Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

Stellafane said:
And you, sir, are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever encountered.

You've been provided with a preponderance of evidence that WTC7 was on fire. Photos and videos. Expert testimony by on-site eyewitnessess. Everything a reasonable, rational person would need to accept the fact.

But for whatever reason, you don't want to accept it. You want to believe in some other shadowy, ill-defined reality, because apparently it fulfills some need in your life. So you ignore all the facts in front of you. I can't imagine the mental gymnastics you must need to perform to be made aware of these facts, but still somehow cling to your beliefs.

It wouldn't really matter if someone did produce an up-close photo of WTC7 totally engulfed in great leaping flames, would it? Because you'd just dismiss it as a fake. The flames don't look right. They're the wrong color, size, shape, whatever. They were obviously PhotoShopped -- something, anything to keep your cherished little delusion alive.

In short, you have closed your mind and refuse to consider anything that might imperil your ability to continue to believe what you want to believe. In this way you're no different from any extremist who ever blindly followed any lost cause throughout history. So please don't talk of dishonesty; you're frankly in no position to do so.
Click to expand...

I guess this strategy is just all that is left.

I don't claim anything is fake.

Show me the photos.
 
Russell Pickering said:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg

NO [visible] FLAME.
Click to expand...
Clearly the building was on fire. You're not denying that, are you?

So you don't accept that "fully involved" is a fair description. So what? How does merely being "somewhat involved" for several hours contradict the big picture?:

The building was burning uncontrollably; it had suffered some degree of structural damage; the people on the ground noticed signs of impending collapse and were clearly concerned about it; and few who had been following its progress were surprised when it finally did.
 
Stellafane said:
But for whatever reason, you don't want to accept it.
Click to expand...

It appears that Russell understands that the one and only way to make the controlled demolition hypothesis more plausible than the fire hypothesis is to insist that the fire hypothesis is impossible. What that says about the plausibility of the CD hypothesis is obvious.
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
I guess this strategy is just all that is left.

I don't claim anything is fake.

Show me the photos.
Click to expand...
Can you please explain why there is smoke coming from almost every floor on the South side of WTC 7 if it wasn't, in your opinion, on fire?
 
chipmunk stew said:
Clearly the building was on fire. You're not denying that, are you?

So you don't accept that "fully involved" is a fair description. So what? How does merely being "somewhat involved" for several hours contradict the big picture?:

The building was burning uncontrollably; it had suffered some degree of structural damage; the people on the ground noticed signs of impending collapse and were clearly concerned about it; and few who had been following its progress were surprised when it finally did.
Click to expand...

I can't possibly answer what FEMA and NIST have not in over 5 years.
 
apathoid said:
Smoke generators??
Click to expand...

Possible smoky fuel fires on floors 5-7 according to FEMA.

The smoke was drafting up the side of the building.

Quote:
In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...684&query_id=0

wtc71.jpg


NO FLAME.
 
Russell Pickering said:
PLEASE try something besides the dishonest thing OK? I have already had the whole gamut and every synonym of being a liar thrown at me.

ZERO effect.

This forum is truly one of the most dishonest places I have ever visited.

You guys need a new playbook.
Click to expand...

I was just making an observation.

CT'rs seem to be really good at "connecting the dots" and "reading between the lines". You know, extracting and exposing a conspiracy plot from the barest of clues and testimony.
YET, you seem to be demanding very specific and most obvious of evidence when all the clues and testimony are there. For instance, other examples of steel structures collapsing from fire. Eyewitness testimony from the firefighters that were there. Pictures of smoke pouring out of every floor of WTC7. Come now Mr. Pickering, Connect those dots. What does that evidence tell you?
 
Stellafane said:
But for whatever reason, you don't want to accept it.
Click to expand...
It's simple. He doesn't want to cause another delay in the release of LCFC. They already had to revamp the Pentagon stuff. To make any changes to WTC7 would affect the lead time by a couple months, at least. They're in the middle of negotiating their nationwide theatrical distribution. Any time delays would kill their release plans. Dylan wouldn't risk it merely for the sake of the truth.
 
Russell Pickering said:
There were thousands of people all around the building for miles.

How many photos have we seen that day taken with telephoto lenses? There would be one of a fire of a 47 story building fully involved in flame. The CBS collapse video was trained on the building all afternoon. NO FIRE.

It is time for you to be honest. What you have is a smoky fuel fire, perhaps around floors 5-7 like FEMA suggested. That smoke drafted up the side of the building in the currents created by being on the leeward side of the building.

[qimg]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg[/qimg]

NO FLAME.

