Or so we hope.
It's true: Fire does melt steel.
The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.Read the rest.
“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”
“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.
According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.
Citing its one new recommendation (the other 12 are reiterated from the previously completed investigation of the World Trade Center towers, WTC 1 and 2), the NIST investigation team said that “while the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, we strongly urge building owners, operators and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing and/or composite floor systems.” Engineers, the team said, should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.
The investigators also reported that if the city water main had not been cut by the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 (WTC 1 and WTC 2), operating sprinklers in WTC 7 would likely have prevented its collapse. “Nevertheless,” Sunder said, “we recommend that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety by preventing structural collapse even during severe fires like this one, when sprinklers do not function, do not exist or are overwhelmed by fire.”
Of course the Troofer morons will just say there was a coverup, but they can now be entirely dismissed since they lack any credibility.
The New York Times dutifully regurgitates some Troofer talking points.
Skeptics have questioned if explosives were planted at 7 World Trade Center, as well as the twin towers and the Pentagon, as the Bush administration was seeking a justification to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. What started as a small number of such conspiracy theorists has only ballooned into a movement of sorts, largely fed by Internet sites that promote the theories.Rosie O'Donnell was unavailable for comment.
“Seven World Trade Center is one of the key points of evidence, one of the smoking guns,” said Richard Gage, a California architect who leader a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “There have been much hotter, longer lasting and larger fires in skyscrapers that have not fallen down.”
Update: Ace links. Thanks!
Sure enough, no amount of evidence will dissuade the crackpots. Check this out from the comments to this morning's post.
Dear Fool,Anyone who has a kid enrolled at NYU should be happy to know this maniac is actually an assistant professor there. Apparently he's a savant of sorts.
Aptly named, your childish rant, which proves nothing, which explains nothing, which elucidates nothing, only shows what a shaky, indeed, false foundation the official explanation stands on.
That you continue to use the "tinfoil" metaphor, that you continue to ignore the facts, that you cherry-pick (in the best traditions of the Warren Commission) what you report, doubles your lack of security in this area.
The NIST "Final Report" proved nothing, debunked nothing, and was an insult to intelligence. As are you.
That a new investigation is needed is so blindingly conspicuous that only a fool (such as yourself) cannot see it.
(happy to debate this topic anywhere, anytime)
I'm not an expert but the first time I saw a video of the collapse of Building 7 I knew in my heart that it was a planned demolition.He's also listed here.
Update: Ah, the mental patient returns:
You say I need help? Why don't you give it to me?
Name one piece of evidence that 9/11 was an Al Quaeda operation and I'll give you my house. Okay? One piece.
How about telling us why, when Bush asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, they responded by saying, "Sure. Just give us your evidence of his complicity," Bush withdrew his request. Tell me why Colin Powell was supposed to produce the "white paper" proving bin Laden's involvement, but NEVER did. Tell me why the events of 9/11 were REMOVED from the list of crimes on the FBI'S most wanted list because, according to the FBI THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF HIS INVOLVEMENT.
And, tell me why the Pentagon refuses to release any of the 85 video's of the Pentagon attack? If it was Flight 77 why not let us see it?
And to JWF.. Go fuck yourself. I have two Master's degrees and have been invited to speak at the Smithsonian Institute, jerk-off. Shit like you piss me off.
Update: Not content with bigtiming me by flashing his two M.S. degrees in my face, the esteemed assistant professor from NYU weighs in again.
Ooooh... he's ANGRY!!Hmm. Implied threats of violence. Nice touch, assistant professor.
I forgot, we're not allowed to be angry in the effeminized society that we have devolved into. However, if you read your Erica Jong properly you'll see that it's really okay!!! Yippeee!! So, what you want me to apologize. Okay, here's my apology: Screw you, that's my apology. When you write idiotic and dangerous things, when you can't see the reality before you and attack someone because of it, never trying to make a real point, well, hell, you're lucky you're ONLY getting the written form of my anger.
Now, try growing up.