'What about building 7'?

[T.A.M.]

Stalking me now are we mm. I have not the want or energy to address your page long diatribe. You can call me a coward and i will report you, you can continue this form of stalking and i will rreport you, or you can let it drop. If you have an issue with the final report, write NIST. If you wish to simplify your grievance with what i said down to a couple of sentences, then i will address it. Otherwise, i am not going to take the time to read paragraphs of your posted bunk.

TAM

Your choice.

TAM

 

[Disbelief]

Still waiting for an honest response to my my earlier thread-related replies
to your posts T.A.M.?

post 670
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6413200&postcount=670

and post 674
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6413324&postcount=674

Another related point about the NIST theoretical scenario for the WTC7 collapse has to do with
an additional effect from their simulated floor failures.

Perimeter column bowing.

In the NIST analysis of the WTC Twin Tower breakdowns, they proposed that
when the floors "sagged", that they pulled in on the perimeter columns and created visible bowing.

[qimg]http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/447/column79failure1.jpg[/qimg]

How is it that over the 7 seconds that floor-after-floor in WTC7 were supposedly failing, the torque created
by unsupported floors still connected to perimeter columns, was not causing any visible bowing and only a few broken windows?

MM

Why should anyone respond to your demands when you fail to back up your claims?

 

[Miragememories]

Stalking me now are we mm. I have not the want or energy to address your page long diatribe. You can call me a coward and i will report you, you can continue this form of stalking and i will rreport you, or you can let it drop. If you have an issue with the final report, write NIST. If you wish to simplify your grievance with what i said down to a couple of sentences, then i will address it. Otherwise, i am not going to take the time to read paragraphs of your posted bunk.

TAM

Your choice.

TAM

Strange.

I thought this was a discussion forum where members responded to other
members posts which were in proper context with the thread's topic.

I hardly call my responding to your posts and expecting a response as stalking.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm on topic and I suggest you do the same.

MM

 

[Reactor drone]

Another related point about the NIST theoretical scenario for the WTC7 collapse has to do with
an additional effect from their simulated floor failures.

Perimeter column bowing.

In the NIST analysis of the WTC Twin Tower breakdowns, they proposed that
when the floors "sagged", that they pulled in on the perimeter columns and created visible bowing.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/447/column79failure1.jpg

How is it that over the 7 seconds that floor-after-floor in WTC7 were supposedly failing, the torque created
by unsupported floors still connected to perimeter columns, was not causing any visible bowing and only a few broken windows?

MM

There's a few structural difference that might account for that.

1-The exterior columns are a different type on WTC7 compared to 1 & 2
2-The floors are much shorter and lighter on the north side of WTC 7
3-The upper part of WTC7 wasn't subjected to fire so maintained greater stiffness
4-beam flooring rather than truss flooring might affect the way the floors fail

ETA-may have overstated No. 2 North and east were around 53'. I was thinking more of the south and east.

 

[T.A.M.]

Strange.

I thought this was a discussion forum where members responded to other
members posts which were in proper context with the thread's topic.

I hardly call my responding to your posts and expecting a response as stalking.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm on topic and I suggest you do the same.

MM

You have posted this request numerous times. Last night you were insulting and a big pile of post by you, and me were sent to aah. You can now assume that i have no intention of reading your pile of bunk. You can. Assume that i will not be addressing your post on it.

Any attempt to negotiate this further, or reposting it, will be reported as spam and stalking. Any attempt at name calling or insulting me will be reported as a personal attack against a fellow forum member.

Are we clear?

TAM

 

[GStan]

I am not disputing that the steel temperature might continue to rise. But the area above the fire will be cooler if the fire goes from 1000 degree flames to 600 degree embers.

As an example, I can hold my hand 2 inches above the coals on my barbecue for a good length of time quite comfortably. When it is first lit and flaming then I can't do it. The temperature is higher.

My bolding.

Late to this thread. Sorry. But if you can define both 'good length of time' and 'quite comfortably', I would love to come meet you and help you test and document this claim.

 

[GlennB]

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/447/column79failure1.jpg

How is it that over the 7 seconds that floor-after-floor in WTC7 were supposedly failing, the torque created by unsupported floors still connected to perimeter columns, was not causing any visible bowing and only a few broken windows?

MM

Because the floors in question (5 to 14) are well below those visible in any photo or video taken at that time?

