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

[332nd]

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.

Once again, how hot did NIST say the fires were?

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

I have read the report. So here's your chance, post a quote of the relevant passages concerning that test so we can agree what it really says.

Of interest will be how the trusses were fixed at each end, and the vertical load on them.

 

[KreeL]

My advice for all is to be skeptical and devise a theory that includes the planes, the exotic stuff that was sprayed on critical areas, sublevel explosions, smaller explosions throughout the structures, fire, AND a way for all of that to equal a collapse as we witnessed. When you can envision something like that with your theory, you will be way way closer to the truth.

 

[jaydeehess]

Once again, how hot did NIST say the fires were?

He could include that when he posts the NIST report of the truss test.

 

[jaydeehess]

My advice for all is to be skeptical and devise a theory that includes the planes,

They hit, caused structural damage and spread thousands of gallons of liquid fuel into the buildings

the exotic stuff that was sprayed on critical areas

,
exotic? You mean spray foam insulation? Its in thousands of buildings in N.America and the world.

sublevel explosions

,

Fuel fell down the elevator shafts, and exploded

smaller explosions throughout the structures

Things explode in fires, Things go bang and thump that sound like explosions,

a way for all of that to equal a collapse as we witnessed.

I've done so many times in these forums.

When you can envision something like that with your theory, you will be way way closer to the truth.

You wouldn't know truth if it kissed you on the mouth.

 

[jaydeehess]

sleepy time

 

[beachnut]

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.

You reject the fact and evidence out of ignoreace, and the fact is your are a troll. Trolls don't put effort into reserach, they find idiotic lies, like you do, and post them while you troll.

KreeL - Thu Feb 09 05:33:15
I am working on a another masterful trolling spree in JREF's 9/11 threads.

http://www.utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=51839&time=1328895544304

The WTC fires were bigger than any inferno. No other buildings in history have been set on fire with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on multiple floors in a few seconds. There fires were the biggest office fires in the world, ever. You are a professional troll, you said so. You can't do research or comprehend 911. 10 years of failure, and you can't figure out 911, which takes minutes.

Fire causing a building to collapse is always a concern of good firemen.

 

[332nd]

My advice for all is to be skeptical and devise a theory that includes the planes,

Crashed into the building, check

the exotic stuff that was sprayed on critical areas,

Well, jets need fuel to fly & it was sprayed into the critical areas so check.

sublevel explosions

Unless the buildings were solid, it wouldn't be hard for the fuel to spill down elevator shafts & explode in the basement so, check.

,

smaller explosions throughout the structures,

It is well known that things explode in fires, check.

fire

Check.

AND a way for all of that to equal a collapse as we witnessed

The impacts & fires weakened the steel which caused 1&2 to collapse relatively quickly & unfought fires in 7 caused it to collapse... Check.

When you can envision something like that with your theory, you will be way way closer to the truth.

& here we are!

9/11 happened pretty much as the government reports say... Does that sting?

 

[Kid Eager]

My advice for all is to be skeptical and devise a theory that includes the planes, the exotic stuff that was sprayed on critical areas, sublevel explosions, smaller explosions throughout the structures, fire, AND a way for all of that to equal a collapse as we witnessed. When you can envision something like that with your theory, you will be way way closer to the truth.

I think it was rice. Lots of it. That and nanobots shaped like staplers.

It wasn't fire at all - that was a hologram. Open your eyes, singular term for sheeple.

Divots. That is all.

 

[leftysergeant]

Once it moved, the steel regained it's strength as it cooled.

Cow cookies. They had to re-design the Detyarev specificly because the spring got too hot on the top of the barrel and lost its temp.

If your rifle is in a fire hot enough to destroy the stockwork, it is considered a total loss and you insurance carrier will take it away and destroy it as unsafe to use before they pay your claim.

You are still building vast images from half-vast data.

 

[Kid Eager]

Cow cookies. They had to re-design the Detyarev specificly because the spring got too hot on the top of the barrel and lost its temp.

If your rifle is in a fire hot enough to destroy the stockwork, it is considered a total loss and you insurance carrier will take it away and destroy it as unsafe to use before they pay your claim.

You are still building vast images from half-vast data.

That is one of the prerequisites for trolling, though. Mind you, for somebody with aspirations of being a master troll, the reality is somewhat underwhelming. Maybe a 6/10. I'd give Mr K an extra point if he used more caps, but as it stands, a rather bland effort.

 

[Sunstealer]

Once it moved, the steel regained it's strength as it cooled.

Wow just wow! You have absolutely no clue about materials science or metallurgy. This statement is completely wrong.

Go into detail Kreel as to why you think this is true or retract the statement. Have you never heard of tempering or annealing? Stop putting out blind assertions like this because it just shows you up as an ignoramus.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Once it moved, the steel regained it's strength as it cooled. Indeed, we see an office worker leaning on it a short time after. She was waving, not jumping. Why? Because the fire moved on.

I heard there's a pool among Truthers to say stupid things. This is simply mind-numbing. I couldn't come up with this one if I tried. On the other hand, Dick Gage must believe some variant of this - and he's an architect.

 

[tsig]

So let's start over. More accelerant = rapid tinder emolation. Rapid tinder emolation = fires burning out rapidly. Fire burning out rapidly = steel regaining strength when fire moves on. Fireman says two pockets of fire = two pockets of fire left that can be put out with two hoses.

Does that sum it up?

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

emolation =

 

[tsig]

That is one of the prerequisites for trolling, though. Mind you, for somebody with aspirations of being a master troll, the reality is somewhat underwhelming. Maybe a 6/10. I'd give Mr K an extra point if he used more caps, but as it stands, a rather bland effort.

Yes, CAPS, colors and funny fonts , never leave your bridge without them.

 

[twinstead]

I heard there's a pool among Truthers to say stupid things. This is simply mind-numbing. I couldn't come up with this one if I tried. On the other hand, Dick Gage must believe some variant of this - and he's an architect.

What's sad is even an Evil Debunker^tm Junior Class like me knows it's stupid

 

[triforcharity]

So the report from the 78th floor by a fireman that two pockets of fire could be put out with two lines means what to you?

This is awesome.

You do realize that 78th was the LOWEST floor in the fire and impact zone, and the Chief also reported numerous 10-45 Code 1's (dead bodies)

You also realize that the FDNY does not have magic x-ray vision to be able to see what's going on above them right?

You also realize that 2 handlines could flow as much as 800gpm combined, right?

You also realize that 800gpm is ALOT of water, right? That could fill 100 standard bathtubs in 1 minute.

 

[NoahFence]

Guys, KreeL is a self-admitted idiot troll.

Even I'm not bothering with this fool anymore.

 

[Edx]

He was assessing the fires in the impact zone. Isn't that where you said the fires were? Evidently they burned out just like I said. Except for the two small pockets, of course. That's IF you believe the fireman.

Who says Floor 78 was an inferno?

No one.

What did Floor 78 look like?

 

[000063]

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

You mean the fire that was still burning when the Towers collapsed?

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.

Evasion.

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

And the official theory does too, meaning it's not just a "fire theory", as you refer to it.

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.

Prove it.

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.

Page and section numbers, please. The reports are freely available online.

It's so cute that you think you can use what you claim is NIST's evidence but not agree with their conclusions.