NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

[Amianthus]

Thermite doesn't have an explosion.

From the NIST investigation documents:

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

[Brassmask]

They do not have to have been destroyed equally , if some few were entirely melted that would not be enough damage , and if some few were entirely undamaged that would not be enough strength .

If you watch the videos of WT7 falling, you will notice a slight dimple in the roofline as it appears that one part of the building a little faster than the rest of the building; however, if the building were to collapse in the manner that you are wanting to imagine it falling, the weak part would fall and then the rest of the building would collapse possibly but it would collapse a little bit at a time in towards the first part that collapsed.  Common sense.  If one part collapsed because of heat-weakened beams, the rest of the building would immediately, en masse, collapse into its footprint all at once LIKE IT OBVIOUSLY DID.

There came a point at which enough beams were enough weakened to no longer bear the load , after that point there was no preventing a collapse.

Anything is possible but the video doesn't seem to support your "some beams weakened then the collapsed and then the building came down slowly as nearby beams struggled and failed to support the weight" scenario.  The whole building collapsed as one piece like someone  had applied thermite ropes to the beams in the basement and fired them remotely and simultaneously.
  

If someone were trying to destroy them as a part of a conspiracy or inside job , why would they be neat ?\

Neatness is indicative of the need for total destruction and near silence.

Thermite produces mainly heat and molten iron, but it also produces a lot of Alumina slag. There was very likely a little bit of accidental thermite reaction , just because the molten aircraft parts would react to any rust that it contacted in a thermite reaction. Not enough tho to make a major difference.

That's nice.

I think that if I saw a bunch of guys placing explosives all over my workplace I might take notice , ever see the documentaries about how that is done? They use hundreds of charges strung together with det cord, it could not possibly be done in secret.

The "explosives" would NOT have to be placed "all over [the] building".  Only on the beams in the basement.  And you wouldn't have to apply it to all of them.  You'd only have to put it on most of them.  Maybe only half of them.  When was the last time you were in the basement of your building in the middle of the night?  And you wouldn't have to place them all at once.  Sneak in and place a few each night over a month.

And this building was a CIA, FBI, and others kind of building.  They had total access and may have installed the thermite as a failsafe in the event of a successful invasion or coup or nuclear war.

I wonder if any very tall building has ever collapsed in any other way? I am not sure , but I don't know that collapsing into its self isn't the most usual mode of building collapse.

If you can find proof of one that has collapsed neatly and as one solid unit into its foot print after a simple fire, hey, let me know.

[Amianthus]

If you watch the videos of WT7 falling, you will notice a slight dimple in the roofline as it appears that one part of the building a little faster than the rest of the building; however, if the building were to collapse in the manner that you are wanting to imagine it falling, the weak part would fall and then the rest of the building would collapse possibly but it would collapse a little bit at a time in towards the first part that collapsed.  Common sense.  If one part collapsed because of heat-weakened beams, the rest of the building would immediately, en masse, collapse into its footprint all at once LIKE IT OBVIOUSLY DID.

And if you watch the computer simulations produced by NIST based on fire weakened beams, you will see that the simulations predicted the exact collapse as seen in video footage.

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

[Brassmask]

If you watch the videos of WT7 falling, you will notice a slight dimple in the roofline as it appears that one part of the building a little faster than the rest of the building; however, if the building were to collapse in the manner that you are wanting to imagine it falling, the weak part would fall and then the rest of the building would collapse possibly but it would collapse a little bit at a time in towards the first part that collapsed.  Common sense.  If one part collapsed because of heat-weakened beams, the rest of the building would immediately, en masse, collapse into its footprint all at once LIKE IT OBVIOUSLY DID.

And if you watch the computer simulations produced by NIST based on fire weakened beams, you will see that the simulations predicted the exact collapse as seen in video footage.

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

Wow, I'm sure their computer models were so non-biased too.

Pffft.

[sirs]

LOL......yea, I hate arguing with my computer, it being so liberal and all

[Amianthus]

Wow, I'm sure their computer models were so non-biased too.

Engineers and scientists typically design non-biased computer simulations. Mathematics and physics are non-biased by nature.

[Plane]

There came a point at which enough beams were enough weakened to no longer bear the load , after that point there was no preventing a collapse.

Anything is possible but the video doesn't seem to support your "some beams weakened then the collapsed and then the building came down slowly as nearby beams struggled and failed to support the weight" scenario.  The whole building collapsed as one piece like someone  had applied thermite ropes to the beams in the basement and fired them remotely and simultaneously.
  

I didn't say it had to be slow , as soon as the strength was just a tiny bit less than what it took to stand the effect would snowball.

Does glass ever shatter slowly? It doesn't matter that the stress built up slowly , it matters what the failure mode is like when the failure point is reached. Once the top floors started moveing their weight and inertia overcame the strength of the undamaged portion below the fire.

The "explosives" would NOT have to be placed "all over [the] building".  Only on the beams in the basement.  And you wouldn't have to apply it to all of them.  You'd only have to put it on most of them.  Maybe only half of them.  When was the last time you were in the basement of your building in the middle of the night?  And you wouldn't have to place them all at once.  Sneak in and place a few each night over a month.

And this building was a CIA, FBI, and others kind of building.  They had total access and may have installed the thermite as a failsafe in the event of a successful invasion or coup or nuclear war.

One big bomb in the basement didn't work in 93 though it did damage three floors the beams are heavyest near the base.

Thermite tipicly burns with a lot of sputter and heat but not much bang, I never heard of it being used in building demolition , how would that work? It would only produce heat right where you placed it. so you would need a lot of the devices to damage a lot of beams with heat. Simpler to think that a widespread fire might damage a lot of beams with heat., so what would be the reason to place bombs all over the place and also crash an aircraft into the building? Wouldn't the aircraft be enough by itself? A few tonns of fuel is a lot of heat.it is the energy required to carry an hundred ton aircraft from coast to coast at five hundred mph , how is it less than enough energy to weaken the steel of the WTC?


Also the buildings were very large , due to scale it seemed as if they fell into neatly their own footprint, but there was a lot of damage to surrounding buildings because a whole lot of energy was released in the slamming down of the towers weight and the wreckage that spread to the neighbors wrecked them too.

There really isn't a reason to seek a government motive , the US Government didn't benefit and could not expect to. Osama Bin Laden has admitted his involvement , why not bveleive him this one time?