• 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.
Saying the north tower collapsing onto wtc 7 can't cause fires in wtc 7 is literally as asinine as saying jumping into the ocean won't make you wet.

Or oxygen can't be used to breathe. It's literally that stupid.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Sure it can if you cut two wires with a current flowing through them and then lay a significantly resistive but conductive item across them without the wires being in contact. It will work like an electric stove element. Just cutting the wires won't do though. It needs to maintain contact with both, otherwise you have an open.

Are you proposing this is what happened on ten floors of WTC 7?
Click to expand...

Um. No. Just no. You do not need to cut both the hot and neutral, just the hot and have contact with a ground path which can be a LAN or telephone cable, water pipe, even rebar or exterior metal cladding. Our electrician at work was moving a light fixture in our 79 y/o building. He cut the hot and his cutters also came into contact with the metal sheeted ceiling. The resulting spark was enough to cause both cutters and ceiling to lose a noticable bit of material(hmmm iron mirospheres anyone). Had there been combustible material nearby it very well could have ignited.
Also in fact your resistive element need simply be a conductive path that cannot dissipate the power generated by the current through it. Note that if its a short through 1ohm at 120 volts that is 120 amps and 14400 watts, and such paths often are an order of magnitude lower in resistance.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to Tony for showing you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

No wonder you are asking for a new investigation.
 
Did Tony answer that question about whether a hot object needs to be visibly flaming in order to set fire to (say) some paper?

Because he seems fixated on the fact that the WTC1 fires would be extinguished by the gypsum powder but hasn't addressed the fact that, even from his pov, the WTC1 material would still be bound to be hot.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
There were back up gen-sets. Remember? This makes the risk worse. You don't need me to explain why, right?
Click to expand...

First, the likelihood of the circumstances needed for resistive conductive items being randomly connected to a hot wire and conductive path to ground on ten different floors is exceedingly low, and now you need the generators to come on when we know power was intentionally cut in WTC 7 a half hour before the North Tower collapsed.

There is no chance that the WTC 7 electrical power system was designed so that the generators could have been able to come on when power was intentionally cut off.

That power shutoff system, and when the generators would and would not come on line, would have been tested when the building was being certified for occupancy.

Your proposed cause for the fires being due to electrical shorts and resistance heating is nonsense and on the same level as Noahfence's silly metal impact caused the fires notion.

Anyone who still wants to believe the fires in WTC 7 were due to natural circumstances from the North Tower collapse, when it was 350 feet away, has to grope at straws, as illustrated here by you and Noahfence.

The logic shows the fires in WTC 7 were due to arson or thermite from the North Tower. There are no other options.
 
Last edited:
Very hot things entering the building, Tony? Not necessarily flaming things, just things hot enough to set fires?

You seem to be avoiding this question.
 
Very hot things entering the building, Tony? Not necessarily flaming things, just things hot enough to set fires?

You seem to be avoiding this question.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There are no other options.
Click to expand...


I can think of a few other options.



Btw, do you know if Gerry is going to respond to the posts made by Reactor drone and Oystein a few pages ago:

Reactor drone said:
"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.
Click to expand...

gerrycan said:
Where does it say top AND bottom?
They were free in the z axis.
Click to expand...

Reactor drone said:
Just before the bit that I quoted.
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
…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.
Click to expand...
 
GlennB said:
Very hot things entering the building, Tony? Not necessarily flaming things, just things hot enough to set fires?

You seem to be avoiding this question.
Click to expand...

Hot things from where? The few fire floors at least 350 feet away in the North Tower, where the majority of the fire was even further away on the side opposite WTC 7? Get real GlennB. This is nothing but straw groping too and its likelihood is as low as those proposed by Noahfence and DGM.

It is a shame that reality finally needs to be recognized and the bloviating about a natural cause for WTC 7's fires has to come to an end here, but it had to happen at some point.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Hot things from where? The few fire floors at least 350 feet away in the North Tower, where the majority of the fire was even further away on the side opposite WTC 7?
Click to expand...

You keep talking about fires. I'm talking about temperatures.

The auto ignition temperature of paper is around a mere 240°C/460°F. Are you seriously suggesting that the fire zone of the N side of WTC1 had entirely cooled below that? You might ask yourself why fire crews damp down the remains of building fires for many hours, days even, to prevent re-ignition.
 
GlennB said:
You keep talking about fires. I'm talking about temperatures.

The auto ignition temperature of paper is around a mere 240°C/460°F. Are you seriously suggesting that the fire zone of the N side of WTC1 had entirely cooled below that? You might ask yourself why fire crews damp down the remains of building fires for many hours, days even, to prevent re-ignition.
Click to expand...

That's only to keep the arsonist from lighting it again............:boxedin:
 
GlennB said:
...You might ask yourself why fire crews damp down the remains of building fires for many hours, days even, to prevent re-ignition.
Click to expand...

As every child* knows, thermite keeps burning for weeks and months, and since only thermite has the capability to set fires in buildings, you know many tons must have been present when a building burns.








* Provided child is born to two truther parents and effectively shielded from education for a decade or so
 
Fun fire fact

A few months ago I bought a thermocoupleWP on Ebay, not because I needed one but because I've always wanted one and it was dirt cheap.

We also have a wood stove. This was glowing (not flaming) nicely when we went to bed around midnight. Just now - 12 hours later - it seemed totally out, but I discovered glowing embers when I scooped out surplus ash.

The thermocouple measured the temperature of one of those embers at nearly 500°C

The intensity and sheer mass of the WTC1 fires, and the lack of time to cool, would certainly ensure that any hot remains from the N side fire zone would be way above the auto ignition temperature of paper.
 
GlennB said:
A few months ago I bought a thermocoupleWP on Ebay, not because I needed one but because I've always wanted one and it was dirt cheap.

We also have a wood stove. This was glowing (not flaming) nicely when we went to bed around midnight. Just now - 12 hours later - it seemed totally out, but I discovered glowing embers when I scooped out surplus ash.

The thermocouple measured the temperature of one of those embers at nearly 500°C

.
Click to expand...

There is a logical answer to that, arsonists crept in your house in the early hour and ignited thermite in your wood stove. There is no other explanation and don't try to fool me into believing otherwise. ;)
 
Spanx said:
There is a logical answer to that, arsonists crept in your house in the early hour and ignited thermite in your wood stove. There is no other explanation and don't try to fool me into believing otherwise. ;)
Click to expand...

I was going to blame the cat, but your explanation also makes sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom