What caused the collapse of WTC Building 7 on 9/11/71?

Question

It was almost six years ago and the investigators still haven't puplished a definitive reason for this sky scrapers collapse?

Sorry about the date, I meant 9/11/01, or 11/09/01 in the UK.
Building 7 wasn't one of the twin towers, and it wasn't hit by an airliner. It collapsed for no apparent reason at 5:10 pm the same day.

Answer 1

seems weird that it did collapse, seeing that no skyscraper ever did due to fire, look at that one in madrid burned for days and didnt collapse. there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that it was demolished! like the BBC reporter speaking from new york on the day itself reporting that the salomon brothers building (WTC7) had collapsed when it was clearly still standing behind her! and when asked for the tapes the BBC said they lost them! (also google censoring the said video footage as soon as they were posted) one of the most important newsworthy event in modern history and they lost the tapes, the BBC lost the tapes, sorry but no way!. bull crap! larry silverstein using the words "pull it" when talking about WTC7. the way the building actually came down. wish more people would research the matter, but most people are too busy watching football or watching big brother etc to worry! check out www.prisonplanet.com and also do some research and make your own mind up.

Answer 2

First off, Building 7 contained a power plant. That means there were big open areas inside so flames could move quickly. It also means that there was a lot of diesel fuel stored in the building. Diesel fuel is not all that much different than jet fuel. Both burn at 550 degrees F. Secondly, steel does not have to melt to lose its strength. Everyone seems to want to talk about the steel melting. It did not. But if you heat steel, it loses its temper and thus much of its strength. As an example, you can take a fairly large piece of steel rod and start bending it back and forth. When you first start, it is pretty hard to do, but as you keep doing it, you will find that you can bend it just a little bit more each time. At the same time, at the point where you are bending it, it gets warm. Keep it up and pretty soon you can break that rod right in half. Thirdly, many modern structures are made with weak links. Look at the bridge up in Minneapolis, MN that suddenly collapsed. One connector plate broke and when that went, the entire bridge fell down. Or the suspended bridges at the hotel in Kansas City. One weld joint gave and as a result, all the other weld joints gave way and both of the bridges fell, killing hundreds. Many modern buildings are like that also, built ONE FLOOR AT A TIME. Each floor has to support its own weight plus the weight of the floors above. If floor can not support itself, it goes and so does everything above it. Lastly, so you found a video of one building that did not fall down in a fire. According to the Architectural Engineers at the website below, the whole conspiracy thing is stupid.

Answer 3

I am an assistant engineer for D. E. Harvey Builders.
I have read most of the conspiracy theorists ideas of what might have happened to the building and have studied what the structural engineers who have studied the case are saying. This is my personal conclusion based on the evidence. The collapse of the World Trade towers one and two caused a miniature earthquake (visible in any video close to the collapse) in the area causing damage in power, water, and other utility lines as well as the nearby buildings. Tower 7 caught on fire in the lower floors (possibly from the flames caused by the airplanes crashing into the other buildings) and burned for over eight and a half hours. Since the fire was on the lower floors of the building, the pressure from the upper forty or so floors caused the collapse. The fire, earthquake, and falling debris only had to de-temper the integrity of the steel frame; gravity did the rest. No bombs were needed. What the witnesses heard were reports from the crashing and popping of the interior steel frame.

Answer 4

I am a career fire officer on a metropolitan department. 15 yrs experience.

The conspiracists are right a normal structure fire does not melt steel. But thats really irrelevent as to why the towers came down.

Common temperatures in a structure fire routinely cause the failure of metal buildings. (Did you happen to see the concrete and steel bridge that collapsed just a short time ago due to a tanker fire below it? the tanker did not strike the bridge, just burned under it)

As the steel beams are heated to around 600 degrees F or so they lose about half their tensile strength. Thats why a blacksmith heats steel so it is possible for him to bend it,

(you'll also notice that better quality wood burning stoves, heat exchangers in furnaces and boilers, fire rings. engine blocks in cars. etc. are maid of cast iron (not steel), since cast iron can take much higher temperatures without deforming, unlike steel)

Along with the steel weakening it also expands, in a large building like the WTC that expansion can be several feet. But because the beams are held rigidly at both ends tremendous tress builds. One of three things then happen. The beam buckles under the stress and fails, the beams pushes over the columns that support it, or the connetions between the beam and column fail. All these are bad.

Large buildings like the WTC have their steel elements coated with a spray on product that is call "Fire proofing", it looks almost like the cellulose insulation you have in your attic, it does a good job of protecting the beams and columns from the heat of the fire until it can be extinguished. Unfortunately it also has about the same consistancy as that cellulose insulation in your attic, it comes off very easily, you can pick it off with your fingers. The reason the steel is sprayed for protection is simple, steel will NOT hold up to the heat of a fire. Once that fire proofing was dislodged by the planes at impact the steel was unprotected and destined to fail.

We approach any building that has a steel construction as a disposable building. If we cant get to the fire quickly and knock it down we back out.

If you doubt me, or you believe I'm not really who I same I am, walk into your local fire house.... Go ahead..... the guys will talk to you.......Visitors are always welcome.... Ask them whether the heat from just a common fire can cause a metal building collapse. Its taught to us all during training, textbooks have been written about building collapse during firefighting operations for decades. You may find it interesting that they would much rather fight a fire in a wood frame building since there is a much smaller chance of the building collapsing on us.

As a matter of fact many of my co-workers went to ground zero to search the rubble, none of them came back with or to this day have any doubt why the towers fell. I also volunteered but never got the opprtunity to go.

If you were truly interested in the subject you would at least spend a few minutes of your time talking with a person that deals with these issues everyday. Surely you want to be better informed than just reading something some unknown guy writes on the internet. What are his qualifications, is he a firefighter? Engineer? Has he ever published a research paper, if so did his peers feel he was credible.

Surely you dont want to spread something as imflamatiory and accusatory as this without doing a little research first.

Of course there is always the possibility that all firefighters are also in on the conspiracy, tens of thousands of us. And we will all just lie about the subject.

In closing if you want to believe that the planes werent really hijacked, the government did it. etc. thats up to you. I wont waste my breath arguing.... But the contention that a fuel fire could not have brought down the towers does not hold water and you should really drop that part from your arguement.

Lt. Doug M
Ohio

Answer 5

Sure, it is written. On the History Channel they have a documentary of the building of the WTC in the early 70's. It is all about money. The company building it cut costs and the beams did not get a special coating . A coating to protect it from an inferno.. And the beams were structured in a new way that was not used before so that is why the building imploded... Also the building was only tested for a Boeing 707 if it crashed into it. They stated that if a 707 crashed into it ,it would only hit it like a pencil. Look for the documentary on the History channel...Very interesting..

Answer 6

First of all, you happen to be an entire 30 years
off in your chronology. It's was 9/11/2001, not...
'71.
Secondly, if you were were a twin tower, and a
couple of huge airline jets crashed into you, you
would probably feel like collapsing, too!

Answer 7

it was demolished just like the twin towers were. I swear if people just would look at what happened, they would see this was all set up.. buildings just don't collapse the way this one did.. there is no way the amaters flew a plane like this into the building, and then a building does just not collapse from fire.

Answer 8

"it collapsed for no apparent reason" no reason? two huge skyscrapers falling right beside it isnt a reason wow anyways it was damaged by the falling towers and there was a big fire in it which weakened the steel frame which then couldnt support the other 40 stories

Answer 9

I think you will find that it had something to do with two flying bombs crashing into them, causing a massive fire which weakened the Steel structure which caused the collapse

Answer 10

well if the US government didnt withhold information or evidence, maybe we all culd find out what happend and be 100% sure.

check www.limewire.com and download limewire if you dont have it, and search for 911, september 11, twin towers. theres some real good shows and investigations on there if you can find them.