• 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.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There seems to be an awful lot of thermite flying around New York all of a sudden!
 
jaydeehess said:
Arson also took out the entire SW corner of WTC7 as well? WTC5 was on fire and not much closer. 90 west burned as well. Lots of spooks running around planting explosives and setting fires. Is there anything you won't imvent just to keep on with inside jobby job?
Click to expand...

Lets not forget that they also started fires in the collapsed remains of WTC 1 and 2 after the gypsum put out all the fires that were in those buildings when they collapsed. Presumably they had access through the subway tunnels and the underground garage.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There were 24 core columns in WTC 7.

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7. There also is no photographic evidence of the fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM (nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed). The story is quite weak and I am surprised people are falling for it.
Click to expand...
Pop quiz; how on earth did They arrange the collapse with such precision so it didn't disrupt the explosives?

Tony Szamboti said:
...
Anyone who knows these details and still believes the story that the fires on ten stories in WTC 7 were started by the North Tower collapse has to be considered gullible.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Poisoning the Well and Appeal to Incredulity is not very effective when you call the people you're persuading idiots?

Tony Szamboti said:
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. [...]
Click to expand...
For a high-precision stealth controlled demolition, they sure were messy and left evidence everywhere.

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

Says the man who has been repeatedly insulting everyone who doesn't agree with him.

Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...
Szamboti, heal thyself.


JayUtah said:
I always love hearing how "hand calculations" overrule essential complexity. If "hand calculations" were valid investigation for this problem, why didn't the original investigators do it that way?

It's a thinly-veiled nod to standard conspiracism: no matter how complex the underlying science and practice is, the lone conspiracy theorist always manages to trump it using "simple calculations" that almost no one in the relevant field acknowledges.
Click to expand...

And they like to appeal to "Common Sense" while simultaneously presenting themselves as the few people perceptive enough to see The Truth.
 
000063 said:
Pop quiz; how on earth did They arrange the collapsefires with such precision so it didn't disrupt the explosives?
Click to expand...
ftfy?


For a high-precision stealth controlled demolition, they sure were messy and left evidence everywhere.
Click to expand...
Evidence that seems very difficult to determine actually exists. Surely someone has ignited samples of this settled out over kill amount of thermite, in a non-oxygen environment to illustrate the simplest aspect of thermitic material, that it needs no oxygen to burn.
 
On the one hand, Tony seems to be saying that gypsum dust floating in the air would smother any fires, so no fires came into Building 7 through the huge gashes in the SW part of the building after the Towers' collapses. On the other hand, he believes tons of thermite were used to bring down the Towers. Thermite does not require oxygen to burn. Seems like he's trying to have it both ways. Is there no chance that all of that 4500F unquenchable thermite would find its way into Building 7 after the collapses and start fires there?
Here's an alternative hypothesis: At one acre per floor, and 6-7 floors per Tower on fire, that's something like 6 acres per tower where fires or hot embers could be found. The fires were near the top, so when part of the Tower collapsed onto Building 7, it was likely to be the part of the building that was on fire; the fiery part would have tipped over the furthest. The gashes in the SW corner of Building 7 were caused by parts of the Tower crashing into it, leaving holes and allowing burning materials into Building 7. The fires in all three buildings were unfought, so they were allowed to spread rapidly. Eventually the buildings collapsed without the help of thermitic arsonists.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...
When two gigantic flaming buildings collapse nearby the most logical explanation for fire is arson? Really?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Never heard it called that before.
 
tsig said:
Never heard it called that before.
Click to expand...
He meant this:

shadow-puppet_zpsphkpiwwc.jpg
 
chrismohr said:
Here's an alternative hypothesis: At one acre per floor, and 6-7 floors per Tower on fire, that's something like 6 acres per tower where fires or hot embers could be found. The fires were near the top, so when part of the Tower collapsed onto Building 7, it was likely to be the part of the building that was on fire; the fiery part would have tipped over the furthest. The gashes in the SW corner of Building 7 were caused by parts of the Tower crashing into it, leaving holes and allowing burning materials into Building 7. The fires in all three buildings were unfought, so they were allowed to spread rapidly. Eventually the buildings collapsed without the help of thermitic arsonists.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, when the collapses first began, before dust and smoke obscured everything, you can see huge flames being ejected from building. What was happening was that material that was hot enough to ignite but was oxygen-starved inside the building was suddenly given plenty of oxygen. The collapse acted like a giant bellows.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
ftfy? ...
Click to expand...
I meant the collapse of WTC 1. If they toppled it as an cover as Tony claims, how did they make sure nothing hit 7 in a way that disrupted the explosives?

No Truther has ever answered this. Except Clay Moore, who went "computers" and refused to elaborate.
 
Of course truth guy Gage claims there was steel ejected 600' to the West from 1wtc... it was actually panels which toppled and landed as far as 450'... but 7wtc was but 340' north of 1WTC... so much for symmetry... Don't be wantin debris fallin on 7 now.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Furthermore, when the collapses first began, before dust and smoke obscured everything, you can see huge flames being ejected from building. What was happening was that material that was hot enough to ignite but was oxygen-starved inside the building was suddenly given plenty of oxygen. The collapse acted like a giant bellows.
Click to expand...
It need not even be flaming material entering WTC7. A hot chunk of anything over ~450 oF will ignite paper on contact.
 
JSanderO said:
Of course truth guy Gage claims there was steel ejected 600' to the West from 1wtc... it was actually panels which toppled and landed as far as 450'... but 7wtc was but 340' north of 1WTC... so much for symmetry... Don't be wantin debris fallin on 7 now.
Click to expand...

Aren't fires in the street visible in the video in which Hess is at the window? We also know something fairly dense and heavy smacked the south side roof of WTC7 leaving a chunk of the roof edge missing. All in all its pretty obvious that WTC7 debris could reach WTC7(remember when AE911T claimed it couldn't?), and pretty obvious fires were ignited at least as far as WTC7. Its funny that T.Sz. claims WTC7 fires must have been arson AND that vehicle fires must have been settling thermite catching fire. One might think he'd at least keep his fictions internally consistent and have thermite starting the fires in #7. Of course that can not be though since by his reasoning that would require fires in the Post Office and Verizon buildings.
Of course that is why he has to create out of thin air both arson spooks and settling thermite.
Its par for the truther course though, if enough effort is produced by debunkers wrt the begged questions in their thinly described scenarios, they will invent another level of complexity. First it was explosives, no noises of heavy charges, so then it was thermite. Szamboti claims arson in WTC7 but other fires are pointed out so he invents thermite dust causing this.

I see that the fact that the western part of the south face of #7 is directly in line with the north face of WTC1 was mentioned. Not sure if anyone has checked on window breakage comparison between the P.O., Verizon, and WTC7. IIRC #7 had larger windows than those structures. That would allow for greater ingress of debris from #1 as would its location wrt #1.
There is also WTC5 which had very heavy fire involvement and is really not much closer to #1 and off to the NE. Apparently dust was not enough to suppress fires from igniting in that structure.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Someone should write a book about that.

Dave
Click to expand...

It would have to be sci-fi. Hmmm, let's put a spin on it: the big bad govt wants to suppress knowledge in the masses so they outlaw books. To that end the fire Dept. becomes a law enforcement agency tasked with collecting books from those illegally possessing them and burns them. I envision a best seller. Good fiction, and it plays into the fantasies some have about a dystopian future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom