• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

How can my barbecue flare up when grease hits it? There is charcoal dust all over the place in there.
 
GlennB said:
Er, that's trivial. WTC7 was struck by much more substantial WTC1 debris than those other buildings. The video record shows it clearly. And, incidentally, the other two were of RC construction with conventional windows.



This is something you've invented. As has been pointed out before, WTC1 debris started fires further away than WTC7. Meanwhile hot debris doesn't have to be flaming to start a fire.
Click to expand...

It is interesting, that at the time of its collapse there were fires on only four floors of WTC 1, yet debris from this area is alleged to have ignited fires 350 feet away on ten floors of WTC 7 and doing that without igniting any fires in the buildings adjacent to WTC 7.

I think some here need to think a little more about this scenario before continuing to try and explain its plausibility.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
If you want the sides of a box to fall you cut the corners.

But back to WTC 7.

I would like to see people here explain why it makes sense to them that WTC 7 would have had fires on ten different floors (7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 28, and 30) ignited, with no fires ignited in the immediately adjacent Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings, if the WTC 7 fires had actually been caused during the collapse of WTC 1?

A second question would be

Why would items from WTC 1 still be capable of igniting fires in WTC 7 when the tremendous amount of gypsum and concrete dust generated during its collapse would likely have extinguished the fires in WTC 1?
Click to expand...

Because the alternative is patently insane.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is interesting, that at the time of its collapse there were fires on only four floors of WTC 1, yet debris from this area is alleged to have ignited fires 350 feet away on ten floors of WTC 7 and doing that without igniting any fires in the buildings adjacent to WTC 7.

I think some here need to think a little more about this scenario before continuing to try and explain its plausibility.
Click to expand...

It would be very interesting indeed if that hightlighted portion had any basis in reality.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is interesting, that at the time of its collapse there were fires on only four floors of WTC 1, yet debris from this area is alleged to have ignited fires 350 feet away on ten floors of WTC 7 and doing that without igniting any fires in the buildings adjacent to WTC 7.
Click to expand...

You're just repeating the same assertions, apart from "there were fires on only four floors of WTC 1" which is patently absurd.
 
GlennB said:
You're just repeating the same assertions, apart from "there were fires on only four floors of WTC 1" which is patently absurd.
Click to expand...

It was only about four floors in WTC 1 that had fires on them at the time of its collapse.

Remember the woman standing in the aircraft impact hole before the collapse. The fires were out in a significant part of the impact zone and some had moved upward.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
How many floors in WTC 1 had fires on them at the time of its collapse?

Remember the woman standing in the aircraft impact hole before the collapse. The fires were out in a significant part of the impact zone and some had moved upward.
Click to expand...

How many fires were on floors that we couldn't see because they were away from the windows? Serious question, now. I want to know.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If you want the sides of a box to fall you cut the corners.

But back to WTC 7.

I would like to see people here explain why it makes sense to them that WTC 7 would have had fires on ten different floors (7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 28, and 30) ignited, with no fires ignited in the immediately adjacent Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings, if the WTC 7 fires had actually been caused during the collapse of WTC 1?

A second question would be

Why would items from WTC 1 still be capable of igniting fires in WTC 7 when the tremendous amount of gypsum and concrete dust generated during its collapse would likely have extinguished the fires in WTC 1?
Click to expand...

Wow......even a grade school kid understand that fire requires HEAT, A FUEL SOURCE and OXYGEN. Dust does not eliminate any of those three.
Guess in trooferville, there has never been a grain elevator explosion. :rolleyes:
 
pgimeno said:
I think I know who the first commenter is :D
Click to expand...
Heh.

Tony Szamboti said:
It was only about four floors in WTC 1 that had fires on them at the time of its collapse.
Click to expand...
"Only" - why must 9/11 truth use weasel words in almost every claim they make. "Only" four floors on fire. Heck, that's "only" half a million cubic feet of active fire. Practically nothing.
 
With regard to the fires in WTC 7, I think it would be a good idea to recall the testimony of Mike Catalano (building engineer of WTC 7). After the collapse of WTC 2 he made the following observation:

He went to the 4th floor cafeteria where he knew there was an emergency door. In fact, there were two emergency exits. The one door had a broken handle so it couldn't be used. The other door, when opened was full of fire and smoke (colored). He also looked out the window to see if they could jump onto the ConEd building but there was a huge fire there.
Click to expand...

Source: http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00136.pdf
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Edna Cintron is standing in the impact hole in WTC 1 and there are no fires behind her.
Click to expand...
... she is in the opening because the air feeding the biggest office fires in history cools your burnt skin from fires she survived. The fires cook your skin from across the room, and now you mock the murdered with CD and BS about an inside job so convolute you can't explain it - your evidence is nonsense, your claims silly dumbed down delusions.

Edna Cintron is standing in the impact hole getting fresh air, and behind her are the biggest office fires in history. Wonder how badly she is burnt to be standing that close to falling? Any clue on that Tony? Why not take your realcddeal to a fantasy forum where you can be god of woo.

Tony says only four floors had fires at time of collapse, only four acres of office fires are available to start cars, trucks and buildings on fire.
Add fire to the list of topic 911 truth followers can't do.
 
We need to get back to WTC 7 here, since it is the subject of the thread.

Of course, the thread asks the question about a single column failure precipitating a complete building collapse.

What is interesting with what we know now, with the NIST structural feature omissions, is that column 79 could have never buckled, since it would have never been without lateral support. I think that answers the question of the thread.

Now since we know the official story tellers were not honest in the NIST WTC 7 report, as evidenced by the pertinent structural features being omitted, we should be asking other questions about their alleged storyline. The most pertinent I can think of is how the fires were even started in WTC 7, given that the few floors of fire in WTC 1 would have been extinguished early in the collapse by gypsum and concrete dust, and it is extremely improbable for anything hot enough to make it all the way over to WTC 7 at 350 feet away and busting into the building on ten stories from the 7th to the 30th floor and successfully igniting fires.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
... she is in the opening because the air feeding the biggest office fires in history cools your burnt skin from fires she survived. The fires cook your skin from across the room, and now you mock the murdered with CD and BS about an inside job so convolute you can't explain it - your evidence is nonsense, your claims silly dumbed down delusions.

Edna Cintron is standing in the impact hole getting fresh air, and behind her are the biggest office fires in history. Wonder how badly she is burnt to be standing that close to falling? Any clue on that Tony? Why not take your realcddeal to a fantasy forum where you can be god of woo.

Tony says only four floors had fires at time of collapse, only four acres of office fires are available to start cars, trucks and buildings on fire.
Add fire to the list of topic 911 truth followers can't do.
Click to expand...

I don't see major fires behind Edna as you would have us believe. See the attached photo.
 

Attachments

  • Edna Cintron in WTC 1 hole.jpg
    Edna Cintron in WTC 1 hole.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 40
Tony Szamboti said:
I think your conjecture about transformer explosions is unsupported and I don't think you have any idea what kind of protection high end large transformers would have or how fast or slow it is.

I have never seen any report that said that thirteen 13.8kV feeds went down when the first plane struck the North Tower.

All I need to know about explosions is seen on the corners of the North Tower in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8. Those focused ejections on the corners are not due to compressed air from the floors collapsing.
Click to expand...


You post this comment and now you want to talk about building 7 :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom