'What about building 7'?

[Bullwinkle2009]

Wtc7

Hi, I thought you read the report. It says the same thing. The floor collapsed and that caused the rest to collapse starting at 79
Chapter 2 page 64

 

[willhaven]

Is there an answer as brief as the question to silence these fools?

The WTC 7 fire burned for roughly twice as long as the fireproofing was rated to withstand. It's a miracle it stood as long as it did.

You could also dig up the video of the firefighter saying that the building was leaning and was, "definitely coming down." He says firefighters aren't going in because the, "structural integrity isn't there."

 

[aggle-rithm]

This morning I had to go to the store to get milk, and decided to take my dog with me. She's been having trouble with her hip lately, so she balked at getting in the car. Instead, she disappeared into a remote part of the garage, then came trotting back and hopped into the back seat.

This made me wonder: Why is it that my DOG understands the principle of momentum, but truthers don't?

 

[RedIbis]

The WTC 7 fire burned for roughly twice as long as the fireproofing was rated to withstand.

In one location?

 

[aggle-rithm]

In one location?

What do YOU think happened?

 

[GlennB]

This made me wonder: Why is it that my DOG understands the principle of momentum, but truthers don't?

An honest answer would probably earn a yellow card. It might almost be worth it

 

[RedIbis]

What do YOU think happened?

I don't think the fire sat in one location for 6 hours. Do you?

 

[Fonebone]

continuing ..........

Fonebone likes to talk about the 'penthouses' ---
The open air 'penthouse' on the western two thirds of the roof housed the air conditioning equipment
and condenser fans as well as the exhaust blowers.
The eastern third of the roof was a mechanical room enclosed penthouse.
Viewed from the north, the eastern 'penthouse' third of the roof that was the first section
to collapse, is the enclosed structure seen here on the left.
The air conditioning equipment is on the right. This WTC7 cameo is the north face of the WTC7
taken shortly after the WTC1 tower had collapsed.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814ca3c71ec48fe.jpg[/qimg]

The sunlit area north of the WTC7 building is mirrored in the windows of the
WTC7 tower clearly indicating the structure is not contorted to any noticeable degree
and there no broken windows.
No visible damage,fire, or smoke at any point of the WTC7 north face. Again , this still was taken
minutes after the second tower WTC1 collapsed.

Where is the raging inferno that the fire department couldn't battle ?

Probably because that picture was taken sometime after the collapse of 2 WTC. The picture you posted seems to show the building before it caught fire. The lack of fire should be a clue.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=3789[/qimg]

You are correct- The lack of fires is the clue.The WTC1 is missing from the still-

Here is another cameo of the WTC7 penthouses taken from the observation
platform on the WTC 2 roof- The building on the extreme left is the WTC1 tower.
Note the WTC1 tower's position with respect to the WTC7 tower.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814ca61f0486045.bmp[/qimg]

NOW - study the still I posted and note what is missing--
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=3789[/qimg]

Correct , The WTC1 tower is missing- This still was taken after the 2nd tower,the WTC1 tower, collapsed.
The lack of fires is the clue.![/QUOTE]

EXCELLENT ! This is where we left off-The two WTC twin towers have collapsed and the WTC7 tower cameo showing no visible damage,fire,or smoke minutes after the WTC 1 demolition. My question was--
Where are the raging inferno fires that the NYC fire department could not attack?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't think the fire sat in one location for 6 hours. Do you?

I doubt it needed to in any case.

 

[Miragememories]

"The WTC 7 fire burned for roughly twice as long as the fireproofing was rated to withstand. It's a miracle it stood as long as it did."

"In one location?"

"What do YOU think happened?"

"I don't think the fire sat in one location for 6 hours. Do you?"

Of course he does Red.

Otherwise the NIST theory would collapse faster than WTC7.

MM

 

[DGM]

Of course he does Red.

Otherwise the NIST theory would collapse faster than WTC7.

MM

So do you support the CTBUH findings? Or is it only the part where they disagree with NIST?

 

[cooperman]

What do YOU think happened?

Why don't you answer his question?

 

[twinstead]

Why don't you answer his question?

Because the whole idea is to get you folks to come up with a theory that fits the available evidence BETTER than the commonly-held narrative does, instead of simply trying to instill doubt in the prevailing theory--which means you're not after truth, you're after ammunition.

Because after all, when ALL the available evidence is put together, the ONLY theory that even comes close to fitting is the NIST Report. You can nit pick and chip away at irrelevant minutiae or discuss semantics or do whatever else backseat investigators do and think you're getting somewhere if you want. Until you come up with a narrative as detailed as the NIST Report, and one that makes more sense, you will forever be raging against the Machine on obscure internet forums exclusively.

 

[cooperman]

Because the whole idea is to get you folks to come up with a theory that fits the available evidence BETTER than the commonly-held narrative does, instead of simply trying to instill doubt in the prevailing theory--which means you're not after truth, you're after ammunition.

Because after all, when ALL the available evidence is put together, the ONLY theory that even comes close to fitting is the NIST Report. You can nit pick and chip away at irrelevant minutiae or discuss semantics or do whatever else backseat investigators do and think you're getting somewhere if you want. Until you come up with a narrative as detailed as the NIST Report, and one that makes more sense, you will forever be raging against the Machine on obscure internet forums exclusively.

You do not need a new theory to prove the prevailing theory wrong. That is nonsense.

What you meant to say was; "He doesn't want to answer the question because it destroys the NIST theory"

 

[DGM]

You do not need a new theory to prove the prevailing theory wrong. .

Yes but, how do you convince people it's wrong without a new theory? You can't even prove that they are wrong?

 

[cooperman]

I doubt it needed to in any case.

If the fireproofing was rated for 3 hours then it is quite important how long the fire burned for in a given location.

Saying "the building burned for 7 hours, which is longer that the fireproofing is rated for therefore it would collapse" is not honest. In fact, when taking into account the avoidance of the issue of how long the fire burned in a specific location, it is lying.

 

[cooperman]

Yes but, how do you convince people it's wrong without a new theory? You can't even prove that they are wrong?

Of course you can. One theory is not dependent on the other.

Imagine the situation was reversed for a second. Imagine the prevailing theory was that controlled demolition had brought down the towers. Would you need another theory to prove it false?

 

[Disbelief]

If the fireproofing was rated for 3 hours then it is quite important how long the fire burned for in a given location.

Saying "the building burned for 7 hours, which is longer that the fireproofing is rated for therefore it would collapse" is not honest. In fact, when taking into account the avoidance of the issue of how long the fire burned in a specific location, it is lying.

So when the fire goes out in a specific location, does it instantaneously cool down? Does the size of the fires matter?

 

[cooperman]

So when the fire goes out in a specific location, does it instantaneously cool down? Does the size of the fires matter?

WTF? Are these serious questions?

You are seriously asking me if an area cools down when the fire goes out? Umm, yes , it does.

The "size" of the fires is a meaningless quantifier. The fires were fuelled by ordinary office contents and had a standard, expected, temperature range which the fireproofing was rated for.

 

[DGM]

Of course you can. One theory is not dependent on the other.

Imagine the situation was reversed for a second. Imagine the prevailing theory was that controlled demolition had brought down the towers. Would you need another theory to prove it false?

I would. I don't really like to just trust my "intuition". I have to go where the evidence leads me. So far there has been no evidence presented that supports a CD.

If you want to start, I'm all ears.