Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[DGM]

Did WTC 5's fires take nearly two hours to be noticed?

Why do you keep repeating that the fires in WTC 7 were un-noticed for 2 hours? Are you now disputing the testimony of several fire fighters and building employees?

The first report was made before the collapse of the south tower (actually at the time of impact of the second plane).

 

[Oystein]

What if the wall broke 8 floors above ground, and then the upper part fell on inside of the lower part wall? The 8 stories worth of standing columns would then not support anything.

...

So you are saying that Jowenko's lack of detailed knowledge of circumstances is reason to reject his expert opinion?
(Hint: This is a Yes/No question. No need to write another full paragraph that avoids answering the actual question.)

You dodged my question:
According to your engineering assessment, would you agree that ripping a HUGE GASH down the face of a building and damaging floors doing so might frustrate designs to prevent vertical spread of fire?

Perhaps I should ask you first: Do you accept my implied claim is true that the WTC7 south face had a HUGE GASH down many floors, as reported by fire fighters on the scene?

Tony, before you run away, you dodged some of my questions. Perhaps I should re-arrange them:

Do you accept my implied claim is true that the WTC7 south face had a HUGE GASH down many floors, as reported by fire fighters on the scene?

According to your engineering assessment, would you agree that ripping a HUGE GASH down the face of a building and damaging floors doing so might frustrate designs to prevent vertical spread of fire?

So you are saying that Jowenko's lack of detailed knowledge of circumstances is reason to reject his expert opinion?
(Hint: This is a Yes/No question. No need to write another full paragraph that avoids answering the actual question.)

What if the wall broke 8 floors above ground, and then the upper part fell on inside of the lower part wall? The 8 stories worth of standing columns would then not support anything.


Thank you.

 

[Dave Rogers]

With a six inch thick coating of gypsum on every floor, it's hardly surprising the buildings fell down. That stuff's heavy, you know.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

It would be you who is talking castle in the sky by saying the fires in WTC 7 were caused by hot material from the North Tower.

There was very limited hot material and it would have been in contact with much cooler material during the collapse. There was also a very limited amount of material that made its way to WTC 7. On top of that it has to do it on ten floors and not show up for nearly two hours. And on top of that your hypothesis can't do the same to the Verizon and Post Office buildings.

Embers from WTC towers started fires in WTC 7. But then you don't do science, you do fantasy. You have a fantasy thermite; fantasy CD, and a super fantasy inside job; where people planted explosives to murder thousands.

No wonder you can't figure out debris from WTC towers started, you do fantasy, reality has been on hold for 13 years.

What is the auto ignition temperature of paper? Was there any paper in WTC 7?

Arson did it? lol, that means fire destroyed WTC 7. Who set the fires Tony?

13 years, and zero evidence.

Wow, you know 911 was an inside job, but you have more important things to do? What? I guess happy hour is more important than breaking the biggest inside job since Watergate. What is stopping you? A rational story and evidence. Yes, better run along, the big evil inside job can wait another 13 years of BS and lies.

 

[pgimeno]

Did WTC 5's fires take nearly two hours to be noticed?

Let me quote this again:

Multiple FDNY personnel reported seeing fires in WTC 7 from the exterior, some as early as about 11:00 a.m. Fires were observed on the west face around Floor 10²⁰, and several fires were seen higher up in the building, around the 20s and 30s.²¹ These fires were seen from Vesey and West Street. A firefighter reported seeing fire near the center of the south face around Floor 14, which appeared to be a single office fire. Windows were broken, and smoke and fire were coming out of the building.
​

NCSTAR 1-9 p.299.

That's a mere half hour after the collapse. Reasonable given that the dust cloud was settling during that time.

And let's not forget the testimony of Mike Catalano, an engineer that was in WTC7 at times overlapping with Jennings and Hess:

The vents on the top of the building and on the 5^th floor sucked in the air and jammed the generators and caused them to burn.​

http://research.archives.gov/description/2609722

So there are more possibilities for starting the fires than embers, thermite and arson.

 

[Ziggi]

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Nope. Still doesn't support your view on not being able to start fires. Nice try though.

