Is the Truth always stranger than Fiction?

Question

As we near the anniversary of the 9/11 disaster, why has no one ever, ever, yet come up with an explanation as to why Building 7 collapsed into a neat pile, whilst buildings nearer the towers stayed intact.

Answer 1

Designed very many steel structures far more complex than office use.
I watched with total disbelief at what I saw that day.
The load of the plane has been claimed to be the cause?
This might have been true for the floors above and for a few below but not down to ground level.
Has anyone ever seen the calcs?
I sat glued to the TV making notes and the building collapse wasn't the only question I had that day?
Starting at 7.00 am it was better planned than 'D' Day.

Have just read kadebears long report.
In my day and starting from the roof, all floors had to have stanchions capable of supporting the weight of all the the floors above and be kept within the L over R. ratio.
If one of the main stanchions collapsed it must have been because it was not designed within these limits.
Perhaps they had different building regs?

Mommy of 2's report.
The only building I designed to fall apart was an explosion annex that was made to separate without causing more damage.
So one side of the tower was designed to collapse?
No more my dinners ready.
Fed up with this rubbish anyway.

Answer 2

Your question indicates that you are already aware of the answer.
Yes, the description of how building 7 collapsed was conveniently omitted from the 9/11 Conmission report.
However, the same explanation of why the twin towers collapsed also explains why building 7 collapsed. I n fact building 7 is a clue to the other two buildings, as a result of leaseholder Silversteins order to 'Pull it'.
All three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

But an even stranger truth is that there were no planes involved either,
For details of both, see the sites below

Answer 3

Here is one explination to your question - "When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007." - National Institute of Standards and Technology

And here is what they have developed so far -
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

-An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

-Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

-Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Hope that answers your questions.

Answer 4

Good question. Weird though as well. You'd think a building of that size and the impact it took, that it would not only collapse but be scattered everywhere. Maybe the building was designed to fall in such a way that it would fall in a heap and not cause any, if minimal, damage to the neighbouring buildings?

Answer 5

Yes i often wondered why the twin towers fell like a pack of cards,i have watched Mill chimneys being knocked down by Fred dibnah on TV,explosives were set all around the chimneys to enable them to fall in a pile.How could aeroplanes that hit the towers near the top cause them to fall in the same way???

Answer 6

Truth is not always stranger than fiction. Often times the most likely explanation is the truth. As a matter of fact, that is usually the case.

Answer 7

They have. One the Discovery Channel they have explained the mystery time and again. Apparently the steel beams melted under the heat of the jet fuel causing the floors to fall on one another instead of side ways. The structure was improperly built when it came to with standing plane crashes. As far as other buildings allot of them did get damage and a few did fall. Windows were blown out miles away due to the impact of the building hitting the ground. If you want to learn more

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Answer 8

some times

Answer 9

I think that its not that truth is stranger than fiction, but that the truth is sometimes so obvious that we overlook it. And we have been trained via movies, other media and conspiracy theories to overlook the obvious. If you're looking for explanations, start with the fundamental basics and most of your answers will be there.

Answer 10

Aside from the bit about 9/11 I think I can answer, or at least give you the ammunition to answer your original question.

Fact: An apple is a fruit.

Fiction: I keep a flock of sheep in my underpants.

Which do you think is stranger?