Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

Just another quick post to add, sorry to have only managed to contribute on the "serious" side, because page 1 of this thread included some of the funniest stuff I've seen all week. Of all the possible situations for an illustrative burning steel building, only we British could have made it a toilet paper factory - Comedy Gold!! :D
 
Russell Pickering said:
I can't do everything. I probably will eventually. I will wait for the final report to come out though.
Click to expand...

Why wait for reports ? The only thing that seems to have convinced you that a plane hit the Pentagon was talking to eyewitnesses, all the Pentagon reports just seemed to make you suspicious
 
As though everyone doesn't know that Russell is deliberately ignoring the truth, here are some more photos of WTC 7 in the late afternoon, showing that the thick dark smoke from the site is coming from that building. I have many others. These photos are in my WTC 7 paper, which Russell said he'd read.

8790454b28ee32493.jpg



Looking northeast across the wreckage of WTC 1 (north tower) & 6 to building 7:

8790454b28ee0f23b.jpg

​

Was the smoke really that heavy? Don't take my word for it. Watch these videos, which I linked to twice in my WTC 7 paper, but which Russell Pickering doesn't think are worthy of consideration. In the first, notice how the smoke from the north tower is lower and lighter in the foreground.

 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
Great lengthy and distracting post.
Click to expand...
Russell, I am very, very sorry to have distracted you with the tedious words of the people whose job it was to assess the condition of the burning building 7 on 9/11. Will you ever forgive me for the affront of presenting the reports of the FDNY?
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
I am a visual person.

Did I miss a picture with more flame evident at WTC 7?

Please post it so I can see.
Click to expand...
I see you have resorted to asking for pictures that you know very well probably don't exist, nice tactic!

Simple question, why is the smoke coming from every floor of WTC 7 in this photo posted by Gravy...

8790454b28ee0f23b.jpg


...doesn't it back up all the FDNY statements? You know all the fire-fighters that are stood there at the bottom of the picture in the rubble watching it burn while they continue with the rescue effort!

Don't you see how you are asking for the impossible, how on earth are we meant to show you pictures of flame when the whole side of that building was obscured by smoke?

If you think every floor wasn't on fire can you please explain why there is smoke coming from every floor in that picture above?
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
PHOTOS [of large flames engulfing WTC7] please.
Click to expand...
Russell, you know as well as the rest of us that you can't hang your conclusions on the absence of a specific piece of evidence that may or may not have ever existed.

We draw conclusions based on extant evidence. In this case, we have photos and videos from late in the day showing smoke pouring from virtually every South side floor, and dozens of eyewitness firefighters testifying to the fact that the building was "fully involved".
 
Larry Lovage said:
In an ideal world, WTC7 would not have been damaged and set on fire on a day when two of the world's biggest buildings had collapsed, taking unknown thousands of lives including who knows how many fellow firefighters. In an ideal world, there's no way that the firefighting effort would have been terminated so quickly (it's so hard to avoid using the loaded phrases "pulled" or "pulled out"), and the fire left to burn unhindered for over seven hours - certainly not in the heart of New York City. Russell even provided a timeline for Madrid which demonstrated how a building could fall after 5+ hours of burning even when it was being fought!

Enormous. Let me see, in the photo you yourself made use of, the smoke cloud is emanating from the whole of one side of WTC7, and is of such magnitude that simple visual examination would lead you to conclude that the sheer volume of the smoke is already many, many times that of the skyscrapers it is drifting over. Then you provide a comparison photograph that demonstrates that the quantity of smoke from WTC7 was considerably greater than the smoke being generated by the fires in WTC1 and WTC2!

I would be hard put to it to describe any such smoke cloud as being the result of "smothering".

There's no smoke without fire, they say! The photos that you decry the lack of flame of are the strongest evidence for the fact that the WTC7 must have been burning considerably across a far greater cross sectional area than the Twin Towers fires, which were concentrated on the planestrike floors and above only; the strongest evidence that WTC7 must have been burning on most or all of its 47 floors.
Click to expand...

Good spin!!!
 
stateofgrace said:
Really?

I am happy to oblige.

Now Russell, you have all your evidence, so when are you going to get of your backside and do something? NIST are still working on their final report, why not submit your case?

Come on Russell, you are the darling of the truth movement, put up or shut up.

I defy you; I challenge you to put it to the authorities, stop posting on internet forums and do it. I look forward to the breaking story in the main stream media.
Click to expand...

Ultimatum distraction is one of my favorites!
 
Larry Lovage said:
Ah - now I understand that Russell denies that the indicated building is WTC7. We surely don't need a photo comparison to determine the truth of that? Doesn't anybody have a map?

In any case, the fires are not from the Twin Towers, therefore they are from the other WTC buildings set on fire by the collapses. Contemporaneous (live) news reports indicated that the buildings on fire ("uncontrollably") were WTC 5, 6 and 7 - and that all three were expected to collapse. So that smoke comes from those buildings if it comes from anything! And it's fortunate that only one of them did collapse in the event.
Click to expand...

100% inaccurate. I know that is the edge of WTC 7. It was the location of the towers that was misrepresented. Try again.
 
Gravy said:
Why do you show another photo that does NOT show the south side of the building, Russell? Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge the accounts of the FDNY, ex-firefighter Pickering?

Your reply is expected.
Click to expand...

Your demands and expectations are certain to go unfulfilled with me.

Remember, I am not a Gravy Groupie.

I look into things for myself.
 
Larry Lovage said:
Just another quick post to add, sorry to have only managed to contribute on the "serious" side, because page 1 of this thread included some of the funniest stuff I've seen all week. Of all the possible situations for an illustrative burning steel building, only we British could have made it a toilet paper factory - Comedy Gold!! :D
Click to expand...

PLEASE READ

Once again I find JREFers engaged in mockery without research.

You jump to a conclusion that "a steel building collapses from fire" and try to link it to WTC 7.

There is NO similarity to the warehouse fire in Enigma Business Park and WTC 7 or the towers. NONE!

First of all take the time to watch the video of the fire below. Once open, it gives you the option to open in a player. Do that and enlarge it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/c...lready Seen=1

By the end of the video you will see 100% involvement of the entire structure. Please show me one photo of any open flame at WTC 7 even remotely equivocating this.

The fire penetrates the roof which is 100% different in its effects than a lateral floor fire such as in a high-rise. A fully ventilated "heat up" fire creates draft and centralizes heating.

Notice the odd color smoke at different phases as well. Yellow toward the beginning.

Warehouses and such are under 100% different flammability regulations than an occupied office structure. All materials in the U.S. from the structure itself to the office contents are highly regulated for life safety. There is no comparison.

Note in the video the massive series of explosions at the beginning of the fire and some throughout. Ask yourself when your toilet paper ever exploded even after bad Mexican or Thai food?

Observe the white hot nature of the fire in certain locations throughout the video. Point me to a similar phenomenon at WTC 7.

Notice that the columns showing in the photo that started this thread are on the windward side of the building. They were therefore exposed to the least amount of heat. They were pulled over and not melted. They did not buckle and come straight down.

The building came down non symmetrically. The wind may have actually played a factor.

Here is another photo gallery of the fire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworc..._gallery.shtml

Please study it and find ANY photo of WTC 7 that approximates it. For the purposes of this study we will only use WTC 7 as an example since it does not provide you the excuse of aircraft to magically explain it away.

As of now, over 5 years later the only official report we have on WTC 7 is that fire was the primary cause. Even the diesel fuel tanks there were given a "low probability" of being the source of the collapse.

Keep that in mind. It will apply to this fire and should generate a reasonable question for you to think about. If FEMA thought a diesel fuel tank at WTC 7 had a low probability of being the source of collapse, why is diesel fuel able to cause it 2 blocks away???

Now let's take a look at steel warehouse structures OK?

1) Standard Steel Buildings can be designed to look almost any way you can imagine, including stone, brick, slate and stucco.

2) Steel buildings as with most structures expand, and contract with temperature changes, causing a great deal of problems for most stucco products.

3) One of the great advantages of using steel warehouses is by using steel you can maintain a clear-span of up to 300 ft wide. Having a large space that is column-free you will gain the flexibility to satisfy even the most complex space design needs while still maintaining an obstacle free environment.

building_frames.jpg


http://www.standardsteelbuildings.co...buildings.html

Second opinion:
Rigid frame steel buildings are ideal for warehousing. Advantages include:

Clear span capabilities
Few if any interior columns
Thermally efficient
Durable
Predictable cost

http://www.steelbuildingsupplier.com.../Warehouse.cfm

Please compare the above information to the following graphic of just one aspect of WTC 7. Also keep in mind the different grades of construction steel and thicknesses in a 47 story, occupied, high-rise office structure in downtown New York City and a two story pre-fabricated warehouse at a business park in the rural U.K..

fig-5-8.gif



If any of you want to learn more about that, then read chapter 5 of the FEMA report below annotated by true skeptics.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Remember that chapter says in FEMA's own words, "The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially "peeled" outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion."

and.......

"Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Remember the warehouse had fire from the ground up. WTC 7 did not.

Now let's look at the actual company that was involved in the fire. ESP - Manufacturers of Soft Tissue Products.

address.gif


WEBSITE: http://www.es-p.co.uk/index.htm

Go to the "About Us" page page and click continue 3x to see the predominantly column free environment and their manufacturing floor.

Here's a few quotes from their site if you don't have time to research:

1) "ESP trades from a 25,000 sq ft purpose built factory set on a 2 1/2 acre site on the prestigious Enigma Business Park."

2) "With over 30,000 cases in stock at any time....... With over 150 tonnes of Mother reels in stock......"

So we have 25,000 sq feet of space with primarily prefab thickness external steel columns stuffed full of heavy flammables.

What other products do they carry and/or manufacture?

1) Dispensers (plastic)
2) Hygiene
3) Roll-a-soap
4) Washroom
5) Wiping

Lets look at just one of those products.

"ESP is pleased to announce the launch of its new product range M-BOSS. This revolutionary new product is manufactured using tissue plies that are Glued, Embossed and Laminated together."

Who knows what other chemicals and in what quantities may have been stored there? Or what quantities of their plastic products. Depending on what phase of the paper processes they are involved in, many other chemicals could be present. Watch the video again and listen to the explosions and watch the white hot fires.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/c...lready Seen=1

So what we have is actually a manufacturing plant that is almost 2/3 of an acre stuffed with various flammables, chemicals and equipment. It is a 2 story pre-fabricated structure that has external columns as its primary support structure. The columns you do see are not melted but only pulled over from the weight of the collapse.

You have 100% total involvement of a top ventilated fire. You have no knowledge of the temperatures achieved by the potential chemicals and combinations thereof even if it can be demonstrated that steel melted.

You also have a building that is known to expand and contract significantly in reaction to heat and cold because of its nature.

That nature is radically different than a 47 story high-rise office building.
Do you still want to compare it to WTC 7 in proof that 9/11 is not a conspiracy????

JREF is about as "fair and balanced" as FOX News.
 
Gravy said:
As though everyone doesn't know that Russell is deliberately ignoring the truth, here are some more photos of WTC 7 in the late afternoon, showing that the thick dark smoke from the site is coming from that building. I have many others. These photos are in my WTC 7 paper, which Russell said he'd read.



Looking northeast across the wreckage of WTC 1 (north tower) & 6 to building 7:​



Was the smoke really that heavy? Don't take my word for it. Watch these videos, which I linked to twice in my WTC 7 paper, but which Russell Pickering doesn't think are worthy of consideration. In the first, notice how the smoke from the north tower is lower and lighter in the foreground.




Click to expand...

Bad links in that post.

Now you've successfully shown smoke.

So a smoky fire on one side of the building with no floors visibly involved in flame is what caused a non symmetrial collapse.

How?
 
Russell Pickering said:
STILL waiting for photos or video.
Click to expand...
Of course. Absence of photos or video constitute proof of a coverup in the CTist mind.

The direct implication of your refusal to acknowledge the testimony of those at the scene is that they are telling lies about the state of WTC 7, and are thus part of the conspiracy. So why not just come out and admit that is your position Russell? That the FDNY is involved in your conspiracy scenario, as is Chief Nigro.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Russell, you know as well as the rest of us that you can't hang your conclusions on the absence of a specific piece of evidence that may or may not have ever existed.

We draw conclusions based on extant evidence. In this case, we have photos and videos from late in the day showing smoke pouring from virtually every South side floor, and dozens of eyewitness firefighters testifying to the fact that the building was "fully involved".
Click to expand...

"Fully involved" is demonstarted on the left.

wind.jpg
 
Russell Pickering said:
"Fully involved" is demonstarted on the left.

wind.jpg
Click to expand...
You're a photographer Russell, what do you know about how a fire will show up in a pic taken at night vs. one taken on a bright sunny day?

And once again, you bring up the Madrid tower - the steel portions of which collapsed completely!
 
Russell Pickering said:
*snip*
That nature is radically different than a 47 story high-rise office building.
Do you still want to compare it to WTC 7 in proof that 9/11 is not a conspiracy????
Click to expand...

There must be a slight misunderstanding here. It is not up to us to disprove your theory. It is your duty to prove it.

And in this context, the warehouse is relevant, depite the multiple differences, because one argument used in order to support the conspiract theory is the claim that "a steel supported building has never collapsed from fire alone". So quite apart from the fact nobody claims any of the WTC failed from fire alone, this is an example of a building where a steel structure, even if it hardly had to support anything but its own weight, actually buckled and (partly) collapsed due to fire alone.

So, argument refuted. Please state your next piece of evidence for your theory.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom