• 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

NoahFence said:
The real funny thing is that they don't think we can see it.
Click to expand...
No. They want to cloud the event so much we forget to look. This is a propaganda mission for them. They really don't want you to look further than where they tell you to look.

It's why they chose the venues they do to present their ideas. Real research is their worst enemy.
 
jaydeehess said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hmm, must have missed Tony's response.
Beachnut asked it as well.

@beachnut, did you see any reply on this from Tony?
 
I note that this latest bit of back and forth arises from Tony saying that the fires in WTC7 could have been deliberately set.

,,,,and monkeys could soon fly out from a human lower digestive tract. Did I miss Tony telling us what evidence there is for this?

BTW, anyone who has the WTC7 report( my tablet won't download it) , was there any report of fires in the building by the FFs who went in early in the day?
 
jaydeehess said:
I note that this latest bit of back and forth arises from Tony saying that the fires in WTC7 could have been deliberately set.

,,,,and monkeys could soon fly out from a human lower digestive tract. Did I miss Tony telling us what evidence there is for this?

BTW, anyone who has the WTC7 report( my tablet won't download it) , was there any report of fires in the building by the FFs who went in early in the day?
Click to expand...

I've already challenged Tony to provide any affirmative evidence he has for deliberately set fires in WTC7. All I got in response was the wonderful handwaving/reversed burden of proof of, "Prove they weren't deliberately set."
 
I also note that TSz feels that steel on steel friction was unlikely to cause sparks and ignite fires.
Hmm, steel impacting with enough force to take out , for instance, the SW corner over a height of a dozen floors, but no sparks.

Despite the fact that, puny human that I am, I can create sparks hitting a nail with a 16oz hammer, no sparks from tons of steel hitting tons of steel.
 
thedopefishlives said:
I've already challenged Tony to provide any affirmative evidence he has for deliberately set fires in WTC7. All I got in response was the wonderful handwaving/reversed burden of proof of, "Prove they weren't deliberately set."
Click to expand...

Waaaahahahaha

Tony will then be proving that steel on steel cannot produce sparks.
Tony will be proving that dense material could not reach WTC7 and break windows prior to less dense and burning material did.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
I also note that TSz feels that steel on steel friction was unlikely to cause sparks and ignite fires.
Hmm, steel impacting with enough force to take out , for instance, the SW corner over a height of a dozen floors, but no sparks.

Despite the fact that, puny human that I am, I can create sparks hitting a nail with a 16oz hammer, no sparks from tons of steel hitting tons of steel.
Click to expand...

The chances of sparks igniting fires without a volatile fuel mixture present are slim to none.

The fact is that it can be shown that the chances of large hot debris being launched from a few fire affected floors, in a building which was collapsing vertically, with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip to WTC 7, penetrate it, and start fires, are virtually nill for one instance let alone ten floors.

I think it is embarrassing for the apologists trying to maintain the original fairy tale, that the fires in WTC 7 were ignited by hot debris from WTC 1, to now be reduced to claiming sparks from steel on steel impact could have started the fires on ten floors. Especially, when the reality is brought up that the immediately adjacent Verizon and Post Office buildings, which were hit by some debris, did not have fires ignited in them.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The chances of sparks igniting fires without a volatile fuel mixture are slim to none.
Click to expand...

We agree on one thing, we have no idea if it was a spark from two materials colliding or if it was a transformer. I find those sources unlikely or ineffectual to the end result.

It's kind of a pointless discussion anyway since the debris from WTC 1's collapse actually did penetrate the building so while there are a few ways it could have started either directly or indirectly due to the debris striking and penetrating the building it's a totally unnecessary level of detail. The general causation for the fires is already known and with WTC 7 we know it wasn't arson, or at the very least there is no evidence to suggest that it was and you haven't provided it.

People must be bored stiff if they're falling for this sort of detail derail once again and giving this crap any dignity of a response.

Tony Szamboti said:
The fact is that it can be shown that the chances of large enough hot debris from WTC 1 making the 350 foot trip to WTC 7 and then penetrating it and starting fires are virtually nill.
Click to expand...
The chance of significant debris hitting "7" is 100% because we're talking about something that already happened. If you want to argue against photographic eveidence be my guest but you don't get any slack for ignoring reality.

Tony Szamboti said:
Another major problem for the story (in addition to the problems with getting hot heavy debris to fly the 350 foot distance and then penetrate WTC 7's exterior) is that the immediately adjacent buildings were not penetrated and had no fires.
Click to expand...
I find it patently ironic that you would call detail nitpicking down to the friction of materials in collision embarrassing yet you would engage in the same nitpick to the degree that adjacent buildings didn't catch fire.

I already know you "think" there was virtually "no fires" in WTC 7, 1, or 2. I know you "think" there is no way the "column 79 theory" is correct. My question is, when are you going to show us documentation that the structure in WTC7 7 failed due to cutter charges/thermite? I'm pretty sure that you can't, or are you you going to continue dodging this? If you can show any real evidence of "CD" I'll consider it worthwhile as an alternative. But since you haven't I have to go with the more credible fact that the buildings succumbed to fire. That "apologist" label should be reserved for when you actually have something to argue. You've argued in the past that there was a substantial amount of "engineering" (i.e. explosives planted on many many floors/columns) in "demolishing" the buildings, can I expect from you any time soon real evidence, not simply your supposed circumstantial evidence?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The fact is that it can be shown that the chances of large hot debris being launched from a few fire affected floors, in a building which was collapsing vertically, with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip to WTC 7, penetrate it, and start fires, are virtually nill for one instance let alone ten floors.
Click to expand...

Makes some people think that just maybe fires can start in one place and spread. :rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
Makes some people think that just maybe fires can start in one place and spread. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did you forget that there was 350 feet between the buildings and that the fires in WTC 1 were only on the floors near the aircraft impact zone? Or are these things inconsequential in your mind?
 
This raises rather well the point that the CD people SHOULD be able to engineer the demolitions... even as a theoretical and explain how the demo scheme would account for ALL the phenomena in the record... facade peel of the twins kink in the north curtain wall of 7WTC, the tilting top of 2WTC.. the movement of the antenna in 1WTC and of course the absence of steel which seems to have been exploded apart and the connections. The explanation needs to account for the dust production and dispersal, the so called liquid metal under the pile and pouring from the NE corner of 2wtc and so on... Please don't leave anything out. Was the tilting of 2's top intended of something went wrong...but not wrong enough perhaps... What went wrong to cause the tilt?

Go for it Tony!
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Did you forget that there was 350 feet between the buildings and that the fires in WTC 1 were only on the floors near the aircraft impact zone? Or are these things inconsequential in your mind?
Click to expand...


No.

I wonder if your same arson started all the other fires on the site? That must have been a busy bunch.

What did they have against all the other buildings? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Tony:

Wasn't there tons of un-ignited "nano-thermite" all over the place? Didn't you guys say it ignites really easy? Maybe some of that got in a broken window. :rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
No.

I wonder if your same arson started all the other fires on the site? That must have been a busy bunch.

What did they have against all the other buildings? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You would have to ask them precisely what they had against the other buildings.

I am looking at the scientific aspects, which say the present story we have been given to explain the destruction of WTC 7 is not only implausible, it is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Did you forget that there was 350 feet between the buildings and that the fires in WTC 1 were only on the floors near the aircraft impact zone? Or are these things inconsequential in your mind?
Click to expand...

Why didn't anyone notice there were people setting fires?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom