• 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.

Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Ziggi said:
Chandler´s presention of your handling of NIST´s free-fall data was just meant as one good demonstration of the fact that you dont know what you are talking about in general, when it comes to this stuff.
Click to expand...
Journalists do not need to know what they're talking about e.g. when they report on a scientific study. A journalist's report is not a peer review.
 
Ziggi said:
Chris, you never understood Chandler´s criticism. He was explaining why professional arhcitects and scientists on behalf of AE911 should not waste time trying to debate this highly technical subject (demolition evidence) with someone like you, who is not only a layperson but also one that simply does not know at all what he is talking about.
Click to expand...
How does Chandler qualify as a professional scientist? My understanding is he is a high school physics teacher, with an apparently poor understanding of how forces might stack up in a building collapse.
 
Ziggi said:
Chris, you never understood Chandler´s criticism. He was explaining why professional arhcitects and scientists on behalf of AE911 should not waste time trying to debate this highly technical subject (demolition evidence) with someone like you, who is not only a layperson but also one that simply does not know at all what he is talking about.

Chandler´s presention of your handling of NIST´s free-fall data was just meant as one good demonstration of the fact that you dont know what you are talking about in general, when it comes to this stuff.
Click to expand...

What a pantload. Chandler is a high-school physics teacher who doesn't understand the difference between statics and dynamics.
 
Ziggi said:
Chris, you never understood Chandler´s criticism. He was explaining why professional arhcitects and scientists on behalf of AE911 should not waste time trying to debate this highly technical subject (demolition evidence) with someone like you, who is not only a layperson but also one that simply does not know at all what he is talking about.

Chandler´s presention of your handling of NIST´s free-fall data was just meant as one good demonstration of the fact that you dont know what you are talking about in general, when it comes to this stuff.

But you never understood this, or were not humble enough to admit it and accept it. As always, you use your propensity to get easily offended as an excuse to avoid the problem.

If Chandler had the time and patience to go through all of your YouTube videos, he would end up demonstrating that you make the same kind of errors in every single one of them, and you would have to redo all of them, and all of your "238 points".
Click to expand...

Too bad troofers are not as diligent in remaking their videos to correct errors that have been pointed out.....but then, if the did, they would have nothing left to fund raise for dicky gage's expense paid vacations. :rolleyes:
 
Ziggi said:
Chris, you never understood Chandler´s criticism. He was explaining why professional arhcitects and scientists on behalf of AE911 should not waste time trying to debate this highly technical subject (demolition evidence) with someone like you, who is not only a layperson but also one that simply does not know at all what he is talking about.

Chandler´s presention of your handling of NIST´s free-fall data was just meant as one good demonstration of the fact that you dont know what you are talking about in general, when it comes to this stuff.

But you never understood this, or were not humble enough to admit it and accept it. As always, you use your propensity to get easily offended as an excuse to avoid the problem.

If Chandler had the time and patience to go through all of your YouTube videos, he would end up demonstrating that you make the same kind of errors in every single one of them, and you would have to redo all of them, and all of your "238 points".
Click to expand...

Ziggi, you have a fantasy of CD, and your are lecturing someone who knows you live in a fantasy world. Good luck trying to push silly claims on rational people.

Who planted the silent explosives in your WTC 7 CD fantasy built on zero science, and less evidence.

Got any names yet? Why are you fooled by 911 truth CD lies?
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
3% is still over 3 acres of burning office floors creating smoke enough to be visible from space. To try to convince us that this fire, one of the worst in the history of inner city fires, was somehow small and insignificant and not a danger to buildings in the vicinity is laughable, and possibly dishonest.


You claim cars that far away and farther cought fire from the collapsing tower. Double standard much, or would ony Magic Thermite be able to fly that far?


As you pointed out yourself earlier, the Verizon (probably) did not sustain huge gashes from the collapse of WTC1.
Neither did the P.O. bdg.
But WTC7 sustained a very large gash down a great number of floors.
Would that somehow change your assessment?

(I already offered you a slightly better argument - the Bankers Trust had a gash but no fire).


Ex ante, Tony, ex ante. Maybe.
Since, in reality, WTC7 did burn and the others didn't, you ought to adjust the ex post probabilities, don't you think?


Which "extreme" heat, Tony? Please be specific!


How would YOU identify stuff as "molten" plus "steel" in the rubble, if you saw it?
How did you corroborate these eyewitness reports?
Have you looked into other large building fires and ascertained that witnesses never report molten steel unless there actually is molten steel?


How reliable is eyewitness recollection, in your opinion, in general? You may want to discuss this with a view to your own trouble to recollect what who said where and when on TV!


If it ever was :rolleyes:


No.


So would Invisible Pink Godzilla attacking New York. Or DEW.


Which FDNY officers and forensic and fire engineering experts actually on the scene in New York agree with you? Citations, please!
Which FDNY officers and forensic and fire engineering experts actually on the scene in New York disagree with you? (Hint: All of them)
Click to expand...

Oystein, it is a shame you and GlennB can't provide real mechanisms and arguments to show that WTC 1 could have caused the fires in WTC 7 as I understand you really want to believe it.

I actually think the logic shows the fires in WTC 7 had to be started by arson and I have given those reasons, which are much more than the hand waving that the fires were big in WTC 1.

It is a virtual impossibility for items from a natural fire to stay hot while being bathed in gypsum dust and in contact with cooler items during the collapse to then also have flown the 350 feet from WTC 1 to WTC 7 and also gotten into some relatively small openings in the building and start fires on ten floors. The building's exterior was not flimsy and it was not flammable like the plastic on vehicles. Your argument that WTC 7 was more in the line of fire than the Verizon or Post Office buildings, as an excuse for why it caught fire and they didn't, is also poor.

The infrared aerial photos showing surface temperatures of 1,300 degrees F five days after the collapses on the plans of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 is enough to tell me the sub surface had unusual extreme heat and that was not caused by the fires in the buildings although logic would say it had something to do with the collapses because it was generally just under the collapsed buildings. You are only kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Oystein, it is a shame you and GlennB can't provide real mechanisms and arguments to show that WTC 1 could have caused the fires in WTC 7 as I understand you really want to believe it.
Click to expand...

Would that be equal to the shame you feel you can't provide a competitive theory?

I noticed you have not posted in the "why building 7" thread. Afraid everyone might bust a gut laughing?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Oystein, it is a shame you and GlennB can't provide real mechanisms and arguments to show that WTC 1 could have caused the fires in WTC 7 as I understand you really want to believe it.

I actually think the logic shows the fires in WTC 7 had to be started by arson and I have given those reasons, which are much more than the hand waving that the fires were big in WTC 1.

It is a virtual impossibility for items from a natural fire to stay hot while being bathed in gypsum dust and in contact with cooler items during the collapse to then also have flown the 350 feet from WTC 1 to WTC 7 and also gotten into some relatively small openings in the building and start fires on ten floors. The building's exterior was not flimsy and it was not flammable like the plastic on vehicles. Your argument that WTC 7 was more in the line of fire than the Verizon or Post Office buildings, as an excuse for why it caught fire and they didn't, is also poor.

The infrared aerial photos showing surface temperatures of 1,300 degrees F five days after the collapses on the plans of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 is enough to tell me the sub surface had unusual extreme heat and that was not caused by the fires in the buildings although logic would say it had something to do with the collapses because it was generally just under the collapsed buildings. You are only kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...
Tony, please note that there was not much dust in the beginning of the collapse (watch the videos and see relatively little dust squeezing out during the first ten floors) so the first few floors were not nearly as heavily dustified as lower floors, even if we accept your dust squelches fire theory.
Also, it doesn't look to me like the perimeter wall that peeled off like a banana and fell towards Building 7 was totally covered in dust, even if you accept that dustification would smother fire.
And how long after collapse initiation did Building 7 get slammed? 10 seconds? Are you saying that the perimeter that peeled away was fire-free, that all the oxygen stoking whatever embers were there for those ten seconds didn't stoke the flames, and that dust which didn't even cover the top collapsing floors could snuff out any heat?
Did Barry Jennings report arsonists running around Building 7?
I'm kinda thinking the burden of proof is on you, when you deny that a huge building fire whose smoke plume was the size of Manhattan could crash into a nearby building, leaving open gashes, and NOT set a fire in a building abandoned by firefighters. What proof do you need from Oystein? Prove to me there were arsonists. And prove to me that dust in the air can extinguish a several-acres big fire in ten seconds before it hits Building 7.
 
Ziggi said:
Chris, you never understood Chandler´s criticism. He was explaining why professional arhcitects and scientists on behalf of AE911 should not waste time trying to debate this highly technical subject (demolition evidence) with someone like you, who is not only a layperson but also one that simply does not know at all what he is talking about.
Click to expand...

:id:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Oystein, it is a shame you and GlennB can't provide real mechanisms and arguments to show that WTC 1 could have caused the fires in WTC 7 as I understand you really want to believe it.

I actually think the logic shows the fires in WTC 7 had to be started by arson and I have given those reasons, which are much more than the hand waving that the fires were big in WTC 1.

It is a virtual impossibility for items from a natural fire to stay hot while being bathed in gypsum dust and in contact with cooler items during the collapse to then also have flown the 350 feet from WTC 1 to WTC 7 and also gotten into some relatively small openings in the building and start fires on ten floors. The building's exterior was not flimsy and it was not flammable like the plastic on vehicles. Your argument that WTC 7 was more in the line of fire than the Verizon or Post Office buildings, as an excuse for why it caught fire and they didn't, is also poor.

The infrared aerial photos showing surface temperatures of 1,300 degrees F five days after the collapses on the plans of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 is enough to tell me the sub surface had unusual extreme heat and that was not caused by the fires in the buildings although logic would say it had something to do with the collapses because it was generally just under the collapsed buildings. You are only kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...

