Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[NoahFence]

Oh my! The irony! Post 325 you answer for Tony, then post 326 you post this.

What else would you expect from these people?

 

[NoahFence]

Delete repeat

 

[GlennB]

So, it seems TS has conjured up a new magical mechanism to bolster his beliefs - "natural fires were impossible in WTC7 because the gypsum dust would have put them out" - and can sit back secure in the knowledge that debunkers now have to prove him wrong.

So a 10 kg lump of (say) metal at 500°C smashes through a window and lands among inflammable materials. How much gypsum dust will follow? Bugger all.

What if the lump of debris is 1m deep? Will it be smothered by a > 1m depth of dust?

What if it penetrates several m into the building. Will that lightweight, floating dust magically follow it?

What a crock.

 

[Oystein]

Glenn, you don't get what LOGIC demands!

See, you need to get your premises right FIRST, and then everything else follows:
1. 9/11 was an inside job. I mean, come on, that is obvious, EVERYONE knows it
2. Steel skyscrapers cannot a do not collapse from fires
3. Everything the government tells you is wrong
4. NIST is the government. There is zero difference between NIST, the CIA, the VP, NORAD and Mossad.

Do you see now how everything falls into place?
Everything that somehow contradicts what the government shills tell you is true!

 

[ozeco41]

...What a crock.

Glenn IT IS WORKING FOR TONY

He and his current pair of tag team partners have the discussion bogged down in irrelevant details and going round in circles.

Since Tony and those who clone copy his arguments - err bare assertion claims - have lost every significant claim Tony has made what other options do they have.

The obvious one is to see the light and drop this truther nonsense. They seem incapable of doing that.

Second choice SHOULD be to stop coming to forums like this one and posting nonsense. They seem incapable of doing that.

So they keep coming here. And the SAFEST way to stop discussion progressing is to post nonsense. The sillier the better. Proof of that self evident - read the thread.

The ball is really in the "debunkers" court to stop responding.

...and that raises the question "Who is really obsessed?"

..I for one dare not look in the mirror.

 

[GlennB]

The ball is really in the "debunkers" court to stop responding.

...and that raises the question "Who is really obsessed?"

..I for one dare not look in the mirror.

I threw away all my mirrors

 

[ozeco41]

I threw away all my mirrors

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So, it seems TS has conjured up a new magical mechanism to bolster his beliefs - "natural fires were impossible in WTC7 because the gypsum dust would have put them out" - and can sit back secure in the knowledge that debunkers now have to prove him wrong.

So a 10 kg lump of (say) metal at 500°C smashes through a window and lands among inflammable materials. How much gypsum dust will follow? Bugger all.

What if the lump of debris is 1m deep? Will it be smothered by a > 1m depth of dust?

What if it penetrates several m into the building. Will that lightweight, floating dust magically follow it?

What a crock.

I have to wonder if you either have a hard time understanding or are doing it intentionally.

I never said the gypsum dust would put the fires out in WTC 7. I said fire needs oxygen and the copious amounts of gypsum dust generated in the North Tower during its collapse would have certainly smothered its naturally occurring fires.

Your presumption that items, with enough mass to break through heavy double pane windows in WTC 7, could have flown over 350 feet and remained as hot as 500 degrees C has very low probability which you are not acknowledging. Your speculation also requires the fires you claim to have been caused by the North Tower in WTC 7 to remain unobserved for nearly two hours. That in and of itself is asking a lot for one to believe. In addition, it is also hard to imagine fires on ten floors in WTC 7 being caused by the North Tower collapse while there were none caused in the two buildings adjacent to it.

Finally, the notion that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the North Tower collapse has serious impediments to its believability, and arson seems like the most viable explanation.

 

[GlennB]

I have to wonder if you either have a hard time understanding or are doing it intentionally.

I never said the gypsum dust would put the fires out in WTC 7. I said fire needs oxygen and the copious amounts of gypsum dust generated in the North Tower during its collapse would have certainly smothered any naturally occurring fires.

A you, despite many reminders, can't see that flames are not required to start fires. Just an adequate mass of sufficiently hot material will do nicely.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Glenn, you don't get what LOGIC demands!

See, you need to get your premises right FIRST, and then everything else follows:
1. 9/11 was an inside job. I mean, come on, that is obvious, EVERYONE knows it
2. Steel skyscrapers cannot a do not collapse from fires
3. Everything the government tells you is wrong 4. NIST is the government. There is zero difference between NIST, the CIA, the VP, NORAD and Mossad.Do you see now how everything falls into place?
Everything that somehow contradicts what the government shills tell you is true!

There have been cover-ups by certain people in government exposed in the past and it has fueled appropriate public skepticism about the explanations for certain events especially when they have scientific problems. 911 is one of those situations. However, I don't see anyone here making statements that would allow for you to make the claims you do in your 3rd and 4th points. Why do you generalize and exaggerate like this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A you, despite many reminders, can't see that flames are not required to start fires. Just an adequate mass of sufficiently hot material will do nicely.

For observable flames to not appear for nearly two hours in WTC 7, after your alleged fire initiation cause could have occurred, strains credulity.

 

[Oystein]

There have been government cover-ups by certain people exposed in the past and it has fueled appropriate public skepticism. However, I don't see anyone here making claims that would allow for you to make the claims you do in your 3rd and 4th points. Why do you exaggerate like this?

Anyone here making claimns 1+2? I thought I was exaggerating there, too?!

 

[Oystein]

For observable flames to not appear for nearly two hours in WTC 7, after your alleged fire initiation cause could have occurred, strains credulity.

I think it has been pointed out several times that this is the basis and substance of your argument: Your personal incredulity. Thanks for confirming what everybody tries to tell you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I think it has been pointed out several times that this is the basis and substance of your argument: Your personal incredulity. Thanks for confirming what everybody tries to tell you.

Given the facts and reality of the situation, the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires in WTC 7 would strain credulity for anyone who thinks about it. You and some of your brethren here of an opposing view don't seem to want to think about it and you clearly can't muster legitimate points to support your claim.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why eight stories (rather than seven or nine)?
Which eight stories?


Yes, he said so at a time when he knew practically NOTHING AT ALL about what happened to WTC7 on 9/11.
He didn't know when it collapsed
He didn't know it was on fire
He had not seen all the videos with sound, so he had no chance yet to realize there were NO EXPLOSIONS just before it collapsed.



Yes. He said in the interview that the office fires would absolutely destroy the explosive charges and the detonators, and that therefore WTC1+2 could not possibly have been CD.



Now again: Which 8 stories had explosive charges?
And how did those charges survive the fires?

Do you think Jowenko was mistaken about what fires do to CD charges, and that WTC1+2 were not CDs?

There were fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30 in WTC 7.

Charges could easily have been on the core columns of floors without fire such as 14 through 18, 20, 21, and 23 and it would have produced the symmetric free fall collapse seen on video. This is another point in support of arson being the cause for the fires in WTC 7. Arsonists trying to create a cover for blowing the building would have known which floors had charges. This is an entirely plausible scenario and much more so than fires not showing up for nearly two hours after an alleged natural cause.

Danny Jowenko was not aware that the Twin Tower collapses initiated above the aircraft impact damage and most of the fire as that came out later.

 

[Agatha]

Refrain from personalising your arguments. This applies to all participants; further attacks on the arguers may result in additional moderation action.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Given the facts and reality of the situation, the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires in WTC 7 would strain credulity for anyone who thinks about it. You and some of your brethren here of an opposing view don't seem to want to think about it and you clearly can't muster legitimate points to support your claim.

Given hot metal distributed by the air in the collapses probably landed on plastic and that plastic could smolder for hours your bare assertion is nonsensical in the least.

If thermite dispersed cooling in air can light a fire, so can hot carbons, or hot metals, your desperately grasping at a straw man argument.

Just like saying the steel can not rapidly fail, an engineer, who does not understand weld and bolt connection failure, impossible more impossible than a building falling at free fall.

Also gypsum in dust form is light and grandular an inch of gypsum would only induce smoldering not prevent fire spread, any desturbance of the layer, would disperse it allowing for flame propagation.

Any fuel oil leaking on too a smoldering fire under gypsum would soak into the gypsum and ignite it.

PS. Just for fun yesterday I tested your gypsum Idea I placed a piece of heated steel 380C on paper covered by one inch of wet gypsum powder, the Owensboro Messenger, began smoldering in five minutes, although no flame was produced until the light wind disturbed the gypsum layer exposing the paper to air.

These Ideas are easily experimentally tested Tony and you fail miserably.

 

[Spanx]

Given the facts and reality of the situation, the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires in WTC 7 would strain credulity for anyone who thinks about it. You and some of your brethren here of an opposing view don't seem to want to think about it and you clearly can't muster legitimate points to support your claim.

Looking forward to seeing the facts and reality of the situation.

When will you be showing us this evidence ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Which is precisely the error he made with "Missing Jolt".

Which led him to look for a "jolt" which could NEVER have happened. The false starting scenario NEVER existed.

That absolute "NEVER" is intentional. Not "near enough". Not "good enough as an approximation". it simply never happened.

On second thoughts I'll leave out the "simply" - the situation and false assumptions fooled a lot of us for some time.

The funny thing is, the error bars on his data were so massive that he had to smooth it in order not to see a jolt of exactly the size he was looking for. I remember when he first produced his "paper"; I noticed that he'd taken the formula a=v/t^2 to calculate the acceleration, which gives not the instantaneous but the average acceleration at a given time, which effectively smooths out any short-lived changes in acceleration - in effect, discarding exactly the sort of result he was looking for. When I pointed this out to him here, he quickly changed the paper, with no acknowledgement, and I'm sure will now deny any of it ever happened. But when he re-calculated the data, there was a point almost exactly where he'd highlighted the absence of a jolt, which showed almost exactly the effect he'd claimed wasn't there. (I'm sure it was just a noise artefact, but in the circumstances the irony was rather delicious.) He then started claiming that he wasn't looking for a 2G deceleration (the resistance of the lower structure) but a 31G deceleration (Bazant's rather excessive figure for the dynamic loading), and that the absence of this physically impossible effect was therefore the real smoking gun.

I haven't really taken him seriously since then.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

So a 10 kg lump of (say) metal at 500°C smashes through a window and lands among inflammable materials. How much gypsum dust will follow? Bugger all.

I think it's worth also pointing out that Tony is arguing that no debris hit WTC7anyway. So he's effectively claiming that the inside of the building was filled with gypsum dust which entered through gaps in the wall that weren't there because nothing hit the building to cause them.

Dave