• 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.

of WTC7 and things being pulled

uk_dave said:
Well, the steel frame portion of the windsor building did look a bit iffy before that collapsed.
Click to expand...
So they thought the ENTIRE building was going to collapse and not because they assumed it might from what happened on 9/11?
 
rearnakedchoke said:
what paper are you talking about, ill read it. i already know it will be just people saying the building was on fire, it was damaged, ect-ect-ect. and most likely will not contain anybody saying the heard poping or booms, seconds before TOTAL collapse.. by the way is that the paper russell helped you on?
Click to expand...
You're not very observant, are you?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2021457&postcount=134

No, Russell did not have anything to do with the paper. To what help are you referring? I've never worked with Russell in any way. Please explain.
 
rearnakedchoke said:
well i asked for that one, i have read NISTS report "somewhat". and ive also heard what kevin ryan has to say about it.
Click to expand...
Can you tell us what NIST says was the probable cause of the tower collapses? I just want to see if you're here for a serious discussion.
 
Killtown said:
Never assume.

But from the accounts I've read, the condition of the 7 was "not good". So what is your point? Can you show me evidence of a large steel structure ever collapsing after witness accounts described the condition of this structure before it collapsed as "not good"?
Click to expand...
Will you read the paper I wrote on WTC 7, which I wrote for people like you, especially the page after page of accounts by the first responders who were there?

If not, why?
 
Killtown said:
1) She lost a family member from 9/11?

2) Well wasn't your reason to list those 26 responders was to prove what "pull it" meant?
Click to expand...
1) That's your only definition of a victim?
2) No. Will you read my paper, rather than try to guess what's in it?
 
Gravy said:
1) "Not good" is your summary of what the FDNY said about the building?

Yes or no: have you read all the eyewitness accounts about WTC 7's conditon that I collected in my WTC 7 paper? If not, why?
Click to expand...
1) Yes, would that be incorrect?

2) No because it's hard for me to read your stuff without laughing to hard about your type of "logic".
 
Killtown said:
More like this:

Silverstein was involved in an evil plot. Therefore...
Silverstein was keen to cover up the plot. Therefore...
Silverstein was asked to do an interview where he would have to reassert his lies. Therefore...
Silverstein would have felt under pressure. Therefore...
Silverstein accidentally slipped up. Therefore...
Silverstein's comments reveal an evil plot. Therefore...
Silverstein was involved in an evil plot.
Click to expand...

No surely more like this

Killtown was involved in an evil plot. Therefore...
Killtown was keen to cover up the plot. Therefore...
Killtown was asked a few questions where he would have to reassert his lies. Therefore...
Killtown would have felt under pressure. Therefore...
Killtown accidentally slipped up. Therefore...
Killtowns' comments reveal an evil plot. Therefore...
Killtown was involved in an evil plot.
 
Killtown said:
1) Cause they were in on it?

2) Clarify question.

3) Aren't you guys the ones saying it couldn't be a conspiracy cause someone would eventually slip and spill the beans? Well here's your proof of that.

4) I don't know, why?

5) Maybe Larry, who's might not be well versed in all the CD slang, used the incorrect slang?
Click to expand...

1. Riiiiggghhttt...

2. Simple. What qualifies a fireman to execute CD? CD experts are highly trained and technically proficient in what they do, it's a science unto itself.

3. So the master architect was the one to spill the beans about it and not one of the miserly workers who actually carried out the deed. Uh huh...

He managed to kill off 3,000 people and you think he couldn't have paid off PBS to EDIT THE VIDEO?

4. Because IT DOESN'T APPLY. No CD expert uses the term "pull it" to denote CD...are you really this dense?

5. No. Maybe he's not a moron and he actually used the term as he explained.
 
Gravy said:
1) That's your only definition of a victim?
2) No. Will you read my paper, rather than try to guess what's in it?
Click to expand...
1) Pretty much. What's yours?

2) No? then why list all those "pull" comments when they don't prove what "pull it" means?
 
