Report 9/11 Fire Caused Building to Collapse

[Dr.Jack]

Federal investigators issued a report Thursday concluding that fires brought down a skyscraper next to New York's twin towers on Sept. 11, refuting conspiracy theorists who have long believed that explosives caused the collapse.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center 7 was the first known instance of fire causing the total failure of a skyscraper.

Read the rest here.

=====

The question is if we can trust this report or not...

 

[Wiseman_2]

Well look at it logically. No-one saw any of the wires or explosives that supposedly brought the building down, so it couldn't have been done beforehand; the wires spread well across the building, criss-crossing about, and special procedures must be followed to ensure it comes down properly. To rig a building for demolition, it takes several days of careful planning and rigging; this couldn't have been done while the attack was happening.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Oh brother, not another FBI-legal conspiracy again..?! I have read the entire FBI report (492 pages, clamped with two big black iron clamps), and I prefer that huge report to be a little more "trusted by standards".

If there's a new report, I would hate to see myself reading that full paperwork...

 

[Frosthowl]

I really hate it when people make these conspiracy theories for 9/11, especialy because my best friends grandpa died on flight 93. =(

 

[sqrage]

[YOUTUBE]LD06SAf0p9A[/YOUTUBE]

Yea, that was caused by a fire for sure.

 

[Zakyath]

I thought it was all done by bananas

 

[Squll2]

a uncontrolled fire can only reach 1024 degress F

where it would take 1800 degrees F to melt steel, which the twin towers inner core was made out of (and the outside)

 

[sqrage]

a uncontrolled fire can only reach 1024 degress F

where it would take 1800 degrees F to melt steel, which the twin towers inner core was made out of (and the outside)

They aren't talking about the Twin Towers here, they are talking about WTC 7.

 

[NoxMortus]

I really hate it when people make these conspiracy theories for 9/11, especialy because my best friends grandpa died on flight 93. =(

I don't understand your hatred here..

If someone thought that it'd been covered up, you would prefer them to keep quiet and not spread the truth about what really happened, because you knew someone who died in the incident?

If anything I would've thought you'd want to know the truth of the event, in respect for the deceased.

(Not saying I believe all the 9/11 conspiracies - most of it has been debunked, but there are certain observations that raise an eyebrow)

 

[Wiseman_2]

Yea, that was caused by a fire for sure.

The way the tower came down is somewhat suspicious, yes, but it is important to understand that there is no way which they could have set up the required explosive charges. Interviews with people who were in the building just before it came down have often been exaggerated; conspiracy theorists interpret them to mean that they heard "Explosions", while the people under interview later say that they heard bangs, and that they said nothing about explosions. One program on the subject I saw was quite interesting and when the presenter challenged the conspiracy theorist's views and how he interpretted the interviews, he got quite violent (he also looked like a college dropout who'd never had an honest day's work in his life).

Not saying my mind is closed completely, just saying I think it's highly unlikely.

 

[Varine]

where it would take 1800 degrees F to melt steel, which the twin towers inner core was made out of (and the outside)

It doesn't have to melt, it just has to weaken enough to bend, which, I might be wrong, but with a relatively large part of a building as dead weight on top of a broken structure with a huge firing going, it doesn't seem like it's too impossible. Where's your source for that anyway? Because steel melts at 2500-2750°F, not 1800°F.

Yea, that was caused by a fire for sure.

Are you saying that it's more probable that throughout that week they managed to move enough demolitions into the building, setting it up on all core supports, doing so in a way that would ensure the fires that were caused didn't set any of them off or damage the detonation controllers, without anyone seeing them do so or think it was somewhat odd and making mention of it?

 

[Blackveiled]

It doesn't have to melt, it just has to weaken enough to bend, which, I might be wrong, but with a relatively large part of a building as dead weight on top of a broken structure with a huge firing going, it doesn't seem like it's too impossible. Where's your source for that anyway? Because steel melts at 2500-2750°F, not 1800°F.



Are you saying that it's more probable that throughout that week they managed to move enough demolitions into the building, setting it up on all core supports, doing so in a way that would ensure the fires that were caused didn't set any of them off or damage the detonation controllers, without anyone seeing them do so or think it was somewhat odd and making mention of it?

If theres enough damage to make an entire floor fall, then its possible for the building to collapse into itself.

 

[Asehujiko]

a uncontrolled fire can only reach 1024 degress F

where it would take 1800 degrees F to melt steel, which the twin towers inner core was made out of (and the outside)

At that temperature steel looses half of it's structural integrety and the building was already mauled pretty badly by heavy debris falling from the main towers. The building materials don't have to be completely liquid for the structure to collapse.