Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Christopher7]

You see that big fold near ground level in the 14 second image? Those columns had all totally failed before the wall fell that far out. The columns on the other three sides were effctively gone,so, yeah, there was nothing to hold up the wall.

Do you know what a moment frame is? It's effectively a steel belt all the way around the building every other floor and it kept the external frame from breaking apart. The model folds up and is always providing resistance. They don't show the rest of the collapse because it folds up like their model without debris damage.

The debris damage had little effect on the collapse because:
"A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame." NIST L pg 36

The last frame they do show is already folding and does not match the videos.

Lose the attitude.

Practice what you preach.

 

[funk de fino]

NIST L dishonesty again eh?

Same old schtick.........

 

[Christopher7]

It's clear to anyone who bothered to follow up that there IS confirmation of leftysergeant's claim that there were "Bullets, a chem lab and possibly a bomb or two in the evidence locker" in WTC 6.

That does not constitute "vast amounts"

There were also vast amounts of explosive material there that nobody wanted to see cook off.

by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[leftysergeant]

That does not constitute "vast amounts"
by any stretch of the imagination.

Try a few million rounds.

And I don't even want to guess what kind of harm some of the stuff in the evidence locker might do. And the chem lab? Seriously, anybody who knowes as much about fire science as the typical 8th grader wants that fire extinguished.

As has been stated elsewhere, fire fighters were more concerned that there might still be people inside the buildning. They already knew that there was nobody in WTC 7. They also had to concern themselves with a task that those of us who know something about fire fighting call "covering exposures." This puts further demands on the finite water supply. Your figures are worthless because they apply to no plan of attack that operated on the day in question.

 

[A W Smith]

An awful analogy. This is a modern steel framed skyscraper whose north face was unscathed by debris, but whose south side, we are told, was heavily damaged. When this type of damage occurs and a building fails, it topples over. That's what happens.

No it does not. It would need a hinge or fulcrum capable of sustaining rotation of the upper mass. Perhaps you could show us where this hinge or fulcrum exists on the floor plans. Or draw us a force diagram. It can not fall off or rotate without a lateral force. It will take the path of of least resistance. Straight down towards the center of the earth.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243

 

[Bell]

No it does not. It would need a hinge or fulcrum capable of sustaining rotation of the upper mass. Perhaps you could show us where this hinge or fulcrum exists on the floor plans. Or draw us a force diagram. It can not fall off or rotate without a lateral force. It will take the path of of least resistance. Straight down towards the center of the earth.

You clearly haven't seen Godzilla.

 

[tempesta29]

No it does not. It would need a hinge or fulcrum capable of sustaining rotation of the upper mass. Perhaps you could show us where this hinge or fulcrum exists on the floor plans. Or draw us a force diagram. It can not fall off or rotate without a lateral force. It will take the path of of least resistance. Straight down towards the center of the earth.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243

The path of least resistance isn't straight down. There were hundreds of tons of unscathed steel columns to resist that path.

Buildings topple. Are you doubting this?

 

[Bell]

The path of least resistance isn't straight down. There were hundreds of tons of unscathed steel columns to resist that path.

Buildings topple. Are you doubting this?

Can you show us a picture of one 47-story building that has toppled?

 

[DGM]

The path of least resistance isn't straight down. There were hundreds of tons of unscathed steel columns to resist that path.

Buildings topple. Are you doubting this?

I just had to quote this for everyone (that has him on ignore) to see.

Wow................

 

[A W Smith]

show your work stupid

The path of least resistance isn't straight down. There were hundreds of tons of unscathed steel columns to resist that path.

Buildings topple. Are you doubting this?

Show us your force diagram. Are you forgetting the mass of the upper block? You expect the upper block to change direction and circumvent the lower columns? Are you this stupid?

 

[Christopher7]

Try a few million rounds.

Source?

And I don't even want to guess what kind of harm some of the stuff in the evidence locker might do.

Wise call.

And the chem lab? Seriously, anybody who knowes as much about fire science as the typical 8th grader wants that fire extinguished.

Loose the attitude.

As has been stated elsewhere, fire fighters were more concerned that there might still be people inside the buildning. They already knew that there was nobody in WTC 7. They also had to concern themselves with a task that those of us who know something about fire fighting call

You don't know what the priorities were so unless you can provide an official source you and TFC are just giving your opinions.

Getting back to the point, NIST said:
Since the collapses of the WTC towers had damaged the water main, there was no secondary supply of water available (such as from the gravity-fed overhead tanks that supplied water to Floor 21 and above) to control those fires that eventually led to the building collapse. - NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39]

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Show us your force diagram. Are you forgetting the mass of the upper block? You expect the upper block to change direction and circumvent the lower columns? Are you this stupid?

I second this request. Tempesta needs to show his work and explain graphically how he's making his conclusions.

 

[DGM]

Chris7:

What are you getting at with all of this? You seem to be saying that there was no fires but the FDNY should have been able to fight these fires (that did not exist).

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Buildings topple. Are you doubting this?

Buildings come in many different structural framing systems, materials, & sizes. Are you suggesting that none of those differences should be a factor in in your answer as to whether they should or should not have?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

(snip)
Getting back to the point, NIST said:
Since the collapses of the WTC towers had damaged the water main, there was no secondary supply of water available (such as from the gravity-fed overhead tanks that supplied water to Floor 21 and above) to control those fires that eventually led to the building collapse. - NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39]

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

OK Chris. What was the secondary water supply?

I thought the primary water supply was the water main and the secondary water supply was the aboveground tank you mention in your post I quoted.

If you are referring to the fireboat Harvey as a secondary water supply, you would be wrong. That would be a tertiary emergency water supply, no?

Also, can you respond to my questions in post 6822?

Thanks.

 

[ozeco41]

Chris7:

What are you getting at with all of this? You seem to be saying that there was no fires but the FDNY should have been able to fight these fires (that did not exist).

Chris7 is carefully not "getting at" anything. He is attempting - successfully I think - to achieve the #1 goal of truthers who purport to engage in these debates. That goal is to prevent productive discussion by a range of standard tricks. The one used here is derailing, first into details of fire fighting methods and C7's version of what could have been done and second into allegations about building contents.

The real issue which he has succeeded in fogging over is that the responsible person in charge had made a key decision. That person, in the overall context of the emergency management of the 9/11 events at WTC, was aware that that WTC7 could not be saved and was going to collapse. He had cleared the building thereby protecting lives and hindsight review of fire fighting techniques is therefore totally irrelevant.

And that is the status of discussion whether or not C7 has a clue what he is talking about.

 

[A W Smith]

Chris7 is carefully not "getting at" anything. He is attempting - successfully I think - to achieve the #1 goal of truthers who purport to engage in these debates. That goal is to prevent productive discussion by a range of standard tricks. The one used here is derailing, first into details of fire fighting methods and C7's version of what could have been done and second into allegations about building contents.

The real issue which he has succeeded in fogging over is that the responsible person in charge had made a key decision. That person, in the overall context of the emergency management of the 9/11 events at WTC, was aware that that WTC7 could not be saved and was going to collapse. He had cleared the building thereby protecting lives and hindsight review of fire fighting techniques is therefore totally irrelevant.
And that is the status of discussion whether or not C7 has a clue what he is talking about.

Exactly, As I had posted a link to 86 quotes of firemen, saying as much, But he continued to wallow in ignorance. It's what he does.


Eyewitness accounts of the withdrawal from WTC 7

 

[DGM]

Chris7 is carefully not "getting at" anything. He is attempting - successfully I think - to achieve the #1 goal of truthers who purport to engage in these debates. That goal is to prevent productive discussion by a range of standard tricks. The one used here is derailing, first into details of fire fighting methods and C7's version of what could have been done and second into allegations about building contents.

The real issue which he has succeeded in fogging over is that the responsible person in charge had made a key decision. That person, in the overall context of the emergency management of the 9/11 events at WTC, was aware that that WTC7 could not be saved and was going to collapse. He had cleared the building thereby protecting lives and hindsight review of fire fighting techniques is therefore totally irrelevant.

And that is the status of discussion whether or not C7 has a clue what he is talking about.

I agree but, in the context of CD (that chris7 seems to favor) how would this person that presumably had fore-knowledge know that pulling back efforts to fight the fires would not effect the CD that he had to know was about to take place? Not fighting the fires could have destroying the charges leaving all kinds of incriminating evidence.

My head hurts

 

[triforcharity]

That does not constitute "vast amounts"
by any stretch of the imagination.

So, does a little bomb or a little explosive mean that they're safe to be around when cooking off? Is this going to be your next failure?

You never did cite where I "claimed" anything about 6WTC. Would you care to go back and try again?

 

[Christopher7]

OK Chris. What was the secondary water supply?

I thought the primary water supply was the water main and the secondary water supply was the aboveground tank you mention in your post I quoted.

If you are referring to the fireboat Harvey as a secondary water supply, you would be wrong. That would be a tertiary emergency water supply, no?

Semantics. Call it what you will, the Harvey supplied water.

"Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day."
http://everything2.com/title/The+John+J.+Harvey%3A+Fireboat+Hero+of+9%2F11

"For three days, the Harvey joined three active-duty fireboats to provide the only water there was to keep the 9/11 fires from getting worse."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129435&page=1


Also, can you respond to my questions in post 6822?

Chris, could you calculate (not estimate) the friction and elevation losses from the Harvey to the point of discharge onto the fire? I'd be interested in the answer.

No, but that does not change the fact that they did run lines from the Harvey and other fire boats, and that was a water supply so your question is moot.