WTC Metal Fatigue. How Did Building 7 Fall?

Click For Summary
Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed without being directly hit by an aircraft, raising questions about the cause of its failure. Despite reports indicating multiple fires on various floors, some argue that the collapse's symmetrical nature suggests a more complex issue than just fire damage. Comparisons are made to other buildings that endured intense fires without collapsing, highlighting the uniqueness of WTC 7's situation. Official reports acknowledge the inability to fully explain the collapse, leading to ongoing debates and concerns about structural safety in similar buildings. The discussion reflects a broader skepticism regarding the explanations provided and a desire for more definitive answers.
  • #31
Noddy said:
With respect, there is a BIG difference between carefully placed and timed explosive charges which "cut" like a knife through large metal beams instantly and a "fire", weakening metal support structures at VARIOUS points in the building at VARYING rates.

The beautiful take downs of large buildings is an EXACT science reproducing those beautiful SYMMETRICAL collapse patterns.

I see what i can see. Instant, catastrophic collapse in a symmetrical pattern. Unattainable by random fires.
Since you have now confirmed our suspicions that you believe that WTC7 (and, you implied, WTC1 & 2) were felled in a controlled demolition, the term "conspiracy theory" does apply and this thread is not one about engineering. Moving to skepticism and debunking.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ah Russ...Thankyou...

When in doubt, Da Nile becomes more than a river in Egypt.

You are obviously not "qualified" to answer my question Russ so you are free to move on to somewhere else.

Again, anyone with a background in the properties of metals under heat stress out their.

I have a very SPECIFIC question. Not %90 of a question.
 
  • #33
Noddy, your exhibiting another trademark quality of conspiracy theory nuts. "Only people who agree with me are experts"
 
  • #34
You've heard the opinion of a number of engineers here, Noddy, you've read the opinions of countless others, but you dismiss all of them in search for one who can support the conclusion you have already reached on your own - even while demonstrating a basic lack of understanding of the engineering involved. That isn't a scientific way of thinking. You'll find little sympathy for that attitude here. You'll only find real scientists and real engineers expressing real engineering opinions.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Just WHICH experts are you referring to?

It took months for the "experts" to come up with the ...quote..."truss theory".

The look on the building designers face says it all in the interview conducted after the collapse.

Answer my questions Russ...Super Mentor.

You cannot.

You and the rest of your ilk are the "specialized" idiot class who would believe Noddy and Big Ears flew into those towers because a government "expert" told you so.

I've finished playing with you.

Twas fun.
 
  • #36
Noddy said:
You and the rest of your ilk are the "specialized" idiot class who would believe Noddy and Big Ears flew into those towers because a government "expert" told you so.

I've finished playing with you.

Twas fun.
Fair 'nuff... good riddence.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
64K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
66K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K