 

[Sabretooth]

It has become pretty evident that cooper[been lurking since 1962*]man clearly has no intention of "learning" when he became part of JREF. He's spouting all the usual truther nonsense...submitting assumptions as facts, avoiding questions, avoiding answers, avoiding evidence, quote-mining, moving goalposts, changing subjects, plain old ignorance, etc. He doesn't want to learn, he wants validation that his idol Gage is right.

FYI, cooperman: Gage and AE911 aren't right, and they never will be. Nobody with any self-respect and/or intelligence will associate themselves with such a phoney and loony. And no amount of "puffing your feathers" in JREF is going to change the facts.

WTC7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires that critically damaged the internal support structure of the building. Yes, it really is that simple. No CD...No inside job...No nothing. Put the koolaid down.

I recommend finding a hobby other than trolling the JREF.

 

[Sabretooth]

How is it that over the 7 seconds that floor-after-floor in WTC7 were supposedly failing, the torque created
by unsupported floors still connected to perimeter columns, was not causing any visible bowing and only a few broken windows?

MM

IIRC, wasn't there a bunch of witnesses that reported seeing bowing and leaning in WTC7 throughout much of the afternoon? And that was why they opted to pull all operations from the immediate area?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Hi Cooperman, I see you've ignored these. Care to address them or shall we add them to all the other errors (lies) you've made since you're arrival?

No pressure? Firemen killed and you make fun of fire. How much water did they put on the building to keep it from collapsing? On WTC7? Questions?

Failure! It was totaled by fire, and they kept fighting the fire from other buildings. If they had not fought the fire and the fire systems failed the building may of collapse. The firemen left because they feared collapse. OOPS>

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg[/qimg]
No damage from fire here! One Meridian, Totaled by fire. Ordinary office fires without aircraft impacts, or 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. Which building collapsed and set fire to this one? The fire was fought, this is why it burned for so long instead of collapsing. oops


Where is one meridian plaza today? The same place WTC 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are.


It did not collapse because firemen saved it!
Read your source next time!
Out of 19 hours, 11 were spent fighting the fire.

Why did they stop INTERIOR fire fighting? In case you missed it three times.
Structual collapse.
Why? ... risk of structural collapse! Exactly what was said about WTC 7, risk of structural collapse.

From your source, the one you should have read.
Office fires.

There were efforts, using water, to contain the fire in One Meridian Plaza. WTC7 didn't have that luxury; it didn't even have working sprinklers after the collapses of the Twin Towers.

One Meridian Plaza also suffered significant structural damage due to the fire. Not enough to threaten it's stability, sure, but thermal expansion took its toll.

And that's all ignoring the difference in structural design. It's like comparing one person's successful battle with a specific cancer to another person's lost battle to the same cancer. You'd be looked at sideways for suggesting the latter was actually murdered simply because the former survived, especially if the former survived a longer battle because of better access to cancer treatment.

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

Liar.



As the fire was going into its sixth hour it had spread up to the 26th floor. With inadequate water pressure coming from the standpipes, firefighters stretched hoses up the building's stairwells to help fight the fire.

While hoses were being taken up to the fire a sprinkler technician arrived to fix the water pressure. This improved the hose streams, but the fire had engulfed several floors and could not be contained with just hoses.

By 7:00 AM, almost eleven hours into the fire, firefighters were able to get control of the fire on the 22nd through 24th floors, but the fire was still out of control on the 25th and 26th floors and was spreading upwards. Structural damage observed inside the building by firefighters and consultations with a structural engineer led to fears that the damaged floors might collapse.

At 7:00 AM an order to evacuate the building was issued by Fire Commissioner Roger Ulshafer and the building was completely evacuated by 7:30 AM. After the evacuation, the only fire suppression efforts left were water streams being directed to the building from the neighboring Girard Trust Building and One Centre Square.

The fire's spread only stopped when it reached the 30th floor which was the first fire affected floor to have automatic sprinklers. Ten sprinklers extinguished the fire on the 30th floor and prevented continued spread. Contained by the automatic sprinklers and running out of fuel, the fire was declared under control at 3:01 PM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza#Fire.27s_end

 

[Miragememories]

"http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4...79failure1.jpg

How is it that over the 7 seconds that floor-after-floor in WTC7 were supposedly failing, the torque created by unsupported floors still connected to perimeter columns, was not causing any visible bowing and only a few broken windows?"

"Because the floors in question (5 to 14) are well below those visible in any photo or video taken at that time?"

The east penthouse does not fit with your reply.

Clearly, the floor below it failed, and according to the NIST theory all the other floors below it.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4...79failure1.jpg

How is it that over the 7 seconds that floor-after-floor in WTC7 were supposedly failing, the torque created by unsupported floors still connected to perimeter columns, was not causing any visible bowing and only a few broken windows?"

"IIRC, wasn't there a bunch of witnesses that reported seeing bowing and leaning in WTC7 throughout much of the afternoon? And that was why they opted to pull all operations from the immediate area?"

Nothing that the NIST could validate for their final report, plus the area that you speculate about was the southwest corner and no where near the northeast zone that I am referring to.

"A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!"

MM

 

[Edx]

Nothing that the NIST could validate for their final report, plus the area that you speculate about was the southwest corner and no where near the northeast zone that I am referring to.



MM

Uh no, he wasn't the only one that said it was leaning. In addition to that it was bulging, creaking and things were cracking and falling. There is a reason all the firefighters thought 7 was going to collapse. Why do you think absolutely none of them back up a single claim truthers make about Building 7?

 

[Sabretooth]

Nothing that the NIST could validate for their final report, plus the area that you speculate about was the southwest corner and no where near the northeast zone that I am referring to.



MM

I'm still looking...but an observation in the meantime...

Doesn't the fact that there was bowing anywhere in WTC7 at any appreciable time prior to collapse automatically disprove CD?

 

[Sabretooth]

Cooperman...your delusion that NIST says "fire" instead of "gas temps" is wrong...period.

See attached for an image of NIST figure 3-6.

Pay special note to the text. Here, let me type it out for you:

"Progression of simulated fire on Floor 12 of WTC 7 showing gas temperatures near the ceiling."

Are you sure you want to carry on with your BS "NIST says fire" assumption?

 

[Miragememories]

Doesn't the fact that there was bowing anywhere in WTC7 at any appreciable time prior to collapse automatically disprove CD?

The two phenomena really have nothing to do with each other so I really
don't see the basis for your question.

You have also introduced the term "bowing" instead of bulge without providing any context?.

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

Those images look pretty hot around the area of column 79 at 5pm....don't they? That said, i do not see the hottest areas, likely the flame, near the windows at that point....

Hmmmmmm

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

The two phenomena really have nothing to do with each other so I really
don't see the basis for your question.

You have also introduced the term "bowing" instead of bulge without providing any context?.

MM

Maybe I used the wrong word?

Either way, bulging or bowing in the context isn't that different. What I was getting at is that bulging or bowing or leaning of the structure implies that something was happening inside the building other than explosives. In other words, they are most certainly not characteristics of a CD.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A rather pathetic appeal to authority. It doesn't match reality. You are trying to make a fire simulation that is wrong, right by saying they have experience and expertise. Show me how the fire analysis matches the observed fire at 5pm and 2pm.

If the simulation is wrong, why haven't the engineers, architects and firefighters with the epxerience, expertise and relevant qualifications pointed it out?

Appeal to authority has relevant qualifications and experience and shows why they come to a conclusion.

Don't you think it funny that you are the only one that thinks there is a problem?

Is that becaouse you have already decided that it happened a different way?
If so why don't you produce evidence to support your own theories and ideas instead of endlessly discussing the NIST report?

 

[Miragememories]

"The two phenomena really have nothing to do with each other so I really
don't see the basis for your question.

You have also introduced the term "bowing" instead of bulge without providing any context?."

"Either way, bulging or bowing in the context isn't that different. What I was getting at is that bulging or bowing or leaning of the structure implies that something was happening inside the building other than explosives. In other words, they are most certainly not characteristics of a CD."

I previously raised the point that there was no observed bowing on the north, east, or west faces of WTC7.

This, in spite of the NIST theory and computer simulation which created massive pull forces from inwardly collapsing floors.

I might add, that the NIST proposed bowing of the perimeter walls in the WTC Towers was, based on their theory, caused by pull-in forces from sagging floor trusses.

So yes, I think there is an important distinction in whether you use the term bulge or bow.

There is actually very little non-anecdotal information provided about the "bulge" and there is zero technical confirmation of WTC 7 leaning prior to its collapse.

You have not explained how the existence of a bulge in WTC7 negates the possibility of controlled demolition?

MM