• 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

pgimeno said:
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?
Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:
It seems pretty clear, once scrutinized, that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by arson and blamed on the collapse of WTC 1.
Click to expand...
I rest my case.
 
Tony, this is my third time asking. Are you ever going to provide affirmative evidence for your bald assertion that the fires in WTC7 were "deliberately set"? Or are we just supposed to magically take your word for it because the debris that did in reality travel that far can't possibly have done so?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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
Click to expand...

For about 3 or 4 seconds. So how much does a 10 tonne section of WTC1 steel wall and its associated fittings, at an original 400°C, cool in those few seconds of travel?

Answer: a few degrees, and - to repeat - fire is irrelevant. Flaming fire was not required to ignite materials in WTC7.

I'm quitting this debate as your endlessly irrational responses are becoming quite disturbing. Good luck.
 
Calling the tallest building in New York, on fire, falling into a 47-story building a "natural process" is even weirder than referring to these events in the present tense.

Irreducible delusion, indeed.
 
GlennB said:
For about 3 or 4 seconds. So how much does a 10 tonne section of WTC1 steel wall and its associated fittings, at an original 400°C, cool in those few seconds of travel?

Answer: a few degrees, and - to repeat - fire is irrelevant. Flaming fire was not required to ignite materials in WTC7.

I'm quitting this debate as your endlessly irrational responses are becoming quite disturbing. Good luck.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of things which make your proposition pretty unlikely.

1. To be at 400 degrees C the section you are talking about would have to come from the fire affected zone which limits the chances. See the attached photo, of a large perimeter section falling well short of 350 feet away.

2. The lateral force required to propel a 10 ton section at the required 50 feet per second to travel 350 feet horizontally would be in the 3 million lb. range. That is hard to imagine occurring in a vertically driven collapse.

3. This hot 10 ton section would not be able to start fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 28, and 30.
 

Attachments

  • North Tower debris falling distance.jpg
    North Tower debris falling distance.jpg
    18.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
These arguments for arson at WTC7 are not convincing.

So what's the plan from here? Here are a few possibilities:

1. Find a more convincing argument.

2. Find evidence to make the current argument more convincing.

3. Keep repeating the argument in the hopes that it will become more convincing over time.

4. Pretend the argument is convincing despite the evident fact that almost no one is convinced by it.

5. Abandon the argument.

6. Something else (please fill in).

Any thoughts?
 
DGM said:
What's wrong with damage causing an electrical fire? Not plausible in your expert opinion?
Click to expand...

Unless you can show how a short would occur simply cutting electrical wires will not produce a fire.

Additionally, you have the problem of explaining how this could happen on ten separate floors. What are the chances of that?

It is also curious as to why this did not happen in the Verizon and Post Office buildings.
 
Last edited:
Once again, no affirmative evidence for deliberately set fires. Tony, are we ever going to hear something that isn't "I can't believe the debris did X, Y, or Z?" Because you are making an affirmative claim here, surely you must have some real evidence for it. I'm sure that you must realize, along with the rest of us here, that even if you did disprove that the debris ignited the fires, the default position is NOT "arsonists did it". Just like disproving the NIST probable collapse sequence does not automatically prove inside jobbity-job.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Unless you can show how a short would occur simply cutting electrical wires will not produce a fire.

Additionally, you have the problem of explaining how this could happen on ten separate floors. What are the chances of that?

It is also curious as to why this did not happen in the Verizon and Post Office buildings.
Click to expand...
First. Are you denying that electrical fires happen due to damaged wires?

Second. Are you denying fires can spread once started?

Are you feeling OK? I'm beginning to worry about you. :eek:
 
Myriad said:
These arguments for arson at WTC7 are not convincing.

So what's the plan from here? Here are a few possibilities:

1. Find a more convincing argument.

2. Find evidence to make the current argument more convincing.

3. Keep repeating the argument in the hopes that it will become more convincing over time.

4. Pretend the argument is convincing despite the evident fact that almost no one is convinced by it.

5. Abandon the argument.

6. Something else (please fill in).

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Maybe it isn't convincing to you, but you aren't giving counter arguments so your simple comment does not show the argument has no merit. Scientifically it can be shown that it is extremely improbable for the fires on ten floors in WTC 7 to have been ignited due to the collapse of WTC 1.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
These arguments for arson at WTC7 are not convincing.

So what's the plan from here? Here are a few possibilities:

1. Find a more convincing argument.

2. Find evidence to make the current argument more convincing.

3. Keep repeating the argument in the hopes that it will become more convincing over time.

4. Pretend the argument is convincing despite the evident fact that almost no one is convinced by it.

5. Abandon the argument.

6. Something else (please fill in).

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...


7. ???

8. Profit.
 
DGM said:
First. Are you denying that electrical fires happen due to damaged wires?
Click to expand...

No, if you read what I said you would know that. However, it requires a short to occur and usually that is not the case when wires are simply cut and causing an open where there is no heat buildup.

Second. Are you denying fires can spread once started?
Click to expand...

The fires were not contiguous in most cases. There would have been six separated areas

Floors 7, 8, and 9

Floors 11, 12, and 13

Floor 19

Floor 22

Floor 28

Floor 30

Are you feeling OK? I'm beginning to worry about you. :eek:
Click to expand...

I am fine.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
No, if you read what I said you would know that. However, it requires a short to occur and usually that is not the case when wires are simply cut and causing an open where there is no heat buildup.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume they would be cut clean? I know it helps your denial but, it rarely happens in reality.



Tony Szamboti said:
The fires were not contiguous in most cases.
Click to expand...

Fires don't spread and sometimes jump floors? I think fire professionals might disagree.

Strange how no one from the FDNY was reported as questioning how all these fires got started. Were they "in on it"?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Why would you assume they would be cut clean? I know it helps your denial but it rarely happens in reality.





Fires don't spread and sometimes jump floors? I think fire professionals might disagree.

Strange how no one from the FDNY was reported as questioning how all these fires got started. Were they "in on it"?
Click to expand...

And still, as ever, no affirmative evidence for his affirmative claim. I think I'm finding this discussion more entertaining than the nuts-and-bolts technical discussions surrounding the Missing Jolt or the walk-off that allegedly wasn't. Less requirement for engineering expertise to understand the details.
 
DGM said:
Why would you assume they would be cut clean? I know it helps your denial but, it rarely happens in reality.
Click to expand...

Unless you can show how a short would occur, your proposition of cut wires has a very low likelihood of being the cause for the fires on ten separate floors of WTC 7


Fires don't spread and sometimes jump floors? I think fire professionals might disagree.
Click to expand...

I have never really heard that this happens but I won't say it absolutely can't happen. What I would venture to say is that fires jumping floors is probably a 1 in 10,000 or less chance due to a quirk with some type of feed through mechanism which usually wasn't thought about. So you are clearly reaching here and chances of it occurring in several instances are remote.

Strange how no one from the FDNY was reported as questioning how all these fires got started. Were they "in on it"?
Click to expand...

This is not relevant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom