WTC Metal Fatigue. How Did Building 7 Fall?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) following the events of September 11, 2001. Participants explore various theories regarding the structural failure of the building, particularly focusing on the role of fire, potential metal fatigue, and the absence of aircraft impact. The conversation includes comparisons to other buildings that experienced fire without collapsing and raises questions about the adequacy of official reports on the incident.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, questioning how a largely steel structure could fail in such a manner after only small fires.
  • Others argue that WTC 7 was impacted by debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers, which may have contributed to its structural failure.
  • There is a contention regarding the severity and extent of the fires in WTC 7, with some asserting that there were significant fires on multiple floors, while others claim there were only small fires visible.
  • Participants reference official reports that suggest uncertainty about the exact causes of the collapse, with some emphasizing the need for more data and investigation.
  • One participant draws a parallel to the collapse of a building in Madrid that burned for hours without collapsing, questioning the unique circumstances of WTC 7.
  • Some express skepticism about the explanations provided by firefighters and official reports, suggesting that the collapse resembles a controlled demolition.
  • There are discussions about the role of diesel fuel in potentially exacerbating the fires in WTC 7, with differing views on its impact on the structural integrity of the building.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the causes of the collapse of WTC 7. Multiple competing views remain regarding the influence of fire, structural damage, and external factors such as debris from the Twin Towers.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in the available data and the complexity of the situation on 9/11, noting that the unique circumstances may not be directly comparable to other fire incidents. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainty and differing interpretations of the evidence surrounding the collapse.

  • #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.
 
Engineering 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 ·
Replies
20
Views
8K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
68K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K