• 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

Tony Szamboti said:
There is no question that the fires in WTC 7 were set by terrorists. The question is about the identity of the terrorists.

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.
Click to expand...

You need to think. Really think about what your theory requires.
 
NoahFence said:
You need to think. Really think about what your theory requires.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have given it a great deal of thought and cannot walk away from the logic and evidence that the fires in WTC 7 could not have been caused by hot debris from WTC 1 and that the cause of the fires had to be arson.

It required a concerted effort by arsonists/terrorists who are still at large, since everything was neatly blamed on the planes and those in them.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, now show an overhead shot and the debris field.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Many people do not believe the fires in WTC 7 were started by debris from WTC 1 for the above reasons and nobody here has made a case which would say different.
Click to expand...
"Many people do not believe" is weasel wording, just state it as your opinion and we'll keep it simple. Secondly I'm not interested in whether you think the fires were started via arson or via the collapse of two skyscrapers. You simply claimed something that is contradicted by visual documentation. To begin with, you never believed that the fires could initiate the collapses in the first place anyway so this is inconsequential to the conclusion you want this to lead to. It's another derail from the issue that you can't produce anything that would concretely prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a "Controlled Demolition" that caused WTC 7 to collapse, that is the crux of the issue. You can move to those arguments after you have discussed that.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
"Many people do not believe" is weasel wording, just state it as your opinion and we'll keep it simple. Secondly I'm not interested in whether you think the fires were started via arson or via the collapse of two skyscrapers. You simply claimed something that is contradicted by visual documentation. To begin with, you never believed that the fires could initiate the collapses in the first place anyway so this is inconsequential to the conclusion you want this to lead to. It's another derail from the issue that you can't produce anything that would concretely prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a "Controlled Demolition" that caused WTC 7 to collapse, that is the crux of the issue. You can move to those arguments after you have discussed that.
Click to expand...

I am simply showing how people were fooled initially by the superficial plausibility of the present official storyline, but that it is actually found to be bogus and impossible when scrutinized. That is the crux of the issue and the subject of this thread in the sense that it has been shown that the official storytellers have not been honest. This point was driven home heavily when it was discovered that pertinent structural features were omitted from the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis which would have made it impossible.

The present official story for how the fires started in WTC 7 and how it came down is bogus. The fires could not have been started by WTC 1 debris and the building could not have been caused to completely collapse due to a single column failure, as any analysis with the real structure around it included shows that column 79 could not have failed due to fire.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I am simply showing how people were fooled ...............
Click to expand...

No, you're claiming "many people" in a hope that a few will believe you and join in on your fantasy.

It explains why your "movements" growth has been glacier slow.

Keep up the good fight. You might win the internet someday.

Sorry to hear about NIST blowing you off again. Time to tell the Europeans?

:rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Did NIST respond to the Pepper letter? If so, where did you hear about it?
Click to expand...
It was here (a few pages back).

I've got no confirmation but, considering the letter. Do you actually expect a serious response? :eek:

Please, finally admit you think that letters intro is an embarrassment. Someone has to give Gage a clue if you expect to be taken seriously.
 
After all these years of "debate" it seems that no one concedes a thing. I see only entrenchment. Of course each side will claim they are completely correct... nothing to concede.

But really there are things which are interpreted to be A or B and it can't be both and so it's amazing that one side is A and the other B and there is no movement what so ever.

The great irony I find is after all these years it's abundantly clear that there's not enough data from the event... and probably not enough computing power or even software to plug it into to simulate the collapse precisely.

But the principles seem to even be in dispute... that fire can do in these rather unique steel structures in a relatively few hours with no fire suppression. Or that once a section of the structure fails it takes more with it and goes runaway and unstoppable.

Who cares if some detail of some model with assumed data has a flaw? Isn't this insane?

It's getting pretty boring... not a thing new.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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. ...
Click to expand...

That is funny. I thought you guys said the path of least resistance would be taken, thus we have the stuff falling laterally, because your straight down for 911 truth is the path of greatest resistance, and nothing can fall that way. Wait, the path of least resistance is BS made up by a failed 911 truth movement of woo.

E=mgh is the energy stored in the WTC; when the collapse starts the energy equal to 130 tons of TNT is released, and is responsible for the lateral ejections you have shown to be well below the energy release. You debunk your missiles pushing debris fantasy, the silent explosives fantasy, and the insane thermite fantasy. And your dust in your fantasy is filled with thermite which would be burning in the air and under the dust; wait the dust is thermite too. In your fantasy fire is not put out by dust, fire would set off secondary fires in the dust.

Now physics is changed by 911 truth, using Balsamo style physics, and E=mgh can't cause lateral ejections in 911 truth world of woo.

Is that you point? Who planted your thermite which ejected the steel? In your fantasy, did thermite from the WTC towers start the fires in WTC 7, or what?

What about shorts - did you see the copper fires in WTC 7? (fires where copper was present)
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Yes, I have given it a great deal of thought and cannot walk away from the logic and evidence that the fires in WTC 7 could not have been caused by hot debris from WTC 1 and that the cause of the fires had to be arson.

It required a concerted effort by arsonists/terrorists who are still at large, since everything was neatly blamed on the planes and those in them.
Click to expand...

Tell me how it connects to the rest of the day.

You do that, you convert me.
 
JSanderO said:
It's getting pretty boring... not a thing new.
Click to expand...

Getting?

"Truthers" and the "inside job" have been out of the picture for years.

I see aspects of your theory that make perfect sense and could also be a plausible sequence considered on par with NISTs'.

I wouldn't mind hashing out the (what I consider) the lack of initiating factors needed for your theory with you (I think we started once or twice).

This is not going to happen until the "truthers" get over their controlled demolition fantasy and their need for people knowing they are going to be heard.

They're a distraction that keeps this from being productive and interesting. Unfortunately, they will never progress from conspiracy to science. That's why this remains locked forever here.
 
JSanderO said:
After all these years of "debate" it seems that no one concedes a thing. I see only entrenchment. Of course each side will claim they are completely correct... nothing to concede.

But really there are things which are interpreted to be A or B and it can't be both and so it's amazing that one side is A and the other B and there is no movement what so ever.

The great irony I find is after all these years it's abundantly clear that there's not enough data from the event... and probably not enough computing power or even software to plug it into to simulate the collapse precisely.

But the principles seem to even be in dispute... that fire can do in these rather unique steel structures in a relatively few hours with no fire suppression. Or that once a section of the structure fails it takes more with it and goes runaway and unstoppable.

Who cares if some detail of some model with assumed data has a flaw? Isn't this insane?

It's getting pretty boring... not a thing new.
Click to expand...

No, it is not insane to complain that NIST's collapse initiation analysis omitted pertinent structural features that make their hypothesis impossible when included. It is a big deal.
 
DGM said:
It was here (a few pages back).

I've got no confirmation but, considering the letter. Do you actually expect a serious response? :eek:

Please, finally admit you think that letters intro is an embarrassment. Someone has to give Gage a clue if you expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

There was nothing about a response from NIST a few pages back. It sounds like you have some level of knowledge you aren't being forthright with. Do you?
 
LSSBB said:
Why is it a non-starter? Metal on metal doesn't spark?
Click to expand...

The chance of fire being started by friction from impact of relatively slow moving objects is extremely low and once inside the building the impacted items would most likely be furniture, carpet, and drywall.

Let's see a calculation if you actually believe what you say here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom