Have you ever held a too-tight jar lid under running hot water to loosen it? Dr. Sunder wants to know, because that's the key to the collapse of WTC 7! Steel expands when it is heated, and that's the key to the super amazing collapse of the third tower on 9/11. It's all about thermal expansion.
Heat also causes steel to weaken, and *that's* the key to the collapse of 1 and 2, but in the case of 7, it's THERMAL EXPANSION.
(Holy shit... he's blaming it all on fire... I don't think they're going to bring in any other theories. Yep... he has just explicitly excluded explosions, *including* those of any fuel oil tanks in the building. If there had been water available to fight the fires, the building would probably still be there.)
You know what, Dr. Sunder? I'm basically an expert in opening too-tight jars after 15 years in a professional kitchen, and EVERYONE in the biz knows that several sharp raps of the jar rim on a cutting board are what gets the job done. Get it? Some sudden, sharp mechanical force trumps thermal expansion any time... for opening jars.
of the upper floors from the lower is that the sprinkler system (and overall water supply) to the upper floors was more reliable. Nothing to do with explosions on any lower floors. >whistling innocently<
test mode that is? He says it's because the water mains had broken. But also, weren't they pumping water from the river well in advance of 7's collapse? How can it be said that a lack of water was a problem?
"Are you contending that localized fires caused all 47 columns to fail simultaneously so that the building collapsed in 8 seconds?"
Dr. Sunder: blah, blah, it was a PROGRESSIVE collapse; they did not fail simultaneously.
[This is freakin' weak, people. Weaker than I thought it would be. They're hardly trying at all.]
"Ya know, a lot of conspiracy theorists claim that this looked like a controlled demolition because the building fell into such a neat pile. Can you explain why it was not a controlled demolition?"
Dr. Sunder: "Well, you know, in a controlled demolition, charges are placed on many columns... yadda yadda... you can go to a website and see what a controlled demolition looks like... didn't look like this."
embeds the question of whetehr they tested for explosive residue in a rambling discourse, allowing sunder to totally dodge it. thanks again, infowars!
Because although he was rambly, he did make a point that they admittedly had NO actual steel for 7 to test.
well he could have asked why FEMA didn't give them the sample from WTC7 from their Appendix C, you know, the one that showed signs of ultra high temperature...
Note the evasion here. They say that tests for thermite would have been inconclusive, which isn't likely true or relevant, but they can't even hedge like that for the question of testing for residue of explosives.
Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column … presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
Many more comments at this source of this post:http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/1465