Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Tony Szamboti]

You are a sick puppy, Tony. Who in the hell cares what you see.


Yes.


Yes.


In your fantasy, yes. In reality, no.



Fire break is, on a scale of 1 to 10 of "Tony Szamboti's stupidest analogies regarding 9/11," around a 7.5. No.

Are you still wasting your day off? Go do something else.

I would say you sound sick with the way you comment. As for what I am doing with my time, that is my prerogative. Why are you spending your time here all day reading what I am saying? Aren't you off of work today also?

 

[carlitos]

preserving this for the Tony edit

I will reply when the edit window is done. In the meantime, I have work to do.

I would say you sound sick with the way you comment. As for what I am doing with my time, that is my prerogative. Why are you spending your time here all day reading what I am saying? Isn't this your day off?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I will reply when the edit window is done. In the meantime, I have work to do.

Do you actually read and reply to this forum from work?

 

[LSSBB]

 

[carlitos]

Do you actually read and reply to this forum from work?

Yes, but it doesn't really affect my productivity. I listen to music, talk radio, and occasionally go for a walk or drive too. Crazy, huh?

Anyway, why do I "sound sick" when I note that you just made up "fire break" as the umpteenth theory in your series of lies and incredulity regarding how the Salomon Brothers Building caught fire.

 

[beachnut]

No, I am trying to understand the logic of the official storyline, which alleges that WTC 7 was set ablaze and ultimately collapsed due to natural circumstances. It does not make sense in the case of how WTC 7 was set ablaze and we now know those responsible for giving us that storyline were not honest, due to the discovery that pertinent structural features were omitted in the collapse initiation analysis.

The logic is moving in the direction of the official storyline being a fairy tale instead of a real story.

What a load of BS, you can't source any of this junk as you make it up like CD.

"Those responsible", remain unnamed. Do you make this up all by yourself?

 

[Animal]

This from the person who apparently doesn't think fires can be extinguished by cutting off the oxygen by smothering it with gypsum and concrete dust which would act the same as dirt. You only need to take away one side of the fuel, oxygen, and heat triangle to extinguish a fire. When I was in the U.S. Navy we used PKP (Purple K Powder) as a fire extinguishing agent. It cut off the oxygen to the fire. The gypsum and concrete dust would act the same way.

The gypsum and concrete dust would have certainly smothered the fires in WTC 1 quickly when the collapse started. So it is a mystery to many as to how the debris from WTC 1 could have started the fires on ten floors in WTC 7, especially considering it was 350 feet away.

The sign of a desperate troofer........you cannot advance your own failed argument, so you create false ones about other people. The vast majority of debris falling was not near dense enough to smother fires.....as evident by the burning cars etc on the street. You continue to gin up more fantasies to keep your religious beliefs alive.

 

[beachnut]

Do you actually read and reply to this forum from work?

Doesn't everyone post from work?

I do.
It is hard work. It beats pushing a CD fantasy for nearly 7 years based on nonsense.

 

[DGM]

Do you actually read and reply to this forum from work?

I'm my boss. I don't mind. It's also entertaining when I have engineers in my office. They love you guys.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Gee, E=mgh is more than enough. The cool part is you can't do the math. That is cool.

Can burning debris start fires? lol, you are unable to explain your CD lie, and now you deny fires started from falling debris. Keep up the woo about the biggest office fires in history. How does this help your CD lie?

E= mgh is only the vertical component. You need horizontal force and acceleration to go the 350 lateral feet from WTC 1 to WTC 7.

I can do the math. Can you?

Just in case you can't, a 1,000 lb. piece would need a 51 ft/s average velocity to go 350 feet horizontally while also descending vertically for 760 feet at the rate of gravity.

Force = (Velocity x weight) / (acceleration due to gravity x time)

If the lateral impulse to bring the 1,000 lb. item up to a 51 ft/s velocity took place in 10 milliseconds the force would be about 158,000 lbs. This is not a short impulse duration for steel on steel and the horizontal impulse is also a quite large to be occurring in a gravity collapse.

Do you really think large pieces of WTC 1 debris, that were also hot enough to ignite fires and penetrate the exterior of WTC 7, are what caused the fires on ten floors in the building, but caused no fires in the Verizon and Post Office buildings? If so, there are people who have a bridge in Brooklyn they want to sell you.

 

[NoahFence]

No one doubts that a layer of dust can smother a fire Tony. However your organization has made the case that this particular dust was heavily laden enough with therm?te as to allow the rubble fires to burn for weeks. Now you wish to say that this therm?te laden dust is a fire suppressent. Do you or do you not, see a contradiction in that?

This topic has gone off the deep end.

There is no way physically possible for WTC 7 to be anything other than damage AND/OR fire.

