by the falling towers and heavy fires were burning for several hours.

Also, from what I've just been reading here: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7, it didn't collapse within it's own footprint and it didn't collapse all at once or all that fast.

Did you watch the video?

 

[Cute Tink]

Did you watch the video?

I watched about half and it stopped downloading. Oddly, information on the page I linked talks about the video and what they say there makes sense:

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif] This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.[/FONT]

Since the video doesn't show the 20 story hole that the firefighters were talking about being torn into 7 by the other tower, I presume that this video shows the north face, which was the last part of the building to fall, according to the above. When the last part of the building to fall has less left in its way, it would probably fall faster than expected.

There are also photos showing rubble from 7 on top of another building across the street, showing that it did not fall within its own footprint.

 

[Split Rock]

But were they explosions, or were they expansions?

Doesn't really matter... those scientists will just Pluto the explanation later anyway.

 

[Split Rock]

There was a video released recently that showed how the top of the roof of Building 7 started to collapse before anything else.