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 |
This information contradicts the testimony of almost every person from NYFD who was in WTC7. I'm sorry I can't post a link, as the information was restricted during the 9/11 Commission investigation when they refused to take the testimony of the NYFD survivors. I do have the testimony of the 510 NYFD and EMS first responders and they paint a much different story than that told.
Also, WTC7 had minimal damage and had minor fires restricted to three floors. One of the corners sustained damage to the exterior that made it look worse than it really was. The central core of the structure was intact when the decision to evacuate was made. Shortly after the building came down upon itself. Pretty impressive for a building that sustained no damage to the load bearing central core.
Professor Barnett might be interested to know that there have only been three concrete and steel high rise buildings that have even experienced catestophic collapses like this. There was one other building, in Venezuela (IIRC) that experienced a collapse of several floors, but that was after a fire raged for over 48 hours. The fires in the WTC were no hot enough, nor burned long enough to cause the damage suggested, fireproofing or not. If the fires were as intense as suggested, anyone on thise floors would have been barbequed by the heat alone. Yet there were survivors filmed, waving through the holes the planes had made in the buildings, for 10-15 minutes before the collapse. Obviously, the fires were no where near as intense as suggested, and the damage no where near as advertised either. There were survivors on the floors where the planes hit, so that completely destroys the theory of heat being intense enough to do the damage suggested. On to WTC7, does anyone think that Petro Canada 1 would collapse if there were fires on three floors, even if they burned for two or three days? Because this is what you are expecting people to believe when you say this. As outrageous as some of the conspiracy theories are, some of what people are swallowing as "truth" is more outrageous.