You do need everything spelled out here and have nerve even arguing about it. Did you ever hear the saying "its better to keep your mouth shut and let people just think you might be ignorant in a specific discussion where you aren't familiar enough, rather than opening it and removing all doubt"?

Tony, the trolls are working overtime to divert attention from Chris and his over-g trouble. Don´t feed them. Let´s see if Chris resurfaces.

 

[Ziggi]

...Do you accept my implied claim is true that the WTC7 south face had a HUGE GASH down many floors, as reported by fire fighters on the scene?

According to your engineering assessment, would you agree that ripping a HUGE GASH down the face of a building and damaging floors doing so might frustrate designs to prevent vertical spread of fire?.

Oystein, please settle down. I saw you refer to that HUGE GASH from NISTs 2004 report in big bold letters before but you don´t realize that NIST withdrew the claim for that south face multi story gash in the 2008 report.

 

[DGM]

Tony, the trolls are working overtime to divert attention from Chris and his over-g trouble. Don´t feed them. Let´s see if Chris resurfaces.

What trouble?

Do you agree with Tony that there was no fires reported in WTC 7 for two hours?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oystein, please settle down. I saw you refer to that HUGE GASH from NISTs 2004 report in big bold letters before but you don´t realize that NIST withdrew the claim for that south face multi story gash in the 2008 report.

Yeah, no multi storey gash in the south face there.

Dave

 

[Spanx]

Tony, the trolls are working overtime to divert attention from Chris and his over-g trouble. Don´t feed them. Let´s see if Chris resurfaces.

If you say so.

 

[GlennB]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1476455183b4a56baf.jpg[/qimg]

Yeah, no multi storey gash in the south face there.

Dave

Don't laugh, but a few years ago MM claimed that was "a shadow".

The extended, composite version:

 

[Mark F]

For observable flames to not appear for nearly two hours in WTC 7, after your alleged fire initiation cause could have occurred, strains credulity.

Did not appear or were not noted?

There is a difference.

 

[chrismohr]

Tony,
I'm finished with the the argument that fires, hot metal or embers could not have traveled from the Tower to Building 7. Two photos I dug up are not good enough for you. Nor is Chainsaw's experiment. There are photos of large gashes in Building 7's side.
I know for a fact that thousands of building fires every year are started by hot objects 1/2" in diameter x 2/3 inch long (cigarette butts).
Pgimeno's quote proves your assertion wrong about no fires on floors 10-14: "Multiple FDNY personnel reported seeing fires in WTC 7 from the exterior, some as early as about 11:00 a.m. Fires were observed on the west face around Floor 1020, and several fires were seen higher up in the building, around the 20s and 30s. These fires were seen from Vesey and West Street. A firefighter reported seeing fire near the center of the south face around Floor 14, which appeared to be a single office fire. Windows were broken, and smoke and fire were coming out of the building. NCSTAR 1-9 p.299."
Then there is the possibility of an electrical short even without embers.
And the fires in the Towers themselves creating a smoke plume miles long. Six "acre-floors"* of burning or burnt material in one of the biggest office fires in history. (*acre-floor: my highly technical term, six floors burning or burnt, one acre per floor). Such a towering inferno, 80+ floors up, plenty of opportunity for the high-up hot stuff to peel off and go 350 feet to Building 7.
If you can't even see Building 7 fires started by the Tower as a reasonable possibility, I have nothing further to say on the matter. This is one area where my low level of technical expertise is no barrier to understanding. It is so screamingly obvious to me. I won't debate or consider any further because the evidence against this claim is so overwhelming.
As for the >g debate, this is a busy weekend. I'm done looking into your no-flame claim, so when I have time I will visit the other issue.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

That's a very useful data point. Note that the time from removing the rail from the fire to it coming into contact with the tree is well over ten seconds - I counted about thirteen - and after being out of the fire for this length of time the rail is still hot enough to set the tree trunk on fire. Anything ejected from WTC1 during the collapse without an upward vector component of velocity must have reached the ground in less than ten seconds, from simple mechanics. So this video is evidence that steel can be weakened by fire, that the heat doesn't simply wick away along the rail, and that debris reaching WTC7 from WTC1 could easily still have been hot enough to ignite combustibles like wood or paper.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, please settle down. I saw you refer to that HUGE GASH from NISTs 2004 report in big bold letters before but you don´t realize that NIST withdrew the claim for that south face multi story gash in the 2008 report.

