Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleeding Red
On WTC 7:
Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, calls such claims "bad science". Barnett was a member of the World Trade Centre Building Performance Study, one of the government groups that investigated the towers' collapse. Reluctantly, he has familiarised himself with the scholars' claims - many of them have emailed him. Yes, it is unusual for a steel structure to collapse from fire, Barnett agrees. However, his group and others argue that the planes' impact weakened the structures and stripped off the fireproofing materials. That caused the top floors of both towers to collapse on to the floors below. "A big chunk of building falling down made the next floor fall down, and then they all came down like a deck of cards," Barnett says.
The collapse of WTC 7 was also unusual, he admits. However, firefighters do not usually let a fire rage unabated for seven hours as they did on the morning of September 11, because they had prioritised the rescue of victims. "The fact that you don't have evidence to support your theory doesn't mean that the other theory is true," Barnett says. "They just made it up out of the blue."
http://http://education.guardian.co....864657,00.html |
just so we're clear:
WTC-7, a hardened over-engineered building set up for its defense establishment tenants, comes down in classic controlled demolition style, with the center columns being blown and the building falling into itself, in 6.2 seconds?
due to a seven hour moderate fire, while similar buildings had survived far longer and far hotter fires?
just so we're clear.
EDIT: i must be an anti-semite.