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.
The mechanism is as follows:
- Hit facade with HUGE stretches of steel wall assemblies weighing hundreds of tons and thus slice open a HUGE gash down the middle stretching many many floors and going deep inside the building.
- Liberally dump buckets of embers and burning stuff from largest and worst fire NYC had EVER seen in its history into gash
- Wait
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.
What you call "logic" most people would call "feverish dreams" or "wishful thinking".
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.
Are you saying such an obviously FALSE thing on purpose, Tony? That would make me rather angry?
Or are you calling liars the many fire fighters on the scene who have seen and described the
HUGE GASH that went down the middle of the south face of WTC7 and was anything but a "small" opening? Or do you simply forget about the HUGE GASH?
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.
Tony, much of the four facades of WTC7 peeled outwards towards the four sides, normal to the building footprint, right? These walls, where they toppled, did not topple diaginally to the faces, or did they? Hence, for a reason and in fact, the toppling walls created a
HUGE GASH in the south wall of WTC7, but for the same reason and in fact did not open a huge gash in the Verizon or P.O. bldg., or did they?
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.
The floor slaps generally just dropped straigt down, correct?
Most of the combustible contents of the towers would be expected to drop straight down with the floor slabs they were, would they not?
The non-combustible walls on the other hand could be expected to have fallen and rested more to the side and outside the footprints, don't you think?
As a matter of observed fact, the WTC1+2 walls did in fact land mostly outside the footprints, did they not?
So it is no real wonder that fires within the debris would mostly be fed by combustibles concentrated within and near the footprints, or am I saying something wrong here, Tony? Please tell me exactly where I am wrong?
Hydrocarbon flames can be hotter than 1,300 degrees F, or can they not?
So how about the simple theory that the infrared cameras simply saw scattered fires on or very near the ground?
Many recovery crews walked atop the rubble piles. They did not wade through molten steel. To think temperatures were hellish just beneath the surface with steel-melting temperatures is a perversion of the witness accounts and a sick fantasy. To think that thermite would have been able to make the pile so hot for weeks is extremely
stupid and reveals a crass lack of understanding of simple thermodynamics - once you disperse the hundreds of tons of thermite that truthers dream about in their feverish wet dreams, they'd not be able to burn long or raise temps much. What a stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid idea!