ORLLY?

NCSTAR 1-9 (2008) page 363:

"As noted in Section 5.5, the debris from the collapse of WTC 1 created a gash in the west side of the south face of the building that stretched from the 17^th floor down to the 5^th floor."​

A graphic summary of the Section 5.5 findings is in Fig. 5-83 on page 173.

More such damage to the facade is documented for the south side of the west face in Fig. 5-89 on page 179.

Page 182:

"Along the south face, the interior damage was estimated to extend from the south exterior wall toward the core, with increasing interior damage of the south tenant floor between the south face and the core, from Floor 17 down to Floor 7. The core columns and girders were assumed to be structurally undamaged.
The following floor damage was estimated at the locations where the exterior columns were damaged:
• For Floors 15 through 17, a small portion of the floor span between the south face and the core.
• For Floors 12 through 14, half of the floor span between the south face and the core.
• For Floors 7 through 11, the full floor span between the south face and the core.
• For Floors 5 and 6, the full floor span between the south face and the core between exterior Columns 19 and 20.

For Columns 14A, 15, and 16 at the southwest corner, the following floor damage was estimated:
• For Floor 6 and Floors 10 through 17, a small portion of the floor span between the exterior and the core.
• For Floors 8 and 9, the full floor span between the south and west faces and the core."​

Ziggi, please acknowledge in full sentences that you now have been schooled on NIST's 2008 claim about the HUGE GASH down the south face between floors 5 and 17, and how far they estimated the gash to extend into the interior!

 

[tsig]

Given the facts and reality of the situation, the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires in WTC 7 would strain credulity for anyone who thinks about it. You and some of your brethren here of an opposing view don't seem to want to think about it and you clearly can't muster legitimate points to support your claim.

I use Non-scent Liniment for that.

 

[tsig]

I have to wonder if you either have a hard time understanding or are doing it intentionally.

I never said the gypsum dust would put the fires out in WTC 7. I said fire needs oxygen and the copious amounts of gypsum dust generated in the North Tower during its collapse would have certainly smothered its naturally occurring fires.

Your presumption that items, with enough mass to break through heavy double pane windows in WTC 7, could have flown over 350 feet and remained as hot as 500 degrees C has very low probability which you are not acknowledging. Your speculation also requires the fires you claim to have been caused by the North Tower in WTC 7 to remain unobserved for nearly two hours. That in and of itself is asking a lot for one to believe. In addition, it is also hard to imagine fires on ten floors in WTC 7 being caused by the North Tower collapse while there were none caused in the two buildings adjacent to it.

Finally, the notion that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the North Tower collapse has serious impediments to its believability, and arson seems like the most viable explanation.

The arsonists and the explosive demolition teams were both working in 7?

 

[beachnut]

Tony, the trolls are working overtime to divert attention from Chris and his over-g trouble. Don´t feed them. Let´s see if Chris resurfaces.

Chris figured out 911 - you failed after 13 years.
Who planted the explosives in the fantasy version of 911 you have?

Why can't you explain your theory? How were you fooled by the lies of CD and thermite?

 

[tsig]

Glenn IT IS WORKING FOR TONY

He and his current pair of tag team partners have the discussion bogged down in irrelevant details and going round in circles.

Since Tony and those who clone copy his arguments - err bare assertion claims - have lost every significant claim Tony has made what other options do they have.

The obvious one is to see the light and drop this truther nonsense. They seem incapable of doing that.

Second choice SHOULD be to stop coming to forums like this one and posting nonsense. They seem incapable of doing that.

So they keep coming here. And the SAFEST way to stop discussion progressing is to post nonsense. The sillier the better. Proof of that self evident - read the thread.

The ball is really in the "debunkers" court to stop responding.

...and that raises the question "Who is really obsessed?"

..I for one dare not look in the mirror.

I long since gave up on any 'scientific' responses and rely almost entirely on almost-sequiturs.

 

[tsig]

I am beginning to think the truth movement is in absolute intellectual free fall into a black hole it's own footprint.

FTFY