Just no way possible.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Another reason to doubt the story that debris (pieces) from WTC 1 were responsible for igniting the fires in WTC 7 is that pieces which hit other buildings like the Post Office and the Verizon building did not penetrate them and only did damage to the exterior.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Another reason to doubt the story that debris (pieces) from WTC 1 were responsible for igniting the fires in WTC 7 is that pieces which hit other buildings like the Post Office and the Verizon building did not penetrate them and only did damage to the exterior.

So buildings that were constructed differently responded differently to getting struck by debris? Wow, I'm shocked!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So buildings that were constructed differently responded differently to getting struck by debris? Wow, I'm shocked!

I would say what you are saying is very unlikely to be the reason the pieces of WTC 1 did not penetrate the Verizon and Post Office buildings. I would say the required horizontal velocity and energy was not sufficient to penetrate any robustly constructed exterior like that of the Verizon building, WTC 7, and the Post Office building.

Unless you can substantiate that WTC 7 was somehow more susceptible to penetration, from relatively low velocity debris, than the other two buildings, your comment is indicative of one who jumps to conclusions with no basis for them.

 

[NoahFence]

It should also be noted that one of the ways fire is fought is with a fire break, where fuel is cleared away in the case of a forest so the fire can't spread.

The 350 feet between WTC 1 and WTC 7 was a very large fire break, and it seemed to have worked quite well with the Verizon and Post Office buildings. Why didn't it work for WTC 7? Could it be it actually did, but the fires in WTC 7 were deliberately set and blamed on the collapse of WTC 1? That would explain why the Verizon and Post Office buildings weren't set ablaze.

It seems that those here who don't want to believe there are serious questions about how the fires actually started in WTC 7 do not have good answers for those questions.

You do understand you don't have any good answers for those questions either, right?

Or perhaps you do. Just when are you going to be so kind as to tell us what it is? Are you waiting for your deathbed to reveal how this magical fire was started? Are you waiting for the end to prove it?

What's the point in that? If I had this all wrapped up, as we assume you do, I'd have shown the world the proof light years ago, not spent the better part of a decade trying to convince a slew of people who can't do anything with the information how right I was. We're just lonely old JREF. We can't fully appreciate your insight. Tell the world.

If not damage and fire, then what - and how?

 

[beachnut]

E= mgh is only the vertical component. You need horizontal force and acceleration to go the 350 lateral feet from WTC 1 to WTC 7.

I can do the math. Can you?

Just in case you can't, a 1,000 lb. piece would need a 51 ft/s average velocity to go 350 feet horizontally while also descending vertically for 760 feet at the rate of gravity.

Force = (Velocity x weight) / (acceleration due to gravity x time)

If the lateral impulse to bring the 1,000 lb. item up to a 51 ft/s velocity took place in 10 milliseconds the force would be about 158,000 lbs. This is not a short impulse duration for steel on steel and the horizontal impulse is also a quite large to be occurring in a gravity collapse.

Do you really think large pieces of WTC 1 debris, that were also hot enough to ignite fires and penetrate the exterior of WTC 7, are what caused the fires on ten floors in the building, but caused no fires in the Verizon and Post Office buildings? If so, there are people who have a bridge in Brooklyn they want to sell you.

Oh noes, there is too much energy in the collapsing building. Oh man, you blew that one.

I don't have to do the math, I saw it happen on 911. Gee, it really happened, and the silly CD fantasy remains evidence free.

 

[GlennB]

Another reason to doubt the story that debris (pieces) from WTC 1 were responsible for igniting the fires in WTC 7 is that pieces which hit other buildings like the Post Office and the Verizon building did not penetrate them and only did damage to the exterior.

We can see in the videos and stills that a substantial piece of WTC1 hit WTC7 but not those other buildings.

Take a break, TS. Your recent posts have been nothing but incoherent gibbering.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I would say what you are saying is very unlikely to be the reason the pieces of WTC 1 did not penetrate the Verizon and Post Office buildings. I would say the required horizontal velocity and energy was not sufficient for any robustly constructed exterior like that of the Verizon building, WTC 7, and the Post Office building.

Unless you can substantiate that WTC 7 was somehow more susceptible to penetration, from relatively low velocity debris, than the other two buildings, your comment is indicative of one who jumps to conclusions with no basis for them.

You would say, but you have no math and no proof. There is affirmative evidence that something did hit WTC7 and did penetrate it. What have you got? NIST-picking and innuendo. I swear I'm not trying to sound like beachnut, but as much of a broken record as he is, he's got a good point.

 

[beachnut]

Oops, WTC 7 was hit by fire on 911, Verizon was not in the giant fallout pattern from WTC 1. Tony, next time study what happened instead of making up nonsense. Better luck with Bigfoot, OKC, and JFK. At least you had the Boston Bombers fooled.

 

[GlennB]

The result: