Creative Speculation

William Seger

(10,923 posts)

20. WTC7 wasn't designed to withstand thermal stress

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:28 AM

Dec 2011

... or to resist progressive collapse, once it started. In particular, the interior girder connections to the columns were only designed to handle the anticipated gravity loads, not lateral forces from thermal expansion or moment forces from falling girders. Doing so would have made construction much more expensive, but there wasn't (and still isn't) any code requirement to do so, so they didn't. That's one of the serious issues raised by the collapse, since it implies that a great many other steel structures would also be vulnerable in a prolonged, unfought fire. The argument that if it never happened before 9/11 then it couldn't happen on 9/11 either is as bogus as the argument that if it looked like a controlled demolition then it must have been a controlled demolition.

Richard Gage's "over 1500 architects and engineers" should know this if they actually read the NIST report and actually have even rudimentary knowledge of structural mechanics, but they don't seem to think that the construction details are of any significance. Regardless of how impressed Ed Asner is, Gage & Co. present neither a credible technical argument against the NIST theory nor a credible, substantiated alternate theory.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Solving the Mystery of Building 7 [View all] Richard Charnin Dec 2011 OP

Thanks for posting n/t Pachamama Dec 2011 #1

Very powerful video. Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #2

exactly libodem Dec 2011 #21

I hope some day soon Politicalboi Dec 2011 #3

Actually all 3 fell with resistance. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #4

True but... Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #5

"can only happen in a controlled demolition" Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #6

The top part (penthouse?) seemed to sink first Rosa Luxemburg Dec 2011 #15

The collaspe was already happening inside the building. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #16

These buildings weren't awfully well built? Rosa Luxemburg Dec 2011 #18

Well, they were for normal circumstances. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #19

WTC7 wasn't designed to withstand thermal stress William Seger Dec 2011 #20

The shear studs were designed to take the lateral loads, so the girder seat didn't need to be. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #37

How do 7 floors fail in freefall? NIST did NOT explain it. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #34

Not true William Seger Dec 2011 #7

Two videos by David Chandler which expose the NIST "analysis of WTC 7 Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #26

Yes, Chandler is a major source of "freefall = controlled demolition" idiocy William Seger Dec 2011 #29

Nobody says the perps blew out 8 floors while the building was already falling. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #35

Gage's solution to the mystery: Magical silent explosives William Seger Dec 2011 #8

Anyone that watches this video and concludes that it is anything teddy51 Dec 2011 #9

Anyone who LISTENS to the videos and concludes that it's a controlled demolition William Seger Dec 2011 #10

They weren't silent, a large number of witnesses said they heard teddy51 Dec 2011 #11

Baloney William Seger Dec 2011 #13

That is just not true zeemike Dec 2011 #23

You're making things up. zappaman Dec 2011 #24

Many sounds of explosions Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #27

No firemen described "a series of small bangs" emanating from WTC 7. n/t zappaman Dec 2011 #28

Everything I said is true William Seger Dec 2011 #25

What piqued my interest was what was housed in Building 7. canoeist52 Dec 2011 #12

All very good reasons NOT to blow up that building. n/t Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #14

Apparently they were destroying all the evidence Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #17

Why do you need tons of explosives? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #38

I'd heard there was a bunch of libodem Dec 2011 #22

and gold Remember Me Dec 2011 #30

Last night, I listened to 2 UTube interviews.... gblady Dec 2011 #32

You forgot the CIA and the DoD on the 25th floor. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #36

I accept the eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage and multiple large fires hack89 Dec 2011 #31

You are more accepting than is FEMA or NIST Ace Acme Dec 2013 #39

Care to substantiate that statement. hack89 Dec 2013 #42

I'm saying FEMA did not quote any of those statements, nor did NIST. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #44

But such damage fits into NIST's explanation hack89 Dec 2013 #46

Dr. Griffin has pointed out that the FDNY accounts are mutually exclusive and all over the map. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #48

Dr Griffin is a CT loon hack89 Dec 2013 #49

Dr. Griffin's alleged lunacy can not make contradictory statements consistent. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #50

No, it couldn't have been the massive, uncontrolled fires that took WTC7 down cpwm17 Dec 2011 #33

There were no massive fires. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #40

Who are you going to believe? cpwm17 Dec 2013 #41

I am going to believe my informed eyes, and understand that what looks like smoke Ace Acme Dec 2013 #43

Apparently you didn't watch the video cpwm17 Dec 2013 #45

I watched the video years ago. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #47

Obviously you didn't watch this video cpwm17 Dec 2013 #51

I watched the video years ago, and I watched it now, and everything I said was correct. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #52