On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)

[332nd]

I shall predict that you have given Kreetin the opening to shift the subject.

That's why I keep bringing the old subject up... Well that & I'm bored so I find his floundering desperation to change the subject funny.

 

[Edx]

Fireman says two pockets of fire = two pockets of fire left that can be put out with two hoses.

No they didn't.

NIST agrees with me.

No they do not.

 

[TJM]

Hey KreeL, have we been pwned yet? The other forum wants to know.

Now?

 

[jaydeehess]

So let's start over. More accelerant = rapid tinder emolation.

Nope. stop right there. Accelerant means rapid spread of initial fire. In fcat most office fires begin samll such as in one refuse container, and take hours to spread to other floors. In the towers we had wide areas on multiple adjacent levels involved within seconds with the greatest areas involveled beingcloser to the impact center. UThe 78th floor was on the vertical perimeter of this and thus less involved.

Rapid tinder emolation = fires burning out rapidly.

To a point it does. It also means a rapid relaese of the same amount of heat and thus less dissipation of that heat(since that dissipationm is proportional to the time involved)

Fire burning out rapidly = steel regaining strength when fire moves on.

Ridiculous assertion. What would rapid heating have to do with regaining strength?

Fireman says two pockets of fire = two pockets of fire on that floor that can be put out with two hoses.

FTFY

My point is, there was no towering inferno here. NIST agrees with me.

Perhaps you'd ike to actually quote where NIST does that.

 

[KreeL]

So you think the plane (a jetliner remember?) just hit one floor? Do you understand how big a 767 is?

Oh & you might want to answer those other questions. Your scrambling trying to change the subject only shows you've realized how ignorant your statements are.

How would the steel in the towers & 7 regain enough strength to ward off collapse after the fire was gone?

How would the steel in the towers & 7 not weaken after a jet crashed through it?

How hot did the NIST say the fires were?

The problem you have is simply a fire theory. That's not a viable theory, at least for me. Just from the few holes I pointed out in yours already, I discarded that one years ago.

 

[jaydeehess]

That's why I keep bringing the old subject up... Well that & I'm bored so I find his floundering desperation to change the subject funny.

His misunderstanding of physics is astounding and seems based on a reguritation of such from other sites.

 

[jaydeehess]

The problem you have is simply a fire theory. That's not a viable theory, at least for me. Just from the few holes I pointed out in yours already, I discarded that one years ago.

Really, you've pointed out holes in the strictly 'fire theory'.

You did notice that big holes in the towers where the planes hit right?

 

[332nd]

So let's start over. More accelerant = rapid tinder emolation.

I'm not a fireman. So I'm not sure.

Rapid tinder emolation = fires burning out rapidly.

No. It depends on the type of fuel, the oxygen its getting, the insulation... I know you're desperate to make it seem as if the fire burned out within minutes but that's simply not the case.

Fire burning out rapidly = steel regaining strength when fire moves on.

Which you have yet to explain how. Remember, we're talking about the WTC steel frames.

Fireman says two pockets of fire = two pockets of fire left that can be put out with two hoses.

Oh my... I really thought you couldn't top the steel didn't weaken after the jet flew through it but... wow... I gotta ask, what makes you think that was the last two pockets of fire?

Does that sum it up?

Yep. You somehow managed to add more fail into your theory.

My point is, there was no towering inferno here. NIST agrees with me.

Why are you afraid to post how hot the NIST said the fires were?

 

[332nd]

The problem you have is simply a fire theory. That's not a viable theory, at least for me. Just from the few holes I pointed out in yours already, I discarded that one years ago.

You forgot about the impact again huh?

Also, why are you afraid to answer the questions?

 

[jaydeehess]

Plane hits, rips through structure taking out a significant , if relatively small amount of structural integrity (10% approx) and debris removes spray on fire insulation of impact floors
liquid fuels ignites combustibles over half a dozen adjacent impact floors

heat causes steel to rise in temp to the point that it loses up to 50% of its ability to resist loads in turn causing creep of columns and sagging of floor trusses.
Fire spreads to more floors and to other areas of already involved floors causing further heat induced chnages in geometry

Structural loads are continually shifting as geometry of structural components change

In areas where steel does manage to begin cooling much of it is compromised by changes in geometry. While other areas heat more strutural members are heated andbend,creep or sag.

Shifting loads begin causing some structural members to completly fail causing loads to shift abruptly, causing further failures causing more load shifting, etc and rapid failure accross one or more adjacent floors.

 

[KreeL]

You forgot about the impact again huh?

Also, why are you afraid to answer the questions?

No, I didn't forget about the impacts. I addressed that earlier. My theory includes plane impacts. I'm not a no-planer.

 

[KreeL]

Plane hits, rips through structure taking out a significant , if relatively small amount of structural integrity (10% approx) and debris removes spray on fire insulation of impact floors
liquid fuels ignites combustibles over half a dozen adjacent impact floors

heat causes steel to rise in temp to the point that it loses up to 50% of its ability to resist loads in turn causing creep of columns and sagging of floor trusses.
Fire spreads to more floors and to other areas of already involved floors causing further heat induced chnages in geometry

Structural loads are continually shifting as geometry of structural components change

In areas where steel does manage to begin cooling much of it is compromised by changes in geometry. While other areas heat more strutural members are heated andbend,creep or sag.

Shifting loads begin causing some structural members to completly fail causing loads to shift abruptly, causing further failures causing more load shifting, etc and rapid failure accross one or more adjacent floors.

Here's the problem, jaydee. I already rejected that part of your theory because the towers simply weren't subjected to that much fire for any lengthy period of time. For your theory to work, they would have had to be an inferno for hours. This simply is not realistic.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh my... I really thought you couldn't top the steel didn't weaken after the jet flew through it but... wow... I gotta ask, what makes you think that was the last two pockets of fire?

This assertion that the firemen who reached the 78th floor encountered the only remaining fire in tower 2 is quite astounding in that it rejects the video evidence of large areas of fire involvement over a dozen floors.

 

[332nd]

No, I didn't forget about the impacts. I addressed that earlier. My theory includes plane impacts. I'm not a no-planer.

Oh you're not a noplaner, you (like most truthers) just hate to think that the impacts, which created two gaping holes in the side of the building had anything to do with the colla... Oh wait! That's right! YOU think that somehow the steel wasn't weakened by the impacts!

 

[jaydeehess]

Here's the problem, jaydee. I already rejected that part of your theory because the towers simply weren't subjected to that much fire for any lengthy period of time. For your theory to work, they would have had to be an inferno for hours. This simply is not realistic.

Incorrect but have a go at showing me the thermodynamics that prove that they fire evident in the videos were not sufficient to heat the steel enough to cause buckling of columns or sagging of trusses. While you are at it explain how the steel in WTC 5 managed to get hot enough to buckle and how it is that sagged floor trusses were photographed by the police chopper IF that steel simply could not get that hot..

You know, the photos that show a red hot INFERNO within the towers.

 

[332nd]

This assertion that the firemen who reached the 78th floor encountered the only remaining fire in tower 2 is quite astounding in that it rejects the video evidence of large areas of fire involvement over a dozen floors.

Maybe he thinks fire only flows downhill?

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh you're not a noplaner, you (like most truthers) just hate to think that the impacts, which created two gaping holes in the side of the building had anything to do with the colla... Oh wait! That's right! YOU think that somehow the steel wasn't weakened by the impacts!

Now redtail, only some steel was weakened by the impacts. Some components were fully severed mind you.

 

[KreeL]

Incorrect but have a go at showing me the thermodynamics that prove that they fire evident in the videos were not sufficient to heat the steel enough to cause buckling of columns or sagging of trusses. While you are at it explain how the steel in WTC 5 managed to get hot enough to buckle and how it is that sagged floor trusses were photographed by the police chopper IF that steel simply could not get that hot..

You know, the photos that show a red hot INFERNO within the towers.

jaydee, once again, read the NIST report. The trusses would have to sag 40 inches to initiate a failure. They burned them with very hot fires for hours and they could only get them to sag a few inches. Nowhere near a collapse. Your theory doesn't hold water according to NIST.

 

[332nd]

Here's the problem, jaydee. I already rejected that part of your theory because the towers simply weren't subjected to that much fire for any lengthy period of time. For your theory to work, they would have had to be an inferno for hours. This simply is not realistic.

Right! Only 7 was subjected to a lot of fire for hours thus its collapse. If only we knew of some other kind of structural weakening to the towers.... Something that say... removed pieces of the frame and damaged even more of them... like if something very large & heavy hit them. Then with those supports missing & the fire there would be a collapse that the vast majority of... Wait a tick!

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's face it , Kreel 'rejects' the theory that fire weakens steel(wait a minute that 'theory' takes into account 100 years to fire research that says it does weaken) for the sole reason that his political worldview demands that this event be caused by vast evil organizations which routinely direct large scale, hugely complex and complicated schemes to garner certain opinions among the populace.