'What about building 7'?

[Tony Szamboti]

If the above is the best those, who would continue to insist that the fires in WTC 7 were started by the North Tower collapse and that the building collapsed due to those fires, can do, then it seems the argument/discussion is over, with the reality being that they can't refute the fact that the observations and logic show that the fires had to be a result of arson and the building was intentionally demolished with its core being removed over eight stories.

 

[ProBonoShill]

If the above is the best those, who would continue to insist that the fires in WTC 7 were started by the North Tower collapse and that the building collapsed due to those fires, can do, then it seems the argument/discussion is over, with the reality being that they can't refute the fact that the observations and logic show that the fires had to be a result of arson and the building was intentionally demolished with its core being removed over eight stories.

You have a little problem Tony, you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your laughable claims.

Tony and his truthers friends, batting a big fat .000 for almost 14 years.

Keep posting Sport, I love the free comedy.

 

[NoahFence]

If the above is the best those, who would continue to insist that the fires in WTC 7 were started by the North Tower collapse and that the building collapsed due to those fires, can do, then it seems the argument/discussion is over, with the reality being that they can't refute the fact that the observations and logic show that the fires had to be a result of arson and the building was intentionally demolished with its core being removed over eight stories.

Yea, and you and your kind can't even begin to come to grips that whoever started those fires in WTC 7 had to have been in on whatever was going on in the Pentagon and Shanksville.

I'm thinking your ignorant, willfull dishonesty regarding that little nugget overrides whatever fantasy world makes you think that we can't come to grips with an arson started while every firefighter in NYC, at least those still alive, was present at that location.

Best and brightest.

 

[beachnut]

If the above is the best those, who would continue to insist that the fires in WTC 7 were started by the North Tower collapse and that the building collapsed due to those fires, can do, then it seems the argument/discussion is over, with the reality being that they can't refute the fact that the observations and logic show that the fires had to be a result of arson and the building was intentionally demolished with its core being removed over eight stories.

Who set the silent explosives which don't break windows? Or are you saying arson fires took out the core for eight stories? How much silent explosives are used by your evil doers who you can't name?

 

[Oystein]

Another interesting point to add is that there were no fires in either the Post Office or Verizon buildings. They were on either side of WTC 7, like WTC 7 were about 350 feet away from the North Tower, and also had some small amount of debris damage ...

It really doesn't help your case to make claims that can be debunked easily within a few minutes of research:
The Verizon buildings's "thick masonry exterior and use of masonry to protect steel columns and structural elements helped the building withstand the attacks. Restoration of the building after the attacks took three years, at a cost of $1.4 billion."

Only in truther world constitutes 1.4 billion repair costs "some small amount of debris damage".

...the observations and logic show that the fires had to be a result of arson and the building was intentionally demolished with its core being removed over eight stories.

Logic...
Observation shows that had fires raged throughout much of floor 7 and most of floor 8 by the time of collapse. As AE911T's "top European demolition expert", Danny Jowenko had explained with regard to the twins, demo charges and/or their detonators catch fire and are destroyed at under 400 °C, which made him declare that the twins cannot possibly have been CDed. Given that logic, how do you suppose charges in the core survived until collapse time? Even Harrit's magic red-gray pixie dust ignites at or below 425 °C. Do you suppose that core columns had been severed long before 5:20pm when fires ignited the thermite charges? And then the core above the 8th floor remained suspended until the NWO allowed them to fall? Tony, where is the logic in all of this?

How can fires be a cover for a building collapse if it is so obvious that buildings can't collapse from fires? If symmetrical collapse is so obviously impossible from natural causes, why did they engineer a symmetrical collapse and not an asymmetrical one?? Where is the damned logic in all of this?

 

[Ziggi]

It really doesn't help your case to make claims that can be debunked easily within a few minutes of research:
The Verizon buildings's "thick masonry exterior and use of masonry to protect steel columns and structural elements helped the building withstand the attacks. Restoration of the building after the attacks took three years, at a cost of $1.4 billion."

Only in truther world constitutes 1.4 billion repair costs "some small amount of debris damage".


Logic...
Observation shows that had fires raged throughout much of floor 7 and most of floor 8 by the time of collapse. As AE911T's "top European demolition expert", Danny Jowenko had explained with regard to the twins, demo charges and/or their detonators catch fire and are destroyed at under 400 °C, which made him declare that the twins cannot possibly have been CDed. Given that logic, how do you suppose charges in the core survived until collapse time? Even Harrit's magic red-gray pixie dust ignites at or below 425 °C. Do you suppose that core columns had been severed long before 5:20pm when fires ignited the thermite charges? And then the core above the 8th floor remained suspended until the NWO allowed them to fall? Tony, where is the logic in all of this?

How can fires be a cover for a building collapse if it is so obvious that buildings can't collapse from fires? If symmetrical collapse is so obviously impossible from natural causes, why did they engineer a symmetrical collapse and not an asymmetrical one?? Where is the damned logic in all of this?

His point was that those buildings had no fires Oystein, not renovation costs. Can you debunk his claim?

 

[Spanx]

His point was that those buildings had no fires Oystein, not renovation costs. Can you debunk his claim?

Why would Oystein need to? He is not claiming Fire. He is claiming there was a substantial damage.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It really doesn't help your case to make claims that can be debunked easily within a few minutes of research:
The Verizon buildings's "thick masonry exterior and use of masonry to protect steel columns and structural elements helped the building withstand the attacks. Restoration of the building after the attacks took three years, at a cost of $1.4 billion."

Only in truther world constitutes 1.4 billion repair costs "some small amount of debris damage".


Logic...
Observation shows that had fires raged throughout much of floor 7 and most of floor 8 by the time of collapse. As AE911T's "top European demolition expert", Danny Jowenko had explained with regard to the twins, demo charges and/or their detonators catch fire and are destroyed at under 400 °C, which made him declare that the twins cannot possibly have been CDed. Given that logic, how do you suppose charges in the core survived until collapse time? Even Harrit's magic red-gray pixie dust ignites at or below 425 °C. Do you suppose that core columns had been severed long before 5:20pm when fires ignited the thermite charges? And then the core above the 8th floor remained suspended until the NWO allowed them to fall? Tony, where is the logic in all of this?

How can fires be a cover for a building collapse if it is so obvious that buildings can't collapse from fires? If symmetrical collapse is so obviously impossible from natural causes, why did they engineer a symmetrical collapse and not an asymmetrical one?? Where is the damned logic in all of this?

Oystein, your post here is either disingenuous or your understanding is flawed.

First, you need to understand that the Verizon building suffered much of its damage from the collapse of WTC 7, which it was right next to, not from the North Tower, which is the situation I was talking about.

The point is that, it along with the Post Office building had no fires, yet strangely two hours after the North Tower collapsed WTC 7 had ten floors on fire which the now discredited NIST WTC 7 report tried to claim was due to the collapse of the North Tower. This is even though

- the building was 350 feet away.

- there was massive amounts of gypsum dust being poured onto the four or five floors with fires in the North Tower when it collapsed.

- there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 for nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed.

- neither the Verizon or Post Office buildings had fires.

As for your implication that charges cannot be shielded from fire, I would say they can, and that you have no idea and can't make that statement conclusively. There is also no need for wires with radio control. In addition, WTC 7 had 47 floors with 10 of them having been set on fire, so charges could be placed on floors where fires would not be set.

If you actually believe the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of the North Tower, please say

- why you think there was none in the Verizon or Post Office buildings.

- how you think burning debris from four or five floors in the North Tower could stay lit with all of the gypsum raining on them during the collapse.

- how you think this burning debris from the four or five fire floors in the North Tower could travel 350 feet to WTC 7.

- why you think there was no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 for nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed.

 

[Spanx]

Oystein, your post here is either disingenuous or your understanding is flawed.

First, you need to understand that the Verizon building suffered much of its damage from the collapse of WTC 7, which it was right next to, not from the North Tower, which is the situation I was talking about.

The point is that, it along with the Post Office building had no fires, yet strangely two hours after the North Tower collapsed WTC 7 had ten floors on fire which the now discredited NIST WTC 7 report tried to claim was due to the collapse of the North Tower. This is even though

- the building was 350 feet away.

- there was massive amounts of gypsum dust being poured onto the four or five floors with fires in the North Tower when it collapsed.

- there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 for nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed.

- neither the Verizon or Post Office buildings had fires.

As for your implication that charges cannot be shielded from fire, I would say they can, and that you have no idea and can't make that statement conclusively. There is also no need for wires with radio control.

If you actually believe the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of the North Tower, please say

- why you think there was none in the Verizon or Post Office buildings.

- how you think burning debris from four or five floors in the North Tower could stay alit with all of the gypsum raining on them.

- how you think this burning debris from the four or five fire floors in the North Tower could travel 350 feet to WTC 7.

- why you think there was no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 for nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed.

Well done Tony a very nice post.

It's good to see how the mind of one of Ae911 truths finest works. It explains a lot and why you are unable to progress.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

His point was that those buildings had no fires Oystein, not renovation costs. Can you debunk his claim?

Speaking of debunking claims, we're still waiting for Gerry to respond to Oystein and Reactor drone's posts from page 111:

"The top of the columns at floor 16 were fixed in the global x- and y- directions, to prevent lateral displacements..."

Note, only the top and bottoms were fixed in the x- and y- directions, the rest of the columns could move in all directions.

Where does it say top AND bottom?
They were free in the z axis.

Just before the bit that I quoted.

...Here, let me read out p484 NCSTAR 1-9 for ya:

"Displacement Boundary Conditions

The column nodes at the base of the 16 story model were fully fixed to model the rigidity of the grillage and foundation (Chapter 2). The top of the columns at Floor 16 were fixed in the global x- and ydirections, to prevent lateral displacements, and were free in the global z-direction, to allow vertical displacement of the columns in response to gravity loads and thermal expansion. The purpose of the ANSYS model was to simulate the accumulation of local damages and failures up to the initiation of overall global collapse due to fire. The building was not expected to displace significantly in the x- and y-directions outside of the floors with no fire and there was no interaction between adjacent columns for relatively small motions in the z-direction, due to limited load re-distribution mechanisms."​

No other Displacement Boundary Conditions are mentioned, and since they explicitly state those for the bottom and the top of the 16-story assembly, I am sure you will agree with what I implied initially: the 16-story FEA model DOES reflect the deformations and displacements in all directions that reality necessarily must have seen - on all floors except the very top and the very bottom. It would help your credibility to admit that the model does indeed reflect movement of all nodes on all the relevant floors (5-13 at least) in all spatial directions. If you go on denying or ignoring this FACT, this would serve to further undermine your credibility.

 

[GlennB]

Two hours? How long did it take for photographers to have access to the S side of the building given the conditions there? Who was paying attention given the hell of GZ? Dear FSM. Meanwhile, note which building took the major hit:

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

If the above is the best those, who would continue to insist understand that the fires in WTC 7 were started by the North Tower collapse and that the building collapsed due to those fires, can do, then it seems the argument/discussion is over...

You know, for a minute I took this to mean that Tony wouldn't be posting in this thread any more...

 

[LSSBB]

I have looked at the big picture and tend to think it was settling thermite that caused the vehicle fires. The vehicles had a significant amount of plastic on their exterior which would have readily ignited and spread. The buildings weren't nearly as vulnerable as their exteriors don't contain flammable material.

What do you think caused those vehicle fires Redwood? And if you think it is the same thing that caused the fires in WTC 7 please explain what you think the mechanism would have been and why it wouldn't have affected the Post Office and Verizon buildings.

It is sad that you so easily use the word pathetic in a discussion with others.

That's not the big picture, that's the backfitting your conclusion picture. To continue to assert flaming debris would not spread fires, or dust would smother those fires is weird. It's as if every flame falling has a little cloud of dust around it ready to pounce on the fire where it lands, or as if fire is homogeneously mixed through the dust. Tony, nothing you can say off the top of your head will rule out flaming debris from one building starting fires in the hastily evacuated building the debris falls on. Unless you have documentary evidence of where every flaming chunk went and what happened when it landed, you can't rule it out. And there are other sources such as electrical fires and metal-on-metal friction. It's (another) dead end for Trutherism, just like the missing inch was when NIST said "Thanks. Conclusion doesn't change."

It's been well over 13 years now. Bin laden is dead. Bush is out of office. Obama has 2 years to go. And the best there is to offer is incredulity about how fires spread, from folks with no fire science background? Are we back to MSPaintFire again? Hamster wheel indeed.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The simple reality is that the fires in WTC 7 could not possibly have been started by the North Tower collapse^{1, 2} and the symmetric ⁵ free fall⁵ collapse of the building could not possibly have been a result of the fires in it. Both are fairy tales used in the NIST WTC 7 report. That report was weak when it was first published and was heavily criticized^3,6. It has since lost all credibility due to its need to omit pertinent structural features^{3, 4} to even get to a hypothesis that had some superficial plausibility. Unfortunately, for those who would promote the myth that fires brought this building down, the report fell completely apart when scrutinized after the drawings were released, and the omitted features were discovered^3,4,6
The only real answers are arson to start the fires¹ and controlled demolition to cause the symmetric free fall collapse by removing eight stories of core columns low in the building.

No poster on this forum who still wants to believe that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the North Tower collapse and that WTC 7 collapsed due to those fires has called anyone on anything in that regard and they have never provided any proof or evidence to back their beliefs.

Every one of those things is:

1. a bald assertion
2. contradiction to documented evidence
3. involves omitting information from the documentation being criticized
4. false dichotomy
5. irrelevancy that has nothing to do with the collapse culprits
6. or some combination of any of the aforementioned or others that are not listed here.

...I see nothing new here, though considering, the issues you, Gerry, et al have with the "ommitted connections" and "girder walk off" meet the ommission and false dichotomy categories. Since you and he A) deem the whole basis of the report to be dependent on getting that micro detail (in)correct, B) omit all suggestions from critics of the NIST report suggesting an alternative, potentially more valid mechanism with the same proximate cause, and C) base your arguments on the limiting all arguments on the micro detail being right, or nothing in the report or suggestions from other critics is correct.

Anyway, criticism and corrections have never stopped you from making these claims and deeming said as null and void. I have no expectation you changing those any time soon.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Every one of those things is:

1. a bald assertion
2. contradiction to documented evidence
3. involves omitting information from the documentation being criticized
4. false dichotomy
5. irrelevancy that has nothing to do with the collapse culprits
6. or some combination of any of the aforementioned or others that are not listed here.

...I see nothing new here, though considering, the issues you, Gerry, et al have with the "ommitted connections" and "girder walk off" meet the ommission and false dichotomy categories. Since you and he A) deem the whole basis of the report to be dependent on getting that micro detail (in)correct, B) omit all suggestions from critics of the NIST report suggesting an alternative, potentially more valid mechanism with the same proximate cause, and C) base your arguments on the limiting all arguments on the micro detail being right, or nothing in the report or suggestions from other critics is correct.

Anyway, criticism and corrections have never stopped you from making these claims and deeming said as null and void. I have no expectation you changing those any time soon.

Since the NIST WTC 7 Report's collapse initiation hypothesis has been shown by hand calculations to be impossible if the omitted structural features were included (or at the very least on very shaky ground without a new FEA to show it unambiguously), it would be interesting to see your alternative, if you have one.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Since the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation has been shown to be impossible if the omitted structural features were included, it would be interesting to see your alternative, if you have one.

Tony...try reading the NIST reports, they are free, and you can download them online.

Controlled Demolition - Impossible theory, zero evidence to support it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Since the NIST WTC 7 Report's collapse initiation hypothesis has been shown by hand calculations to be impossible if the omitted structural features were included (or at the very least on very shaky ground without a new FEA to show it unambiguously), it would be interesting to see your alternative, if you have one.

I have viewed those calculations that do not take in rise in set plate at column height placing the girder at an incline and associated bucking of column go back and do the calculations on a nonlinear mode of per cubic inch expansion.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony...try reading the NIST reports, they are free, and you can download them online.

Controlled Demolition - Impossible theory, zero evidence to support it.

I have read the NIST reports and can actually discuss what they say. I have my doubts as to whether you have or not because you don't discuss the details and only make snide remarks against those with whom you don't agree.

It is thus actually impossible to talk to you on an intellectual level about this subject and is why I usually don't respond to you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have viewed those calculations that do not take in rise in set plate at column height placing the girder at an incline and associated bucking of column go back and do the calculations on a nonlinear mode of per cubic inch expansion.

I saw that you actually believe the column 79 growth due to thermal expansion played a part in the alleged walk-off. Okay, show us how much the column expanded at the 300 degree C temperature the NIST WTC 7 report said they were at on certain fire floors. Then show how you think that changes the analysis.

I would hope you realize the expansion would only affect the longitudinal angle and not the lateral and that is also contingent on whether or not column 44 was at the same temperature as column 79.

 

[MileHighMadness]

I have read the NIST reports and can actually discuss what they say. I have my doubts as to whether you have or not because you don't discuss the details and only make snide remarks against those with whom you don't agree.

It is thus actually impossible to talk to you on an intellectual level about this subject and is why I usually don't respond to you.

Tony...I'm both a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) and Structural Engineer (SE), with BSCE/MSCE from Purdue. I believe you are an unlicensed mechanical engineer with little knowledge of steel framed buildings. So you are right, we are not on the same intellectual level.

Details...when you sent me a video of you computer model of Building 7 and the column 79/girder connection; I give you a detailed breakdown the of the major errors and emission within your model. You called them minor nitpicks, clearly showing (like most 9/11 truthers) you have a closed mind, and are unwilling to look at the facts and evidence in a logical matter.

Tony...what is your endgame? What are you trying to achieve? Because right now you are just wasting your life and everyone's time.