Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[jaydeehess]

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?

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 the hell kind of response to my question is that?
You stated that one aspect of the fires you thought did not make sense is due to the idea that the dust should have smothered small fires. I, and Beachnut then wished to remind you that your organization contends that this very dust was laden with therm?the.
So, once again, do you or do you not see a contradiction in saying that this dust would be a fire suppressant?

I admit its a small point but it is one you brought up. However, are you so blinded by true belief that you cannot even see this internal inconsistency?

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

This has been covered in the past. Have we somehow gone back a year or two in time?

The north side of WTC1 is basically parallel to the south wall of WTC7 and, importantly, its also pretty much directly south of WTC7 whereas the Verizon and Post Office buildings are to the NW and NE of WTC1.
Look at the second diagram here
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

You also completely ignored my earlier question as to why you require the hot or burning material from WTC1 to be what breaks windows in WTC7.
In fact less dense , burning material could just as easily entered the structure after window breakage from heavier items.

I noted above, which you also ignored, that both the Verizon and Post Office suffered less impact damage, including but not limited to window breakage, than did WTC7 and even that the eastern portions of WTC7 suffered less impact damage than did its western areas.

It is patently obvious that WTC7 took more damage because the north wall of WTC 1 lined up in such a way as to send more debris into WTC 7 than the structures to the east and west.

 

[jaydeehess]

As to other causes of WTC7 fires:
This building had several generators to supply power if street power went out. Indeed street power did go out so one can expect that at least a couple of gensets kicked in. That means that when southern offices saw impact from heavy debris those offices could easily still be powered whereas in other buildings this would not be as common. That opens up the greater probability that electrical fires were caused in offices when WTC1 collapsed than would be the case in other structures such as Bankers Trust.(hit by WTC2)

 

[NoahFence]

The result:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg[/qimg]

Was that giant gash there before?

 

[pgimeno]

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.

Remember the WTC1 debris caused a gash in the WTC7 façade, allowing burning debris to get into the building, just as it got into the cars. Not the case of adjacent buildings.

Can anyone here tell us how much lateral force it would take to hurl a 1,000 lb. item from the 96th floor of WTC 1 (1,150 feet high) to WTC 7's 30th floor (390 feet high and 350 feet away horizontally) and then break through the building and start a fire?

Very little, if it is "hurled" by tipping over, as was the case.

 

[Animal]

Remember the WTC1 debris caused a gash in the WTC7 façade, allowing burning debris to get into the building, just as it got into the cars. Not the case of adjacent buildings.



Very little, if it is "hurled" by tipping over, as was the case.

It is comical that troofers insisted that the WTC towers should have toppled like a tree.....yet when the wall of columns on the exterior did essentially that......they claim shifts to it being impossible.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

So in your opinion the vast majority of debris wasn't dense enough to smother fires, and it was only a very small minority of debris that was dense enough to collapse the building and fly over to WTC 7 to set it ablaze.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You also completely ignored my earlier question as to why you require the hot or burning material from WTC1 to be what breaks windows in WTC7.
In fact less dense , burning material could just as easily entered the structure after window breakage from heavier items.

I noted above, which you also ignored, that both the Verizon and Post Office suffered less impact damage, including but not limited to window breakage, than did WTC7 and even that the eastern portions of WTC7 suffered less impact damage than did its western areas.

It is patently obvious that WTC7 took more damage because the north wall of WTC 1 lined up in such a way as to send more debris into WTC 7 than the structures to the east and west.

So you think some of the debris acted as a pathfinder by first breaking windows in WTC 7 and it was then followed by the hot debris, but this didn't happen in the Verizon or Post Office buildings because they weren't lined up with the north face of WTC 1.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Remember the WTC1 debris caused a gash in the WTC7 façade, allowing burning debris to get into the building, just as it got into the cars. Not the case of adjacent buildings.



Very little, if it is "hurled" by tipping over, as was the case.

My point is that there are a series of things that significantly decrease the chances of burning debris getting into WTC 7


1. WTC 1 only had parts of about four floors ablaze when it collapsed so there was a limited amount of "burning debris".

2. The gypsum and concrete dust generated by the collapse would have smothered the fires shortly after the collapse initiated. Beachnut and Animal say this is impossible but don't provide any basis for their opinions.

3. The collapse would have caused conduction of heat to cooler material.

4. WTC 7 was 350 feet away from WTC 1, whose collapse was vertical. Gaining the required horizontal velocity to make the trip across to WTC 7 required large horizontal forces to be applied to debris that also happened to still be hot enough, in spite of the above, to start fires.

5. WTC 7's façade was not easy to simply fly through and now you and Jaydeehess are proposing that there was pathfinder debris that need to create a breach first. This has a very low probability of occurrence over ten floors of WTC 7.

6. The Verizon and Post Office buildings did not suffer penetration of their exteriors.

7. Although hit with some debris the Verizon and Post Office buildings were not set ablaze.

8. There is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 1 hour and 47 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1.

The above show that the odds are extraordinarily low that the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 were generated by hot debris from WTC 1. It looks like WTC 7's fires were due to arson with the collapse of the towers blamed.

 

[NoahFence]

What is this four floors nonsense?

Jesus Tony. Take a break. You're talking ragtime. This arson just happened to coincide with Terrorist attack? Just by coincidence??

Someone that day decided to run into wtc7 and set it ablaze.

How even you can't think that is insane is beyond my comprehension.

 

[LSSBB]

My point is that there are a series of things that significantly decrease the chances of burning debris getting into WTC 7


1. WTC 1 only had parts of about four floors ablaze when it collapsed so there was a limited amount of "burning debris".

2. The gypsum and concrete dust would have smothered the fires shortly after the collapse initiated. Beachnut and Animal say this is impossible but don't provide any basis for their opinions.

3. The collapse would have caused conduction of heat to cooler material.

4. WTC 7 was 350 feet away from WTC 1, whose collapse was vertical. Gaining the required horizontal velocity to make the trip across to WTC 7 required large horizontal forces to be applied to debris that also happened to still be hot enough, in spite of the above, to start fires.

5. WTC 7's façade was not easy to simply fly through and now you and Jaydeehess are proposing that there was pathfinder debris that need to create a breach first. This is indeed a low probability to have happen over ten floors of WTC 7.

6. The Verizon and Post Office buildings did not suffer penetration of their exteriors.

7. Although hit with some debris the Verizon and Post Office buildings were not set ablaze.

Sounds like you need to do a computer simulation to figure out the distribution. Don't for get to include E=mgh converting to E=1/2mv². Plus the fact that the x, y, & z and roll, pitch & yaw of each component as it impacts interacts with the x, y & z and roll, pitch & yaw of each component it hits to determine the resulting direction of the velocity vector and the rotation of the component.

If you prefer, though, go ahead and do it by hand or in your head.

 

[DGM]

My point is ..............................................................

With all that evidence you would think people would listen. Could it be the rest of the world might have a better understanding than you? Or are you still claiming they just aren't aware of the events 9/11?

 

[thedopefishlives]

What is this four floors nonsense?

Jesus Tony. Take a break. You're talking ragtime. This arson just happened to coincide with Terrorist attack? Just by coincidence??

Someone that day decided to run into wtc7 and set it ablaze.

How even you can't think that is insane is beyond my comprehension.

Except Tony doesn't think there was a terrorist attack, either. So unfortunately, your premise falls flat in the face of absurd Twoofer logic.

 

[Justin39640]

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?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sounds like you need to do a computer simulation to figure out the distribution. Don't for get to include E=mgh converting to E=1/2mv². Plus the fact that the x, y, & z and roll, pitch & yaw of each component as it impacts interacts with the x, y & z and roll, pitch & yaw of each component it hits to determine the resulting direction of the velocity vector and the rotation of the component.

If you prefer, though, go ahead and do it by hand or in your head.

E=mgh is vertically directed energy only and does not provide for the required horizontal velocity needed for the hot debris to make the 350 foot trip and then still have enough energy to go through the building's exterior and still be hot enough to ignite a fire. The force required to cause that velocity had to be a horizontal impulse in WTC 1 and it would have had to be very large. This would be peculiar for a vertically driven gravity collapse.

 

[NoahFence]

 

[LSSBB]

E=mgh does not cover the required horizontal velocity needed to make the 350 foot trip and then still have enough energy to go through the building's exterior.

It sounds like you are at least seeing there are things which make the probability of the fires in WTC 7 being ignited by debris from WTC 1 low.

It's not low, it's pretty high, since WTC7 caught on fire after debris hit it. Either that, or the friction from the debris started the fires. As for your bare assertion regarding energy, well it has as much value to me as a no-planer's bare assertions that a plane couldn't penetrate WTC1 or WTC2. You do also realize the exterior panels were peeling off, like a tilted hammerhead was slamming through a fragile banana, don't you?

 

[DGM]

E=mgh is vertically directed energy only and does not provide for the required horizontal velocity needed for the hot debris to make the 350 foot trip and then still have enough energy to go through the building's exterior and still be hot enough to ignite a fire. The force required to cause that velocity had to be a horizontal impulse in WTC 1 and it would have had to be very large. This would be peculiar for a vertically driven gravity collapse.

Maybe "they" shot a missile from the towers right after they set the charges to "pull" those buildings?

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's not low, it's pretty high, since WTC7 caught on fire after debris hit it. Either that, or the friction from the debris started the fires. As for your bare assertion regarding energy, well it has as much value to me as a no-planer's bare assertions that a plane couldn't penetrate WTC1 or WTC2. You do also realize the exterior panels were peeling off, like a tilted hammerhead was slamming through a fragile banana, don't you?

Attached is a photo of WTC 1 exterior debris falling which also shows the horizontal distance between WTC 1 and WTC 7. The heavy debris is approximately 60 to 80 feet away from the building, as one would expect, not 350 feet away at WTC 7. Friction from a debris impact is not likely to have been the cause for fires ignited in the interior of WTC 7. It would have largely been dissipated going through the exterior and generally would not generate enough heat to ignite combustibles.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What is this four floors nonsense?

Jesus Tony. Take a break. You're talking ragtime. This arson just happened to coincide with Terrorist attack? Just by coincidence??

Someone that day decided to run into wtc7 and set it ablaze.

How even you can't think that is insane is beyond my comprehension.

The logic and evidence shows it is clear that the fires in WTC 7 could not have been not caused by hot debris from WTC 1.

There is no question that the fires in WTC 7 were set by terrorists. The question is about the identity of the terrorists and it could not have been people in planes.