Look at the post I was responding to. It seemed to be claiming that collapse was inevitable in a large uncontrolled fire burning for many hours. I was simply demonstrating this wasn't the case. Do you ever look at the context of my posts or does the knee just jerk?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
Look at the post I was responding to. It seemed to be claiming that collapse was inevitable in a large uncontrolled fire burning for many hours. I was simply demonstrating this wasn't the case. Do you ever look at the context of my posts or does the knee just jerk?
So.
TAM
Look at the post I was responding to. I was demonstrating why I wouldn't necessarily expect collapse in a large uncontrolled and prolonged skyscraper fire.
They stopped interior fire fighting because!!!
Collapse? Questions?
It gets worse for 911 truth, there was evidence of the never happened before!!!
Oops, 911 truth was wrong, there is thermal expansion, it is as old as the big bang.
You posted a source to debunk 911 truth on all counts. But will you understand?
Last edited:
So what you are saying, is that as a LAYPERSON (which you and I are), you would not have expected WTC7 to collapse on that day, because a building that had fires for longer did not.
I can see valid reasoning for doubt prior to investigation and explanation, but now that others with much more knowledge, and much more ability wrt the science and engineering of it all have explained things, there is no excuse for such doubt.
TAM
I can see valid reasoning for doubt prior to investigation and explanation, but now that others with much more knowledge, and much more ability wrt the science and engineering of it all have explained things, there is no excuse for such doubt.
TAM
So what you are saying, is that as a LAYPERSON (which you and I are), you would not have expected WTC7 to collapse on that day, because a building that had fires for longer did not.
I can see valid reasoning for doubt prior to investigation and explanation, but now that others with much more knowledge, and much more ability wrt the science and engineering of it all have explained things, there is no excuse for such doubt.
TAM
They haven't explained it. I have already shown that their fire analysis does not match reality and the initiating event could not have happened. I also am unable to see their computer models because apparently that would be dangerous.
This is nothing to do with being a layman and giving an opinion. Travis suggested that a collapse would be inevitable and I simply posted facts proving it wasn't.
By the way, abandoning all doubt because a qualified person has explained something is the very antithesis of skepticism and critical thinking.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Do you ever read all that is said about a particular topic or not? I am pretty sure its been mentioned that the construction techniques in WTC 7 were a crucial part of the sequence of events that led to the collapse.
To Whit:
the assymettric placement of beams and girders,
concrete pans not positively secured to beams,
long span open floor concept,
cantilever truss system over the pre-existing Con-Ed building.
These alone could not cause the structure to fail. Large area office fire could not alone cause a collapse. The total lack of firefighting alone could not cause a collapse.
BUT-
Large area office fires that go completely unfought in a structure with long span open floor spaces, where the floor pans are not fastened to the beams and in which those beams are not syymetrically placed around heavy columns did result in a collapse of WTC 7.
You can wail and cry that individually these conditions would not lead to collapse and ignore the fact that all of them were occuring at the same time and place, but it only underlines how religiously attached to the notion of a conspiracy you are.
1. You have shown nothing of the kind. Others have pointed out to you the reality of that. I have, in that thread, summarized the initiating event as described by NIST, and it does not include the need for FIRE on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event.
2. If you disagree with their explanation, and have the science and facts to back it up, then of course, doubt away, but doubting just for the sake of paranoia...that is not skepticism. So far you HAVE NOT proven them wrong on WTC7, and simply saying you have does not change that.
TAM
That isn't what travis said. Read his post, then try and understand why I posted what I did in reply.
I have no religious belief in any conspiracy. I am skeptical. You treat the NIST report as a bible. Can you explain why the nist fire simulation has fires at the area of column 79 on the 12th floor at 5pm when the photographs and NISTs previous statements show that it had burned out much earlier?
1. You have shown nothing of the kind. Others have pointed out to you the reality of that. I have, in that thread, summarized the initiating event as described by NIST, and it does not include the need for FIRE on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event.
2. If you disagree with their explanation, and have the science and facts to back it up, then of course, doubt away, but doubting just for the sake of paranoia...that is not skepticism. So far you HAVE NOT proven them wrong on WTC7, and simply saying you have does not change that.
TAM
Where does the paranoia come in?
well if you look at what I wrote, I said that if you have no evidence, no science that proves they were wrong, then you are arguing simply out of paranoia, aren't you? Or is it out of hatred for the govt? Or please, if you have no evidence or science to back up your doubts (as was the premise in my comment), then WHY would you doubt?
TAM
Here is the summary again...
Now in the above, what have I got wrong? Where is there a need for floor 12 to have flames at the time of the initiation?
TAM
If it didn't need flames why have NIST lied about their being flames at that time? They have lied. That is indisputable.
No you never showed their fire analysis does not match reality, you posted lies from 911 truth, the fraud Gage. Publish your analysis in a fire science journal. Hurry. You proved you can copy and paste lies from 911 truth.
You posted facts that collapse was very possible. oops
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
I am skeptical of your false statements when you think you posted support for your ideas, but did the opposite. http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Here is the summary again...
Now in the above, what have I got wrong?
TAM
Just one, its "shearing"
well if you look at what I wrote, I said that if you have no evidence, no science that proves they were wrong, then you are arguing simply out of paranoia, aren't you? Or is it out of hatred for the govt? Or please, if you have no evidence or science to back up your doubts (as was the premise in my comment), then WHY would you doubt?
TAM
Because the NIST fire simulations are patently wrong and contradict their own statements and photographic evidence. How exactly does the girder between columns 79 and 44 fail when the fire has burned out there over an hour before? If you were a skeptic you would be asking these questions.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I did and you chose to address his post in isolation. You did not address the fact that he was leaving out the contribution of the way the structure was designed, instead argueing that TC 7 could not have failed due soley to fire. If you knew that the way the structure was put together DID contribute why did you not mention it?
Not from where I am viewing your posts.
Don't allow your mind to open so wide that your brains fall out(credit to Jay Utah)
You don't know me very well then, or the 'you' refers to the group of like-minded posters. I do question the thermal expansion failure of the girder. I would have prefered to see a treatment of thermal contraction during a cooling phase that would pull rather than push the girder off its seat.
I also would have rather seen NIST come out strongly against allowing less stringent fire codes for the PANYNJ than was in effect for NYC.
That's it? That's your 'smoking gun' (or perhaps you prefer 'smoldering office')
You might take note of my last paragraph in light of this.
Last edited:
1. Explain the relevance of that particular girder in the collapse initiation.
2. If that girder WAS critical to the collapse initiation, does the existing evidence indicate that that girder was not sufficiently hot at the time required for it to be so to cause expansion and contraction resulting in shearing forces that caused the girder to fail?
TAM
2. If that girder WAS critical to the collapse initiation, does the existing evidence indicate that that girder was not sufficiently hot at the time required for it to be so to cause expansion and contraction resulting in shearing forces that caused the girder to fail?
TAM
- Status