Killtown said:
How did they know it was going to collapse???
Click to expand...
well 2 other huge buildings had just collapsed, raining tons of debris on WTC7 and leaving a huge gaping hole in the side of the building, i would guess that in the question 'will it collapse or not" they would want to err on the side of caution
 
Killtown said:
So they thought the ENTIRE building was going to collapse and not because they assumed it might from what happened on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Two buildings had already fallen, why not think this one might too. esp if you had rigged it with an explosive to be named later
 
rearnakedchoke said:
larry said (pullit)----with cables, at say 12pm'ish, so what happened in those 5 hours? rigging with cables?

after all larry said (we pulled it and watched it fall) so im assuming the riggers were...rigging for 5 hours then right?.....then all the sudden it collapsed? without a single rigger hurt?

seems that we have a 5 hour window here...
Click to expand...

The circular reasoning you guys are using is almost sad.
You seem to have already decided Silverstein ordered WTC 7 destroyed and are desperately looking for anything out of place, which if you misinterpret or distort enough, might support your preconceptions. Scientific investigation doesn't work that it, and I'd think that if you were actually interested in the truth, you'd give up these backward investigation practices.
 
Gravy said:
Can you tell us what NIST says was the probable cause of the tower collapses? I just want to see if you're here for a serious discussion.
Click to expand...


i just made a sandwich, not in a frenzy to find out what they say happened..

1) planes weakened towers
2) explosion blew off fire retardent
3) most fuel was expelled in fireball
4) fuel seeped down to the lobby
5) steel trusels became weak from heat, and givin the plane impact, weakened beams, the towers pancaked one floor on top of another..in 11 seconds..

more or less right?
 
rearnakedchoke said:
i just made a sandwich, not in a frenzy to find out what they say happened..

1) planes weakened towers
2) explosion blew off fire retardent
3) most fuel was expelled in fireball
4) fuel seeped down to the lobby
5) steel trusels became weak from heat, and givin the plane impact, weakened beams, the towers pancaked one floor on top of another..in 11 seconds..

more or less right?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about 3, but 5 is definitely wrong, as parts of the buildings were still seen standing 15-25 seconds after the collapse started.
 
Josh Redstone said:
The circular reasoning you guys are using is almost sad.
You seem to have already decided Silverstein ordered WTC 7 destroyed and are desperately looking for anything out of place, which if you misinterpret or distort enough, might support your preconceptions. Scientific investigation doesn't work that it, and I'd think that if you were actually interested in the truth, you'd give up these backward investigation practices.
Click to expand...

does pull it mean pull down with cables?

if so, when did they begin to implement the rigging? if it was evacuated at 12pm'ish

(we pulled it and watched it fall)
 
rearnakedchoke said:
...
3) most fuel was expelled in fireball
...
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Estimates are that only 10-30% of the fuel that remained on the planes, at the time of impact, was consumed in the fireball.
2.2.1.2 Fire Development
It is estimated, based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings. A review of photographic and video records show that the aircraft fully entered the buildings prior to any visual evidence of flames at the exteriors of the buildings. This suggests that, as the aircraft crashed into and plowed across the buildings, they distributed jet fuel throughout the impact area to form a flammable “cloud.” Ignition of this cloud resulted in a rapid
pressure rise, expelling a fuel rich mixture from the impact area into shafts and through other openings caused by the crashes, resulting in dramatic fireballs.

Although only limited video footage is available that shows the crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into WTC 1 and the ensuing fireballs, extensive video records of the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 into WTC 2 are available. These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east, and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture. Experimentally based correlations for similar fireballs (Zalosh 1995) were used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed.

The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, it is reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the aircraft struck WTC 1.

Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.
The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse level. This breakage was most likely caused by overpressure in the elevator shafts. Damage to the walls of the elevator shafts was also observed as low as the 23rd floor, presumably as a result of the overpressures developed by the burning of the vapor cloud on the impact floors.

If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved. Fuel that fell to the floor and
did not flow out of the building would have burned as a pool or spill fire at the point where it came to rest.

The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed
in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.

As the jet fuel burned, the resulting heat ignited office contents throughout a major portion of several of the impact floors, as well as combustible material within the aircraft itself.
Click to expand...
source Pgs 21 & 22
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom