Some simple Tower 7 questions

[GlennB]

None of this had been necessary if the NWO had just known about the existence of shredders.

Damn good thinking! I like your style! We have a *very* nice job opportunity within the NWO that might interest you. Free black helicopter and other benefits, including ... <aaargghhhhh>

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...Other than the diesel and office contents reply, nobody else responded to this one. And even if a pool of diesel and a mountain plastics were wrapped around the main support beams they still wouldn't have created enough heat for the beams to suddenly fail the way they did. Since the entire building falls at an equal and level rate, wouldn't the majority of the main support beams have to had fail at the same exact time?

Your theory, you answer your question and show the work supporting it.

If one or two beams became heated enough to fail then it could have possibly created a domino effect, but from ALL of the video's available for viewing... it certainly doesn't appear that way.

Show your work supporting this.

According to this picture:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-16.jpg
none of this damage would have played a role in destroying the structural steel foundation of the building.

Choosing one picture that supports your claim, while ignore others that disprove your claim is disingenuous.

Supposedly, 20,000 gallons where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon tanks, so only 4,000 gallons could contributed to the heat , if by some chance the tanks were completely full.

Source this or retract it.

...I haven't seen where anybody describes or claims that fire appeared on the ground or basement floors, and since that's where the they would have been placed considering the descent of the structure.. the WOULD have survived since there was no fires reported on those floors.

The building was a catilever design. Your claim appears to be based on a traditional structure.

There were relatively small fires throughout the building during the 7 hours prior to it's collapse, but none of the images I've seen show more than one or two floors burning on any side of the building at the same time.
The building didn't burn, according to the images and reports a very small portion of the buildings contents burned.

Substantiate these claims.

I think we can all agree that the structural integrity of the steel beams failed "suddenly".

No. The failure of the beams was sudden. It is not possible to analyze the structural integrity of the support structure from video/image evidence.

Non heat treated steel loses about half of it's strength at about 600C. Let's say that there were 12 magicians at the base of each beam with a oxycetylene torch, that still wouldn't have caused the building to collapse the way it did. According to ALL of the video's available, the entire foundation of the structure basically "vanished" simultaneously.

Refer to my above point about its cantilevered design.

I didn't say every beam, I said the majority of the beams. 2/3rds AT LEAST for it to fall like that.

Show your work.

Thick clouds of dust and debris flying out the side windows of the building. It's not as if the contents of the roof had enough time to travel to the ground. And if you say that the structural contents underneath the penthouse were falling and caused the cloud , then the structure would have folded inward as it collapsed, IF by some miracle all of the surrounding support beams failed at the same exact time.

Show your work.

I guess I should have said FLAMES instead of "signs of fire" in my question. Have you seen or can you produce any video footage that show any FLAMES in the seconds prior to and as the building collapsed?

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Argumentum ad ignoratium.

...AFAIK, the entire NIST can kiss a sick cat in the ass.

Opinions are not evidence. This statement shows your confirmational bias at work.

None of those contents combined generate enough heat to melt steel.

Substantiate this claim.

..When an avalanche occures the snow flows down the side of the mountain, all of the snow doesn't drop off the face of the mountain at the same time.

Please provide your work showing that an avalanche on a mountain is an analogous situation to WTC7.

80-90% air? Not quite.

Substantiate this claim.

...GREY smoke indicates a low heat smoldering fire, a fire hot enough to melt steel would generally produce very little smoke.. like a torch. Black smoke indicates a fire that has an abundance of fuel that isn't burning hot enough to vaporize the exhausted fumes.

Aside from the fact that CTers are now claim that both black smoke and grey smoke indicate low temp fires; substantiate this claim.

 

[GlennB]

There were relatively small fires throughout the building during the 7 hours prior to it's collapse, but none of the images I've seen show more than one or two floors burning on any side of the building at the same time.
The building didn't burn, according to the images and reports a very small portion of the buildings contents burned.

It burned heavily for some hours.

I'd guess you've only seen images from CT sites? They don't like to show the truth.

 

[twinstead]

And again, another CT implies that all the firemen and other experts on the scene who reported heavy damage and large, uncontrolled fires and creaking and sagging that indicated a collapse was quite possible are lying or in on the plot.

Sigh.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Well, if I see a sceleton on the ground. I don't need a doctors opinion to determine if that person is dead or not.

Not so fast.

Didja ever see that flick "Jason and the Argonauts"? That Ray Harryhausen extravaganza?

Remember when those 6 skeletons came out of their graves and chased Jason and his roadies all over the friggin' Greek Isles because they wanted to get their bony hands on the Golden Fleece so's they could impress their rather anorexic skel-babes with some damn fine golden threads? So's back in their graves, they could get "laid"?

HMMM?!?

 

[~enigma~]

Submersible avoided the answers from my post for a reason. Now, I say the jerk deserves exactly what my signature says. Anyway, does anybody think

 

[Kent1]

"Supposedly, 20,000 gallons where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon tanks, so only 4,000 gallons could contributed to the heat , if by some chance the tanks were completely full."

The base system was two 12,000 gallon tanks

The second fuel oil distribution system was supplied by two 6,000 gal storage tanks under the loading dock. The tanks were damaged and found empty. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either tank. The evidance suggests the fuel did not leak into the underground soil. Witnesses reported that they were always kept full.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

 

[njslim]

MP8818 Spare E-210 MP8912 Spare E-4 SP9374 Engine 55 SP9401H Engine 6SP9402H Engine 10 SP9404H Engine 34 SP9405H Engine 65 SP9602 Spare Sq-252 SP9703 Engine 15 SP9709 Engine 21 SP9723 Engine 204 SP98014 Squad 1SP98021 Engine 1 SP98032 Engine 76 SP00017 Engine 7 SP00029 Engine 202SP00030 Engine 28 SP00035 Squad 18 SL8904 Ladder 8 SL9403 Ladder 132SL9406 Ladder 10 SL9411 Ladder 11 SL9413 Ladder 3 SL99008 Ladder 113 SL01002 Ladder 4 SL99012 Ladder 101 SL99013 Ladder 20 SL00002 Ladder 5SL00003 Ladder 6 ST9402 Ladder 105 ST99001 Ladder 18 ST99006 Ladder 9ST99007 Ladder 1 SR9601 Rescue 1 SR9602 Rescue 2 MH 9705 High Rise 1MH9706 High Rise 2IM98002 TSU 1IM9101 TRV (SQ.1) IH9704 MSU 4 MS9304 Satellite 1 GM8931 FCU spare GM98005 HMT Sq-18 GM98006 HMT Sq-252 GM98009 HMT R-5F M8963 Shop Truck FM9161 Shop Truck FA94030 Amb. 295FA97031 Amb. 217FA97047 Amb. 302FA97148 Amb. 311FA97179 Amb. 506GM9166 RAC 3 spare GM9445 spare pool GM9458 Div. 11 GM9739 spare pool GM9744 Batt. 12 GM9745 Batt. 1 GM9756 Batt. 6 GM99039 EMS GM99117 SOC GM99118 Safety GM99126 Batt. 46 GM99130 Batt. 48 GM99154 EMS GM99168 Batt. 4 GM99172 Batt. 9 GM99175 Batt. 7 GM99180 Batt. 2 FS9359 EMS FS9708 spare pool FS9711 Operations FS9716 SOC FS9720 Operations FS9724 Haz-Mat FS01041 EMS FS010142 Chief of Dept. FS01045 Chief of Ops. FS01047 Dep. Comm.FS20003 Div. 1 FS20004 Div. 3 FS20008 Div. 11 GS9147 OEM GS9313 Comm. GS9332 BFI GS9345 PIO GS9350 Operations GS9353 spare-pool GS 9520 BFI GS9522 BFI GS9534 Fleet Services GM9555 EMSGS99004 EMSSource:

FDNY Apparatus Destroyed on Sept.

List of apparatus destroyed at WTC - includes 18 pumpers 19 ladders, 22
sedans (for chiefs), 18 Suburbans (Battalion chiefs), most of the heavy rescue vehicles along with 343 personnel killed

You think it is easy being fireman - go there squirt some water, go home

When towers came down the water supply to area was cut - took some time
for fireboats to arrive. Takes tremendous effort to stretch hose lines to
fireboats and establish water supply. Also lot of time. Chiefs considering
situation - badly damaged building, heavy losses in personnel/equipment,
problems with water supply considered options. Saving badly damaged
EMPTY building on fire with limited resources made choice to abandon operation to save WTC7.

While most people only concentrate on WTC complex , buildings all around WTC site were on fire at World Financial Centers, Bankers Trust, 90 West
Street. FDNY had hands full. Listened all afternoon and into evening to
radio calls at my firehouse from adjacent FD fighting fires at World Financial
Centers - were on standby in case needed and were covering for them

 

[Submersible]

Submersible avoided the answers from my post for a reason. Now, I say the jerk deserves exactly what my signature says. Anyway, does anybody think

It takes a little while to look at and consider all of the opinions and evidence that everybody else posted. I responded to everything that seemed pertinent and entered my post before I checked back to see if you had something to add. Your post wasn't intentionally ignored but since you called me a troll, now I'll ignore you.

Aside from the fact that CTers are now claim that both black smoke and grey smoke indicate low temp fires; substantiate this claim.

I didn't say that black smoke indicates a low temp fire.

Choosing one picture that supports your claim, while ignore others that disprove your claim is disingenuous.

I haven't seen any image that indicates where the falling debris from tower 1 could have caused structural damage to the internal truss or cantilever transfer girders. According to Gravy's report the images he uses an examples of damaged caused by falling debris appear to all be superficial.

Originally Posted by Submersible
Supposedly, 20,000 gallons where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon tanks, so only 4,000 gallons could contributed to the heat , if by some chance the tanks were completely full.

Source this or retract it

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

The building was a catilever design. Your claim appears to be based on a traditional structure.

I have a fairly good idea of what my claims are based on. If any one of the three main truss' were not "destroyed" at the same exact time as the other two, the entire building wouldn't have fallen at an even rate and ALMOST flush.

Originally Posted by Submersible
There were relatively small fires throughout the building during the 7 hours prior to it's collapse, but none of the images I've seen show more than one or two floors burning on any side of the building at the same time.
The building didn't burn, according to the images and reports a very small portion of the buildings contents burned.

Substantiate these claims.

This building is burning:

Small flames can be seen in a few windows of this building:

A few more flames:

I don't think any of those light reflections are flames, maybe one:

This is an image showing the smoke rising from Towers 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 7.

Originally Posted by Submersible
I didn't say every beam, I said the majority of the beams. 2/3rds AT LEAST for it to fall like that.

Show your work.

Refer to the drawing posted above. And I retract that statement because even if one of the main truss' would have remaind "intact" the entire building wouldn't have descended without encountering some structural integrity on the way down.

Originally Posted by Submersible
Thick clouds of dust and debris flying out the side windows of the building. It's not as if the contents of the roof had enough time to travel to the ground. And if you say that the structural contents underneath the penthouse were falling and caused the cloud , then the structure would have folded inward as it collapsed, IF by some miracle all of the surrounding support beams failed at the same exact time.

Show your work.

I didn't do it !

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Argumentum ad ignoratium.

Ok, when a source of authority or a source of information such as the NIST explains that the complete destruction of tower 7 was due to intense fires that deteriorated the support beams, most people would expect to see some evidence of the fires or an explanation of what contents could have been located in the structure that would have reached and maintained a temperature hot enough to weaken steel I-beams.
They are in abscence of evidence.

Originally Posted by Submersible
80-90% air? Not quite.

Substantiate this claim.

If you add up all of the glass, light fixtures, furniture, wiring, and duct work, equipment, metal, concrete equals 61% air.

G x L = 22 X F x W + DW x E=mc2 adds up to 60.6% if you want to be exact.

I got my scratch work here if you want me to scan it for ya'.

http://legalwar.org/permalinks/2006...Metal-Under-Ground-Zero-for-Months-after-911/

The second fuel oil distribution system was supplied by two 6,000 gal storage tanks under the loading dock. The tanks were damaged and found empty. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either tank. The evidance suggests the fuel did not leak into the underground soil. Witnesses reported that they were always kept full.

Considering that the explanation for the collapse of tower 1,2 & 7 were all blamed on structural failure due to intense fires, it would be impossible for a piece of debris falling off of tower 1 to penetrate 2 foot of concrete at the loading dock and puncture either one of those tanks. In most instances I believe that it's safe to say that those two tanks had to be punctured when the building collapsed, but maybe not here.

And again, another CT implies that all the firemen and other experts on the scene who reported heavy damage and large, uncontrolled fires and creaking and sagging that indicated a collapse was quite possible are lying or in on the plot.

Sigh.

For the most part I've just been asking questions. I think the rational and more than likely already understood answers to most of them indicate that many people from all walks of life have lied about the events of 9/11. More than likely most of them didn't have a choice.

 

[Pardalis]

That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.

Can you tell be to what this animal is?

 

[Gravy]

Submersible, I hate to promote my own paper again, but I did spend a lot of time compiling the eyewitness reports of the first responders. Please read them if you think the WTC 7 fires and damage weren't enormous, and if you think that everyone who inspected the building did not think it was going to collapse. The paper is linked in my signature.

Pardalis, in his post above, means to ask what animal that most resembles. That's sort of the point of my avatar also.

 

[Gravy]

That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.

The actual demolitions experts who saw building 7 come down at close range say you are wrong. They say there was no way the building could withstand the damage and fires, and they say there was NO sign of demolitions charges being used. The instruments they use to detect demolitions effects – seismographs – were in the neighborhood and also show no sign of demolition blasts.

If you have a reason to believe your inexpert analysis of a grainy video over their expert eyewitness accounts, present it.

It's important to get informed before making such wild accusations.

 

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, in his post above, means to ask what animal that most resembles. That's sort of the point of my avatar also.

Yes, exactly, thanks Gravy.

(damn, I should be more careful and read my posts before I click on "Submit Reply" )

 

[~enigma~]

It takes a little while to look at and consider all of the opinions and evidence that everybody else posted. I responded to everything that seemed pertinent and entered my post before I checked back to see if you had something to add. Your post wasn't intentionally ignored but since you called me a troll, now I'll ignore you.

Nothing below is from me moron.

I didn't say that black smoke indicates a low temp fire.


I haven't seen any image that indicates where the falling debris from tower 1 could have caused structural damage to the internal truss or cantilever transfer girders. According to Gravy's report the images he uses an examples of damaged caused by falling debris appear to all be superficial.


http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-5.gif

I have a fairly good idea of what my claims are based on. If any one of the three main truss' were not "destroyed" at the same exact time as the other two, the entire building wouldn't have fallen at an even rate and ALMOST flush.



This building is burning:
http://www.cassvillefire.org/images/Brfire.jpg

Small flames can be seen in a few windows of this building:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-19.jpg

A few more flames:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-16.jpg

I don't think any of those light reflections are flames, maybe one:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-17.jpg

This is an image showing the smoke rising from Towers 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 7.
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7lateafternoon2.jpg


Refer to the drawing posted above. And I retract that statement because even if one of the main truss' would have remaind "intact" the entire building wouldn't have descended without encountering some structural integrity on the way down.



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-23a.jpg
I didn't do it !


Ok, when a source of authority or a source of information such as the NIST explains that the complete destruction of tower 7 was due to intense fires that deteriorated the support beams, most people would expect to see some evidence of the fires or an explanation of what contents could have been located in the structure that would have reached and maintained a temperature hot enough to weaken steel I-beams.
They are in abscence of evidence.



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-3.gif

If you add up all of the glass, light fixtures, furniture, wiring, and duct work, equipment, metal, concrete equals 61% air.

G x L = 22 X F x W + DW x E=mc2 adds up to 60.6% if you want to be exact.

I got my scratch work here if you want me to scan it for ya'.

http://legalwar.org/permalinks/2006...Metal-Under-Ground-Zero-for-Months-after-911/



Considering that the explanation for the collapse of tower 1,2 & 7 were all blamed on structural failure due to intense fires, it would be impossible for a piece of debris falling off of tower 1 to penetrate 2 foot of concrete at the loading dock and puncture either one of those tanks. In most instances I believe that it's safe to say that those two tanks had to be punctured when the building collapsed, but maybe not here.



For the most part I've just been asking questions. I think the rational and more than likely already understood answers to most of them indicate that many people from all walks of life have lied about the events of 9/11. More than likely most of them didn't have a choice.

 

[Kent1]

"Considering that the explanation for the collapse of tower 1,2 & 7 were all blamed on structural failure due to intense fires, it would be impossible for a piece of debris falling off of tower 1 to penetrate 2 foot of concrete at the loading dock and puncture either one of those tanks. In most instances I believe that it's safe to say that those two tanks had to be punctured when the building collapsed, but maybe not here. "

NIST seems to suggest fuel pipes and containment pipe from those tanks.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I want to respond to a bunch of different replies and most of them are scatterd out, so this will probably be a little sketchy


Other than the diesel and office contents reply, nobody else responded to this one. And even if a pool of diesel and a mountain plastics were wrapped around the main support beams they still wouldn't have created enough heat for the beams to suddenly fail the way they did. Since the entire building falls at an equal and level rate, wouldn't the majority of the main support beams have to had fail at the same exact time?
If one or two beams became heated enough to fail then it could have possibly created a domino effect, but from ALL of the video's available for viewing... it certainly doesn't appear that way.



According to this picture:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-16.jpg
none of this damage would have played a role in destroying the structural steel foundation of the building.



Supposedly, 20,000 gallons where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon tanks, so only 4,000 gallons could contributed to the heat , if by some chance the tanks were completely full.



I've done a little more than look at YOUTUBE and I don't appreciate being called an idiot.
I haven't seen where anybody describes or claims that fire appeared on the ground or basement floors, and since that's where the they would have been placed considering the descent of the structure.. the WOULD have survived since there was no fires reported on those floors.


There were relatively small fires throughout the building during the 7 hours prior to it's collapse, but none of the images I've seen show more than one or two floors burning on any side of the building at the same time.
The building didn't burn, according to the images and reports a very small portion of the buildings contents burned.


I think we can all agree that the structural integrity of the steel beams failed "suddenly". Non heat treated steel loses about half of it's strength at about 600C. Let's say that there were 12 magicians at the base of each beam with a oxycetylene torch, that still wouldn't have caused the building to collapse the way it did. According to ALL of the video's available, the entire foundation of the structure basically "vanished" simultaneously.

...

Back to my first question, what contents of an office building could have provided enough fuel to maintain the heat required to melt steel?

As you said, steel loses about half its strength at 600C. The temperatures in residential fires can reach 600-700C. Since most people don't have thermite or large tanks of diesel fuel in their homes, we know that burning furniture, carpeting, paper, wall studs, etc. can generate sufficiently high temperatures to weaken steel. Fireproofing is just insulation. If you turn off the furnace in the middle of winter, even if your house is insulated it will eventually get cold, right? If a fire produces heat long enough, the heat will eventually penetrate the fireproofing.

Considering the amount of time it took the FDNY to put out the fire in an apartment building that was struck by a small airplane a month or so ago, why didn't they attempt to extinguish ANY of the fires in tower 7?
I haven't found any reports that explain where they attempted to extinguish any of the fires that were scattered throughout the structure. Also, considering that a properly constructed steel structured building has NEVER collapsed due to fire, why would the FDNY even consider that this building was going to fall ?
I agree there was a bunch of smoke rolling up and out of one side of the structure, but all of the images of flames indicate very small fires compared to the size of this building. It's about like saying the FDNY would pull out of a house fire because the linen closet was burning, and they believed the roof was going to collapse.

"Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."
NYFD Chief Peter Hayden

Do you really think that firemen should go into a building that shows evidence of being ready to collapse when there are no lives to save?

 

[Quad4_72]

Sub, it seems like you may be ignoring a lot of evidence that has been provided. You can't just disregard things that do not comply with what you think. Use rational thought and keep an open mind. Many many experts in all of the relevant fields have done a lot of investigating and a lot of work. Do you really think that you can disagree with the people who were actually there and actually did the investigating? Do you think that by using google you can single handedly expose the biggest government conspiracy in the history of Earth? Read through Gravy's paper. I am pretty sure that explains most of it right there. In the mean time, answer a couple of these questions for me.

1. If it was a CD, why is there no audio of any explosives going off?
2. What else what making all of that smoke besides massive fires?

 

[Bell]

Das Boat, get your head above the water. You can see more clearly then.

 

[Submersible]

You think it is easy being fireman - go there squirt some water, go home

When towers came down the water supply to area was cut - took some time
for fireboats to arrive. Takes tremendous effort to stretch hose lines to
fireboats and establish water supply. Also lot of time. Chiefs considering
situation - badly damaged building, heavy losses in personnel/equipment,
problems with water supply considered options. Saving badly damaged
EMPTY building on fire with limited resources made choice to abandon operation to save WTC7.

I am a fireman, doesn't the FDNY have several hose tenders that can lay 1000ft of 5inch in a matter of minutes? I can imagine that there were thousands of different variables to consider and I place no blame on the FDNY for the collapse of tower 7. Somebody in charge chose to commit the dept's resources to other structures that had already collapsed or had received major damage when the first two towers collapsed.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but you would assume that someone in a position to chose which buildings should and could most likely be saved would have easily chosen tower 7. Considering the importance of it's occupants and the relatively small amount of damage compared to the other adjacent structures that should have been the first building to save.
Regardless, it still doesn't explain why any of the FDNY Chief's would assume that the building was going to fall down.

were on standby in case needed and were covering for them

My point exactly, if the Commissioner wanted to save tower 7 I think ya'll could have easily made it happen.

 

[Gravy]

Sub, it seems like you may be ignoring a lot of evidence that has been provided. You can't just disregard things that do not comply with what you think.

Quad, since you're new here I'll fill you in: judging from his past performance it is unlikely that submersible will be thinking rationally or examining evidence dispassionately any time soon. Don't knock yourself out over him if he doesn't show signs of improvement.