With the intense wind speeds in the collapses burning carbon fuels would have oxidized, increasing in heat thermites would disperse decreasing in heat as the Aluminum fuel separated from the iron oxide oxidizer.
Gypsum makes no difference, as it is scattered and does not prevent oxidation as it is essentially at this time dried by the fires in WT1. Dry gypsum does not retard fire like wet drywall.
If you believe your theories have merit, do the relivent experiments and prove yourself wrong.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
With the intense wind speeds in the collapses burning carbon fuels would have oxidized, increasing in heat thermites would disperse decreasing in heat as the Aluminum fuel separated from the iron oxide oxidizer.
Gypsum makes no difference, as it is scattered and does not prevent oxidation as it is essentially at this time dried by the fires in WT1. Dry gypsum does not retard fire like wet drywall.
If you believe your theories have merit, do the relivent experiments and prove yourself wrong.
Click to expand...

Gypsum dust would certainly prevent oxidation and flame due to combustion by cutting off the oxygen to the fire. Things would then cool quickly due to conduction as they were also being contacted by cooler items during the collapse.
 
chrismohr said:
Tony, please note that there was not much dust in the beginning of the collapse (watch the videos and see relatively little dust squeezing out during the first ten floors) so the first few floors were not nearly as heavily dustified as lower floors, even if we accept your dust squelches fire theory.
Also, it doesn't look to me like the perimeter wall that peeled off like a banana and fell towards Building 7 was totally covered in dust, even if you accept that dustification would smother fire.
And how long after collapse initiation did Building 7 get slammed? 10 seconds? Are you saying that the perimeter that peeled away was fire-free, that all the oxygen stoking whatever embers were there for those ten seconds didn't stoke the flames, and that dust which didn't even cover the top collapsing floors could snuff out any heat?
Did Barry Jennings report arsonists running around Building 7?
I'm kinda thinking the burden of proof is on you, when you deny that a huge building fire whose smoke plume was the size of Manhattan could crash into a nearby building, leaving open gashes, and NOT set a fire in a building abandoned by firefighters. What proof do you need from Oystein? Prove to me there were arsonists. And prove to me that dust in the air can extinguish a several-acres big fire in ten seconds before it hits Building 7.
Click to expand...

10 seconds after collapse initiation the North Tower was one big dust cloud and it would have been very thick in the plan of the building.

Barry Jennings would have been out of WTC 7 by the time the fires were set around 12:00 PM.

There were no fires left on the north face when the North Tower collapsed. Edna Cintron was standing in the hole made by the plane. So why would you think whatever little had fire would be on the perimeter at the north side? In addition not much of that material made it to WTC 7. WTC 7 was in the outer part of the outer damage radius shown by FEMA. I also have never seen the perimeter fall over towards WTC 7 like you say you have. Do you have video of that?

I can see you are at least wondering by claiming there wasn't much dust at the beginning. The truth is there was a lot of dust very quickly. Even if there wasn't do you think the alleged hot items flew to WTC 7 at the beginning? If so, you seem to be contradicting yourself by then talking about what could have happened 10 seconds later.

Most of you who accept the present official fairy tale can't really come up with a legitimate way to start the fires in WTC 7. Don't feel bad as NIST couldn't either, so they did a big hand wave and said the North Tower did it, even though the fires didn't show up until nearly two hours later.

It isn't much different than the fairy tale about the hijacker passport being found two blocks from the North Tower. Did you know Bernie Kerik was involved in that?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Gypsum dust would certainly prevent oxidation and flame due to combustion by cutting off the oxygen to the fire. Things would then cool quickly due to conduction as they were also being contacted by cooler items during the collapse.
Click to expand...

Why didn't the people trapped in the dust cloud suffocate?
 
NoahFence said:
Why didn't the people trapped in the dust cloud suffocate?
Click to expand...

You might be having trouble following along.

I am taking about the dust being very heavy over the plan of the building. There weren't many survivors there. The dust would have been thinned by orders of magnitude away from the plan of the building.
 
NoahFence said:
Why didn't the people trapped in the dust cloud suffocate?
Click to expand...

Gypsum gives off water when heated that is the limit to it's fire squishing capabilities, dry gypsum dust would have no effect on the fire, or flammable material.
Tony has no Idea of how gypsum cools and suppresses fires, by cooling by giving off steam.
Charcoal will burn buried in plaster of Paris, gypsum heated to 600C, with all the water driven out.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You might be having trouble following along.

I am taking about the dust being very heavy over the plan of the building. There weren't many survivors there. The dust would have been thinned by orders of magnitude away from the plan of the building.
Click to expand...

Haha!
So it interestingly removed the oxygen where you needed it to, and on the ground, where it proves your pathetic assertions laughable, not so much.

You're a riot!
:dl:
Best and brightest.

Figure out the fires on the ground before the collapses yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom