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

[000063]

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

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.

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.

For someone who says the "fire theory" is incorrect, you're refusing to post how hot NIST said the fires actually were, or to provide any sources for your assertions. The reports were not merely based on fire and you know it.

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.

I wouldn't bet the farm on what KreeL does or doesn't know.

 

[triforcharity]

000000063,

I wouldn't either. Hence, why I really didn't spend alot of time on the post.

Oh, and I don't have a farm, but I do have a bridge.....

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

Dude, wake up. They did not test full-sized trusses. To simple scale, two inches in a five-foot truss becomes four in a ten-foot truss and so on.

In actuality, however, the increase would be greater because the full-sized trusses would be weaker in cross-section than the shorties.

The increase in sag would be geometrical rather than arithmetical.

I haven't the math skills to crunch those numbers, but I am sure we have engineers here who can do it for you if you lack the language skills to follow what I said.

 

[beachnut]

Dude, wake up. They did not test full-sized trusses. To simple scale, two inches in a five-foot truss becomes four in a ten-foot truss and so on.

In actuality, however, the increase would be greater because the full-sized trusses would be weaker in cross-section than the shorties.

The increase in sag would be geometrical rather than arithmetical.

I haven't the math skills to crunch those numbers, but I am sure we have engineers here who can do it for you if you lack the language skills to follow what I said.

I thought;
The tests were done on assemblies to test the structure of the WTC prior to attack, not test the damaged structure. The assemblies should not sag when the fire proofing is in place, they should last the required time. After the aircraft impacts, the loss of fire protection caused the steel to fail fast.

The admitted troll has to publish the page number, volume if he wants to compare apples and oranges. We have unknown fruit, no real comparison can be made from KreeL's troll posts, he is reposting lies from years past, in his self proclaimed masterful trolling spree.

KreeL never read NIST, his goal is to troll. When will troll KreeL publish his sources?

 

[ozeco41]

Dude, wake up. They did not test full-sized trusses. To simple scale, two inches in a five-foot truss becomes four in a ten-foot truss and so on.

In actuality, however, the increase would be greater because the full-sized trusses would be weaker in cross-section than the shorties.

The increase in sag would be geometrical rather than arithmetical.

I haven't the math skills to crunch those numbers, but I am sure we have engineers here who can do it for you if you lack the language skills to follow what I said.

The error KreeL is making is that he implies that 40" sag is needed to cause perimeter column inwards bowing and that the 40" sag must come solely from thermal expansion.

That is nonsense. The thermal induced sagging merely had to pull the perimeter columns out of alignment which weakens a column by orders of magnitude. Once out of alignment the column would continue to bow inwards under the vertical applied load. This inwards bowing would cause further sagging of the attached floor joists.

BUT the bowing causes the sagging NOT sagging causes bowing once the initial buckling has been induced.

Only the initial buckling needs to be caused by the sagging resulting from thermal expansion.

So all the geometric figuring that ties 40" sagging to (whatever) inwards bowing is geometrically correct. It just has the "cause <> effect" relationships confused.


BTW KreeL is not the only person to get this matter confused.

 

[KreeL]

I will remove this last post because it pertains to the twin towers. I am likely in the wrong thread.

 

[000063]

Dude, wake up. They did not test full-sized trusses. To simple scale, two inches in a five-foot truss becomes four in a ten-foot truss and so on.

In actuality, however, the increase would be greater because the full-sized trusses would be weaker in cross-section than the shorties.

The increase in sag would be geometrical rather than arithmetical.

I haven't the math skills to crunch those numbers, but I am sure we have engineers here who can do it for you if you lack the language skills to follow what I said.

Or to just spend five minutes learning how the square-cube law means scale models are useless for more than purposes of approximation.

Interestingly enough, it's also relevant to why fantasy-style giants couldn't really exist.

 

[Brass]

No one in the truth movement has still ever answered my question as to why Nigro set up a collapse zone, two hours before WTC7 came down.

 

[Edx]

No one in the truth movement has still ever answered my question as to why Nigro set up a collapse zone, two hours before WTC7 came down.

In on it.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

There was NO PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE for any of this stuff...

You mean, other than WTC7 coming down just like a controlled demolition?

Right! Sure!

Do you believe the B.S. you spew, or do you just say it and laugh at it the way I do?

 

[newton3376]

You mean, other than WTC7 coming down just like a controlled demolition?

Perhaps in your fantasy land things don't fall DOWN because of gravity.....but back here on earth things tend to do that....

If there is another direction you believe a building can fall....perhaps you should give this mysterious force a name....

Maybe something like "the magical pixie dust sideways force" or perhaps the "I don't understand physics and engineering force"...I don't think either is taken yet

Do you believe the B.S. you spew, or do you just say it and laugh at it the way I do?

I'm sure lots of things are hilarious when you live in pretend land......do you often laugh at reality?

Does doing that make your delusions seem less insane? Maybe someday you will laugh all the way to 1%..............the world is waiting

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Find me another fire-based collapse of a steel-frame building like WTC7. Until you can, controlled demolition is just as likely to have occurred as a fire-based collapse.

Sorry.

 

[Mudcat]

Find me another fire-based collapse of a steel-frame building like WTC7. Until you can, controlled demolition is just as likely to have occurred as a fire-based collapse.

Sorry.

Are you really this stupid for real? Because fire was not the sole collapse of WTC (and for your information number 7 wasn't the only one that collapsed that day) but also the impact of the frigging aircraft that flew into them, imparting forces that are unimaginable to some. This caused the structural stability to be compromised and the massive and mostly uncontested fires that had burned inside the buildings for Seven hours caused the already stressed structure to catastrophically fail.

Why is this difficult to understand?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Are you really this stupid for real? Because fire was not the sole collapse of WTC (and for your information number 7 wasn't the only one that collapsed that day) but also the impact of the frigging aircraft that flew into them, imparting forces that are unimaginable to some. This caused the structural stability to be compromised and the massive and mostly uncontested fires that had burned inside the buildings for Seven hours caused the already stressed structure to catastrophically fail.

Why is this difficult to understand?

[SNIP] I clearly stated "WTC7", which wasn't hit by an aircraft and according to NIST, was felled by fires.

No wonder our lying government can snow you with such ease! [SNIP]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

 

[000063]

SHC, what set WTC 7 on fire?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

SHC, what set WTC 7 on fire?

Why don't you just spit it out if you know the answer?

 

[dafydd]

Why don't you just spit it out if you know the answer?

Perhaps he will do that when you actually answer a question.

 

[Disbelief]

Perhaps he will do that when you actually answer a question.

But don't ask SHC in this thread, because he has once again successfully trolled. There is some decent discussion going on, but posters feel the need to engage an obvious troll and egg him on.

Just let him ramble.

 

[newton3376]

Find me another fire-based collapse of a steel-frame building like WTC7. Until you can, controlled demolition is just as likely to have occurred as a fire-based collapse.

Sorry.

I would be sorry too if I said something that was as idiotic as what you just said......apology accepted

Your "opinion" is useless. No one cares what "you" think because you are an amateur armchair quarterback talking about topics you do not understand.

Is this really your argument? It's a really bad argument although you do not understand why it is....but that's okay

Do you have anything beyond youtube, personal opinions, or investi-googling?

*Hint: I already know the answer

 

[LSSBB]

Find me another fire-based collapse of a steel-frame building like WTC7. Until you can, controlled demolition is just as likely to have occurred as a fire-based collapse.

Sorry.

No, prove how unfaught fires COULD NOT have led to the collapse of WTC7, or prove any evidence of CD. Still struggling with this Burden of Proof thingy, eh?

Can you find any buildings like WTC7 that were demolished with none of the visual and auditory characteristics attendant to a Controlled Demolision? Maybe that will help you build your case, whatever that is.


ETA: This conversation is obviously off topic.