Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Tony Szamboti said:
The photo you showed does not support what you are saying as it is taken from the north and does not provide the proximity of the debris to WTC 7. It was likely hundreds of feet back from WTC 7 much closer to the North Tower. You would need a photo taken from the east or west to show solid debris hitting WTC 7. I am not saying none did but that it was far less than many here want to admit. There really is not much chance of it due to the distance.
Click to expand...

Interesting comment when one considers that Gage et al (wrongly) claim that steel from 1wtc was ejected west 600' toward the Winter Garden

AND

the collapse of 1wtc was alleged by Gage et al to be symmetrical... which I assume to be radially symmetrical have the steel "ejected" the same distance to the north east and south.

NB the collapse of tower 2 did not damage tower 1... 118 feet to the NW... how do you explain that?

In fact the Winter Garden and AmEx building were 450' feet to the west... both had steel land on them... And 7wtc was 350 to the north and also had material land on it... visible in several vids taken from NJ.

Fires do not have to be started by burning embers... Falling debris on a building can set off fires by causing electrical fires or even gas fires.

The collapse of 7wtc was caused by heat effect not mechanical damage although the mech damage may have caused the fires... and the mech damage was caused by falling 1 wtc debris which was caused by plane damage and ensuring fires...

and the hip bone is connected to the thigh bone...
 
GlennB said:
So, it seems TS has conjured up a new magical mechanism to bolster his beliefs - "natural fires were impossible in WTC7 because the gypsum dust would have put them out" - and can sit back secure in the knowledge that debunkers now have to prove him wrong.

So a 10 kg lump of (say) metal at 500°C smashes through a window and lands among inflammable materials. How much gypsum dust will follow? Bugger all.

What if the lump of debris is 1m deep? Will it be smothered by a > 1m depth of dust?

What if it penetrates several m into the building. Will that lightweight, floating dust magically follow it?

What a crock.
Click to expand...

Note the tree catching fire from contact with steel (steel that cannot be weakened from carbon based fires :rolleyes:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

Once again TZ is wrong, wrong and wrong again.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Given hot metal distributed by the air in the collapses probably landed on plastic and that plastic could smolder for hours your bare assertion is nonsensical in the least.

If thermite dispersed cooling in air can light a fire, so can hot carbons, or hot metals, your desperately grasping at a straw man argument.

Just like saying the steel can not rapidly fail, an engineer, who does not understand weld and bolt connection failure, impossible more impossible than a building falling at free fall.

Also gypsum in dust form is light and grandular an inch of gypsum would only induce smoldering not prevent fire spread, any desturbance of the layer, would disperse it allowing for flame propagation.

Any fuel oil leaking on too a smoldering fire under gypsum would soak into the gypsum and ignite it.

PS. Just for fun yesterday I tested your gypsum Idea I placed a piece of heated steel 380C on paper covered by one inch of wet gypsum powder, the Owensboro Messenger, began smoldering in five minutes, although no flame was produced until the light wind disturbed the gypsum layer exposing the paper to air.

These Ideas are easily experimentally tested Tony and you fail miserably.
Click to expand...

If you were actually testing my idea in a realistic way you would have put the paper on top and the hot piece of steel against a load of room temperature metal scrap that would conduct heat from it, as would have happened in the actual collapse, and then covered it with a more realistic six inches of gypsum powder.

The gypsum would have smothered any flame and by the time your wind came by the heat in the piece of steel would have been dissipated and conducted away.

At least you showed the gypsum would prevent oxygen from reaching it and preventing flame, but your test lacked other realistic conditions.

Now once you get the realistic portions of this test down try to find a way to launch it 350 feet just by being pushed sideways in a vertical collapse and through a heavy office building type double pane window and onto some office carpet. Then let's see if it takes nearly two hours for flames to emerge.

The chances of the North Tower collapse being the reason for the fires on ten floors in WTC 7 are so remote as to be impossible and any clear thinking person would recognize this once they hear the above logic.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
If you were actually testing my idea in a realistic way you would have put the paper on top and the hot piece of steel against a load of room temperature metal scrap that would conduct heat from it, as would have happened in the actual collapse, and then covered it with a more realistic six inches of gypsum powder.

The gypsum would have smothered any flame and by the time your wind came by the heat in the piece of steel would have been dissipated and conducted away.

At least you showed the gypsum would prevent oxygen from reaching it and preventing flame, but your test lacked other realistic conditions.

Now once you get the realistic portions of this test down try to find a way to launch it 350 feet just by being pushed sideways in a vertical collapse and through a heavy office building type double pane window and onto some office carpet.
Click to expand...

We're talking truther realism here aren't we :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I
Now once you get the realistic portions of this test down try to find a way to launch it 350 feet just by being pushed sideways in a vertical collapse and through a heavy office building type double pane window ....
Click to expand...

:confused:

But that's exactly what happened. The photographic record shows it, for example:

 
Last edited:
slowsmile said:
We're talking truther realism here aren't we :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow, it's real "logic" to come up with some arse-about way to make sometime not happen, and then insist that's how things must have been.

Tony, you are deep into special pleading world here. The best way out of a hole isn't applying a nuclear powered shovel. It's to ask for help.
 
slowsmile said:
Where is the six inches of gypsum powder?
Click to expand...

I am speaking about items within the plan of the building. How thick do you think the gypsum dust on items would have been about 7 to 10 stories into the collapse of the North Tower within the plan of the building? Don't forget they used heavy gypsum wallboard in the buildings.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
:confused:

But that's exactly what happened. The photographic record shows it, for example:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7%20girders%20in%20street_zpsqaluqyol.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Of course, some debris went as far as WTC 7, but you need it to be hot also and from a very limited area of the North Tower and in spite of it having been covered by heavy gypsum dust and conducting away some of its heat before it took the 350 foot trip.

Your notion has extremely thin chances of occurring even once let alone for ten floors.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If you were actually testing my idea in a realistic way you would have put the paper on top and the hot piece of steel against a load of room temperature metal scrap that would conduct heat from it, as would have happened in the actual collapse, and then covered it with a more realistic six inches of gypsum powder.

The gypsum would have smothered any flame and by the time your wind came by the heat in the piece of steel would have been dissipated and conducted away.

At least you showed the gypsum would prevent oxygen from reaching it and preventing flame, but your test lacked other realistic conditions.

Now once you get the realistic portions of this test down try to find a way to launch it 350 feet just by being pushed sideways in a vertical collapse and through a heavy office building type double pane window and onto some office carpet. Then let's see if it takes nearly two hours for flames to emerge.

The chances of the North Tower collapse being the reason for the fires on ten floors in WTC 7 are so remote as to be impossible and any clear thinking person would recognize this once they hear the above logic.
Click to expand...

Irelevent, there was paper and flammable material in building 7, your statement is totally fallacious.

The air speeds in the collapses could easily launch small pieces of hot material.

Explosions fuel air blasts would also launch hot burning materials, in also might I remind you that carbon soot would be mixed in with the dry wall dust and that in itself makes your point totally mute and invalid. As carbon black soot can easily smolder in drywall dust for hours.

You claim is totally testible has been tested and totally invalid, in this universe.

Your claim is totally lame and dead, one right up there with the Judy Woods death Ray.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom