'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cooperman said:
How was what I said wrong? Do you believe that an area of office fire will continue to burn for hours?
Click to expand...


In the absence of water for firefighting, the steel continues to expand and weaken long after the fire apparently diminished.
 
cooperman said:
Which location?

The fires in the location of column 79 on the 12th floor were out long before the initiating event.
Click to expand...


In the absence of water for firefighting, the steel continues to expand and weaken long after the fire apparently diminished.
 
cooperman said:
How was what I said wrong? Do you believe that an area of office fire will continue to burn for hours?
Click to expand...

Go read about it. You obviously cannot trust us.

How about, you know, actually making your point sometime soon? 10 pages now and absolutely nothing of significance from you.

So you don't believe the NIST report. Why? Because AE911T told you to? Or because of personal experience? Or because The Man lies about everything?
 
BigAl said:
In the absence of water for firefighting, the steel continues to expand and weaken long after the fire apparently diminished.
Click to expand...

Could you source this?

Do they heat-rate fireproofing? I was under the impression that they fire-rated it. When they test it they expose it to a fire for a given period of time.
 
cooperman said:
So I just have to trust you about this accurate, reliable model. i see.
Click to expand...
I thought you said you read the NIST report. Why expose your ignorance of fire science like you did with physics? 9 years of failure and you are failing to present your evidence for the CD of WTC 7. Why?

Why does 911 truth fail to figure out WTC 7, not a target on 911, it is the moronic smoking gun for their paranoid delusions. How long have you had the CD delusion on WTC 7? Was it the fire science you can't comprehend, or the collapse time of over 15 seconds?
 
cooperman said:
How was what I said wrong? Do you believe that an area of office fire will continue to burn for hours?
Click to expand...

I can't believe I have to explain this, but...

It depends on the amount of fuel available, the amount of oxygen available, and many other factors.

If you want to show that the fires in WTC7 could NOT have burned long enough to cause a collapse, then you need to show your calculations. You can't simply assume fire couldn't have caused the collapse and so, by default, explosives must have been used.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I can't believe I have to explain this, but...

It depends on the amount of fuel available, the amount of oxygen available, and many other factors.

If you want to show that the fires in WTC7 could NOT have burned long enough to cause a collapse, then you need to show your calculations. You can't simply assume fire couldn't have caused the collapse and so, by default, explosives must have been used.
Click to expand...

We can be more specific than that. The area around column 79 on the 12th floor had burned out long before the initial failure in that area.
 
cooperman said:
We can be more specific than that. The area around column 79 on the 12th floor had burned out long before the initial failure in that area.
Click to expand...

Then go ahead. Be more specific. Find out exactly how much fuel there was, how hot the fire got, how long it burned, how much fireproofing was on the steel supports when the fire began (not how much there was supposed to be, but how much there WAS), etc. Do the calculations. Then take the world by storm with your proof that somebody blew up an empty building for some reason.

It's your responsibility. Do you want to know why? Because we KNOW there was fire in WTC7, whereas we DON'T know there were explosives. The most reasonable explanation for the collapse is a mechanism that was known to be present and has been known to cause structural collapses in the past. It's up to you to disprove it.

Again, the reasonable default position is NOT that the collapse was caused by some invisible, silent mechanism for which there is no evidence.
 
Originally Posted by BigAl
In the absence of water for firefighting, the steel continues to expand and weaken long after the fire apparently diminished.
Click to expand...
cooperman said:
Could you source this?
Click to expand...
Physics 101 and fire science. Ask any fireman.
Do they heat-rate fireproofing? I was under the impression that they fire-rated it. When they test it they expose it to a fire for a given period of time.
Click to expand...

Fireproofing is rated in hours with the expectation that firemen with water show up in time.

Unfortunate there was no water for WTC7 on 9/11.
 
BigAl said:
Fireproofing is rated in hours with the expectation that firemen with water show up in time.
Click to expand...

It's also assumed that it was applied properly when the building was constructed, and from what I've heard, this wasn't the case in some parts of the WTC complex.
 
cooperman said:
We can be more specific than that. The area around column 79 on the 12th floor had burned out long before the initial failure in that area.
Click to expand...

There was no water to cool down a very hot building. The steel continued to heat up and expand and weaken.
 
BigAl said:
There was no water to cool down a very hot building. The steel continued to heat up and expand and weaken.
Click to expand...

The steel continued to heat up even after the fire moved on? Why does everything associated with the official story have to be so extraordinary to make it work?
 
RedIbis said:
The steel continued to heat up even after the fire moved on? Why does everything associated with the official story have to be so extraordinary to make it work?
Click to expand...

There is nothing extraordinary about this. So Red, when the flames go out does the surrounding temperature instantaneously go back to average room temp?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom