Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[DGM]

I am looking at the plausibility of natural causes.

If only you looked as closely at the ideas you come up with.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If only you looked as closely at the ideas you come up with.

I am waiting for the day where you actually contribute to the discussion instead of just making inane wise cracks.

 

[GlennB]

Tony, the ignition point of paper is a measly 230°C. Do you seriously suppose that none of the WTC1 debris that hit WTC7 was well above that temperature? All it would take is hot aluminium or drywall or window fittings (or whatever) to be shed on various WTC7 floors as that section of WTC1 slid down and created the well documented gouge.

You really are spouting the most appalling nonsense here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, the ignition point of paper is a measly 230°C. Do you seriously suppose that none of the WTC1 debris that hit WTC7 was well above that temperature? All it would take is hot aluminium or drywall or window fittings (or whatever) to be shed on various WTC7 floors as that section of WTC1 slid down and created the well documented gouge.

You really are spouting the most appalling nonsense here.

The chances of hot material from the relatively small number of floors with fires in WTC 1 (which were pummeled with gypsum and concrete when the collapse started) being launched with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip, penetrate the exterior of WTC 7, and then ignite fires, are exceedingly low. This is clearly why the Verizon and Post Office buildings did not have fires.

You can try to rationalize something like you say above but there is very little chance of it. It really does look like WTC 7's fires were caused by arson. It doesn't matter what you want to hear, that is a realistic appraisal of the situation.

 

[DGM]

I am waiting for the day where you actually contribute to the discussion instead of just making inane wise cracks.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

If you want to declare chances are slim to none, that is your hypothetical. Excuse me for being a logical thinker, I don't just take you making up probabilities off the top of your head as a valid point of argument. Right now what you are presenting is an argument from incredulity. To obtain a correct probability you would need to combine physical analysis with one seriously complex Monte Carlo. And yes, the burden is on you, because you are trying to disprove the most obvious conclusion: photographic evidence shows debris travelled that far in the collapse, debris which ignited fires elsewhere.

 

[Spanx]

The chances of hot material from the relatively small number of floors with fires in WTC 1 (which were pummeled with gypsum and concrete when the collapse started) being launched with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip, penetrate the exterior of WTC 7, and then ignite fires, are exceedingly low. This is clearly why the Verizon and Post Office buildings did not have fires.

You can try to rationalize something like you say above but there is very little chance of it. It really does look like WTC 7's fires were caused by arson. It doesn't matter what you want to hear, that is a realistic appraisal of the situation.

There was a fire in a house a couple of miles down the road from me last year. Can you tell me how it started Tony ? Or perhaps how it didn't start ?

 

[DGM]

There was a fire in a house a couple of miles down the road from me last year. Can you tell me how it started Tony ? Or perhaps how it didn't start ?

This is just another instance of Tony trying to narrow the scope down to something he thinks he can argue against.

For me, I think it's un-likely anything hot from the towers did start the fires. I have no problem believing some debris smashing through the building could cause havoc with the wiring.

 

[GlennB]

The chances of hot material from the relatively small number of floors with fires in WTC 1

There were far more than the 4 you claim, and you know it, and most of us could post the photos if we could be arsed.

(which were pummeled with gypsum and concrete when the collapse started)

Irrelevant. I'm talking about temperature, not flames. Flames are not an absolute requirement to start a fire. You know this. We all know this.

being launched with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip,

But parts of WTC1 did make that trip. You know this.

penetrate the exterior of WTC 7,

They did penetrate, hence the gouge running much of the height of the building.

and then ignite fires, are exceedingly low.

Your unsusbtantiated assertion, and a foolish one.

But if you're still reading, how come cars caught on fire in the parking lot to the W of Verizon, much further than the distance we're discussing? Arson?

 

[pgimeno]

The chances of hot material from the relatively small number of floors with fires in WTC 1 (which were pummeled with gypsum and concrete when the collapse started) being launched with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip, penetrate the exterior of WTC 7, and then ignite fires, are exceedingly low. This is clearly why the Verizon and Post Office buildings did not have fires.

Reality insists on proving you wrong.

There's a lot of dust in there that already did the "350 foot trip" as the wall toppled. It's certainly plausible that there was a pocket of flaming or smoldering material inside that dust cloud, that ignited fires in WTC7 after the center of the façade broke.

Lots of cars caught fire past the "350 foot trip". The dust cloud filled an extremely wide area. You keep denying reality.

But you keep selecting only the pieces of evidence that confirm your beliefs and ignoring reality like above. It will not help your cause. You're clinging to it because you're rational enough to know that there were fires, and that they are a good explanation for the collapse. But you're digging your own hole by claiming that the fires were started by the perpetrators that you fantasize with, which were magically lucky enough to have WTC7 hit by a big piece of falling debris from WTC1, giving them an excuse to start the fire which they would have to have started with no excuse otherwise.

Do you realize how insane that sounds to any rational person?

 

[pgimeno]

There were far more than the 4 you claim, and you know it, and most of us could post the photos if we could be arsed.

From NCSTAR 1-5A:

Here's Fig. 1-5 referenced for the legend:

But parts of WTC7 did make that trip. You know this.

I guess you mean parts of WTC1?

 

[GlennB]

From NCSTAR 1-5A:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/NCSTAR1-5A-fig-8-115.png

Here's Fig. 1-5 referenced for the legend:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/NCSTAR1-5A-fig-5-1.png

I guess you mean parts of WTC1?

Thanks for the diagrams, and yes I did mean.... Wonder if I'm still inside my edit window?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It really does look like WTC 7's fires were caused by arson. It doesn't matter what you want to hear, that is a realistic appraisal of the situation.

Yet when pressured to provide proof of something you say is so obvious........ you provide none. Or you make you premise with fatal starting assumptions....

Here's my summary:

You claim that single column failure is impossible. And claim that there were no naturally occurring fires. You prove it by wanting us to believe magic pixies rigged the building with explosives, poured gasoline inside the buildings and sat them ablaze while rigged to go off. The magic pixies with their magic protected the explosives installed on every floor from the fires until it was time for them to go off and then magically cleaned up all of the explosive residues, debris, and wiring. Then they magically transformed the structural connections so they looked like bolt failures instead of explosive trauma/cuts, thereby preventing you from being able to show this proof to us.

​

And then, the magic pixie hired us operatives to protect what you refer to as the "official story"

I'm sorry if you might view this as mockery but I seriously can't put your avoidance of providing support to your arguments any other way. I think people are atleast entitled to call you out on this if you're going to invest the time in arguing about one set of facts being wrong. How does seemingly proving NIST wrong make you right? What justification is there to believe in "CD" when you either can't, or refuse to prove it? As long as you can't, then arguments like the building was arsoned are - like your "CD" arguments - not up for debate.

In fact... a good analogy for your debate approach is a political argument where you point out everything that's wrong with the other side but completely gloss over or ignore the failings of the party you support.

 

[Spanx]

This is just another instance of Tony trying to narrow the scope down to something he thinks he can argue against.

For me, I think it's un-likely anything hot from the towers did start the fires. I have no problem believing some debris smashing through the building could cause havoc with the wiring.

I'd go along with that.

I thought maybe if I showed Tony a picture of the flames coming out of the roof at the house down the road from me he would be able to tell me the cause. He is very good at sitting at home carrying out his special powers.

 

[carlitos]

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.

After Fires at Golf Courses, Study Suggests Unusual Culprits: Titanium Clubs

Scientists have determined that striking a rock while swinging a titanium club can create a shower of sparks that are hot enough, and last long enough, to start a brush fire.

The finding, by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, clears up what fire officials in Southern California have seen as a mystery: the origin of two recent golf course fires, including one that burned 25 acres and injured a firefighter in 2010.

Steve Concialdi, a captain with the Orange County Fire Authority, in Irvine, said that in both incidents, golfers using 3-irons with titanium-alloy heads had said they hit the ground and created sparks that started the fires.

“That was hard for anybody to believe,” Concialdi said. “We were thinking they were started by cigars or cigarettes.”

You keep denying reality.

,,,

Do you realize how insane that sounds to any rational person?

Does Tony have any comment on how gypsum and concrete dust with magic thermxte in it could "smother" a fire?

 

[Spanx]

So what have we got ?

Planes hit the Towers
Thermite melted steel
Explosives were rigged on every corner on every floor to enable the collapse
Debris didn't hit the towers
Fires were started and dust put them out
Fires were restarted
Thermite started melting the steel
Pre planted explosives then took out 8 floors of building 7
Larry got paid
The war got started
Everyone was happy until the truth movement stepped in.

Is this right ? Or am I not reading Tony's version of events correctly ?

 

[LSSBB]

So what have we got ?

Planes hit the Towers
Thermite melted steel
Explosives were rigged on every corner on every floor to enable the collapse
Debris didn't hit the towers
Fires were started and dust put them out
Fires were restarted
Thermite started melting the steel
Pre planted explosives then took out 8 floors of building 7
Larry got paid
The war got started
Everyone was happy until the truth movement stepped in.

Is this right ? Or am I not reading Tony's version of events correctly ?

Don't forget : the war got started in the wrong country. Oops! The alleged perpetrators are reported to have mused after the fact how to tie it to the intended country.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

After Fires at Golf Courses, Study Suggests Unusual Culprits: Titanium Clubs





Does Tony have any comment on how gypsum and concrete dust with magic thermxte in it could "smother" a fire?

Thermite in the dust isn't a natural process.

I was talking about the complete implausibility of a natural process causing the fires in WTC 7 due to the collapse of WTC 1.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Reality insists on proving you wrong.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTC7Hitbyfire911truthCDdies.jpg[/qimg]

There's a lot of dust in there that already did the "350 foot trip" as the wall toppled. It's certainly plausible that there was a pocket of flaming or smoldering material inside that dust cloud, that ignited fires in WTC7 after the center of the façade broke.

Lots of cars caught fire past the "350 foot trip". The dust cloud filled an extremely wide area. You keep denying reality.

But you keep selecting only the pieces of evidence that confirm your beliefs and ignoring reality like above. It will not help your cause. You're clinging to it because you're rational enough to know that there were fires, and that they are a good explanation for the collapse. But you're digging your own hole by claiming that the fires were started by the perpetrators that you fantasize with, which were magically lucky enough to have WTC7 hit by a big piece of falling debris from WTC1, giving them an excuse to start the fire which they would have to have started with no excuse otherwise.

Do you realize how insane that sounds to any rational person?

So now a pocket of flaming debris in the dust from WTC 1 singled out and penetrated the exterior of WTC 7 and started fires on ten floors, but it didn't do it to the Verizon or Post Office buildings.

This is as bad as the notion that sparks from steel impacting steel started the fires on ten floors that we have been treated to here.

I think what some of you here seem to be suffering from has been termed "an irreducible delusion".

It seems pretty clear, once scrutinized, that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by arson and blamed on the collapse of WTC 1.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There were far more than the 4 you claim, and you know it, and most of us could post the photos if we could be arsed.



Irrelevant. I'm talking about temperature, not flames. Flames are not an absolute requirement to start a fire. You know this. We all know this.



But parts of WTC1 did make that trip. You know this.



They did penetrate, hence the gouge running much of the height of the building.



Your unsusbtantiated assertion, and a foolish one.

But if you're still reading, how come cars caught on fire in the parking lot to the W of Verizon, much further than the distance we're discussing? Arson?

There were not that many fire floors compared with the rest of the tower. A maximum of about 2 to 3% of WTC 1's floor area was involved in fire at the time of the collapse and the chances of that causing fires on ten floors in WTC 7 are extremely remote.

Let's also not forget that after the collapse started, and the fires were extinguished by gypsum and concrete, that anything hot would have been brought into intimate contact with cooler material. That puts a big damper on the chances of any material hot enough to ignite fires making the trip to WTC 7.

If you keep trying you might just convince yourself that something natural had to be responsible for the fires in WTC 7. I wouldn't count on it though, as scrutiny with science says arson had to be the cause.

Personally, I think some form of incendiary was involved in the tower collapses and that it is what caused the vehicle fires. However, that isn't the natural cause some here want to claim for the fires in WTC 7 and the vehicles. Thermite from the twin towers could settle onto the vehicles and caused them to ignite, but it couldn't just settle into WTC 7, and it did not do so in the Verizon and Post Office buildings. Hence, it appears arson would have been necessary for WTC 7.