Dubai Hotel vs WTC 7

[Jlabute]

Well, it was damaged by heavy debris, and the sprinklers were not fully functional. Did anyone hear explosives?
The Dubai hotel had working sprinklers which stopped the fire from spreading internally.

[Glacier]

Are we placing bets yet on how fast this thread gets moved to the "Other" section? I'm guessing faster than you can say "9/11 was in inside job because the US government is more evil than Islamic terrorists."

[Static]

Well, it was damaged by heavy debris, and the sprinklers were not fully functional. Did anyone hear explosives?
The Dubai hotel had working sprinklers which stopped the fire from spreading internally.

It doesn't matter - Fire CANNOT melt steal

[maryjane48]

Are we placing bets yet on how fast this thread gets moved to the "Other" section? I'm guessing faster than you can say "9/11 was in inside job because the US government is more evil than Islamic terrorists."

why should it be moved ? you afraid of the facts ?

[maryjane48]

Well, it was damaged by heavy debris, and the sprinklers were not fully functional. Did anyone hear explosives?
The Dubai hotel had working sprinklers which stopped the fire from spreading internally.

that wasnt the govts explanation for wt7 coming down lol . they said it was fire that melted a certain colum . the fantasy is strong in this one

[rustled]

It doesn't matter - Fire CANNOT melt steal

Context is key:

...FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. ...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Fun video here:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/angry-metal-worker-makes-video-debunking-jet-fuel-cant-melt-steel-beams-911-meme/
Pithy quote from video:

Tye openly doesn’t care about whether or not 9/11 conspiracy theories are true. “What I am concerned about is the *bleep* metallurgical things you are saying,” he says bluntly. “If you hold this up for a reason for a conspiracy, you are an idiot.”

[Hassel99]

It doesn't matter - Fire CANNOT melt steal

It does not need to melt it, it just needs to be heated to weaken it so it collapses under the load it holds.

[Static]

"But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

I am not an engineer by no means, but should twisting, warping, and bending occur and the plane did not fly smack dab into the middle of building, would this not cause the building to lean and prevent the building from falling perfectly into its footprint?

[rustled]

"But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

I am not an engineer by no means, but should twisting, warping, and bending occur and the plane did not fly smack dab into the middle of building, would this not cause the building to lean and prevent the building from falling perfectly into its footprint?

Neither am I, and like many others at the time it happened I was relieved but very surprised the building pancaked instead of toppling. Here's the engineering on that, from the same Popular Mechanics piece. (Probably best to read the whole thing as there's quite a bit more than I'm quoting.) There's a paragraph or two about the elevator shafts allowing the jet fuel to funnel centrally, and this:

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

So again, not something I'd use to prove a conspiracy...

[maryjane48]

lol but there is zero explanation there for the central core falling down . they never mention it because they cant explain it . another omission is beams flying up to 500 ft verticaly or molten steel running down the sides as the building started to implode . or diagonal cut beams showing up . or as static said a symetrical implosion when if only a certain section of beams are weakened it should have toppled asymetricly . 1500 enginears who have designed buildings such as this saying it was impossible . but your taking pop mech word over people who actualy design and build these things .



but i digresz the building in dubai burned for over 24 hours and most the sprinklers didnt work yet it stayed up hmmmmmm

[Dizzy1]

why should it be moved ? you afraid of the facts ?

This ...

free doesnt care about truth only force fed bs from bush chaney

... has nothing to do with facts.

[Dizzy1]

but i digresz the building in dubai burned for over 24 hours and most the sprinklers didnt work yet it stayed up hmmmmmm

Please do "digresz" - fact is that WTC7 was damaged by debris from earlier incidents which weakened the structure - plain and simple.

[LtZerge]

Sigh... A) This belongs in the conspiracy sub forum
B) Comparative analysis for this event that relates to other building disasters is pretty pointless. I hope people aren't so dense as to think all big buildings are built the same way with the same materials, or exposed to the same circumstances. These other incidences are operating on different variables entirely.
C) Jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beams, just weaken it enough. I've never seen anyone claim the trade centers melted, especially the official claims
D) This belongs in the conspiracy sub forum

[Passion4Truth]

Sigh...
C) Jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beams, just weaken it enough. I've never seen anyone claim the trade centers melted, especially the official claims

You haven't seen or heard these claims because sadly, like many others, you have done zero research on the subject.

The only reason that melting steel is discussed at all with the 9/11 scenario is because government officials, engineers, first responders, and others observed large amounts of molten steel and iron (requiring temperatures of more than 2,800°F) in the debris of all three buildings.

[peaceseeker]

One of these things is not like the other...