[qimg]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc72.jpg[/qimg]

Look through the smoke and try and tell me you have even one side of the building fully involved in fire. You can see the windows.

[qimg]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc73.jpg[/qimg]

3 sides of the building now with NO FLAME.

So lets say there was fire on one side of the building - what caused it to symmetrically collapse? The windows aren't even universally broken out to ventilate a fire.
Click to expand...

Russell, even though in your discussion of the Pentagon you've retreated, and your responses there are now indistinguishable from Christopera's, I hold out hope that you can be reasonable.

If your theory on WTC 7 holds any water, then you must be able to answer a simple question -- one you've been dodging for some time, now:

If WTC 7 wasn't destroyed by impact damage and fire, how did the FDNY know it was going to collapse?

Explain. And don't give me any crap about "twisting," because I'm just asking you a simple, unambiguous question.
 
chipmunk stew said:
1) Clearly the building was on fire. You're not denying that, are you?

2) So you don't accept that "fully involved" is a fair description. So what? How does merely being "somewhat involved" for several hours contradict the big picture?:

3) The building was burning uncontrollably; it had suffered some degree of structural damage; the people on the ground noticed signs of impending collapse and were clearly concerned about it; and few who had been following its progress were surprised when it finally did.
Click to expand...
Russell Pickering said:
I can't possibly answer what FEMA and NIST have not in over 5 years.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you to.

(1) is a yes or no question about your current state of belief.
(2) is asking you how a downgrade in the description of the fire contradicts:
(3) which is a statement of fact.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Possible smoky fuel fires on floors 5-7 according to FEMA.

The smoke was drafting up the side of the building.

Quote:
In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...684&query_id=0

[qimg]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg[/qimg]

NO FLAME.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this argument is the vorticies will roll the smoke up the side of the building. Look closer at the pictures. The smoke is EMINATING from the windows not ROLLING up the side.

Notice in the segment you posted where it said "Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building".
 
R.Mackey said:
If WTC 7 wasn't destroyed by impact damage and fire, how did the FDNY know it was going to collapse?
Click to expand...

I really wish you would drop the rhetoric and stop the obfuscating tactics and get back to the issue at hand.
 
Wow, I've been kind of playing catch-up on this thread, but I just want to respond to something you asserted a lot earlier, Russell -


First, it should be acknowledged that the American population has been well served by the design and construction industry regarding fire safety in high-rise structural steel buildings exposed to historical threats. As was noted in the workshop and was highlighted in the Engineering News Record article that covered the workshop (February12, 2004, p. 15), in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.


During the past 75 years, these prescriptive approaches have been successful. In the NIST report, six occurrences of collapse in steel framed structures were cited. Four of these six were at the World Trade Center site. It would appear this performance has resulted from a balance of redundancy in structural design and the conservatism in the assessment of fire test data.​
Click to expand...


(emphasis yours)

First of all, you are wrong in regards to the numbers of buildings suffering structural damage due to fire. According to the NIST report on trends in firefighter fatalities due to structural collapse - ( http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire03/PDF/f03024.pdf ) - page 24 of that report, which is page 33 of the PDF file, you will see graphs that show that 24 - 32% of deaths caused by structural collapse occur in office / retail building use types, which are typically steel framed. Furthermore, accoring to the same graphs, 8 - 13% occured in manufacturing type buildings, also normally using steel frames.

In the NIST article you use as reference, it is true that 4 of the 6 buildings that they cite were part of the World Trade Center. That doesn't mean that the list is completely comprehensive or include any and every building collapse ever. It means they only cited 6.

In another article, Fire Protection Engineering Magazine lists 22 (not 17) multi-storey collapses due to fire ( http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153 ) over a 30-year span, "all of recorded history". They likely don't look farther back because they don't care about the ages where there was no fire protection. Now, of the buildings they list, they break them down by structural types and find:

Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
Brick/Masonry: 5
Wood: 2
Unknown: 2

So, there have been at least 2 other, large, multisorey, steel structured buildings, wherein fire was the primary culprit, that have collapsed, since 1970. And those 2 probably didn't have giant jetliners slam into them, or get pummeled by falling and burning debris. By the way, this list is by no means comprehensive, either; it just includes a larger sample than the report you chose to use.
​
 
Russell Pickering said:
Possible smoky fuel fires on floors 5-7 according to FEMA.

The smoke was drafting up the side of the building.

Quote:
In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...684&query_id=0


NO FLAME.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to disregard the interim NIST report and reference the FEMA report, which was only a preliminary assessment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom