Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

You know, it's the beginning of the month and I decided to take a fresh look at the issues that folks like Ziggi were bringing up. I apologize for mocking y'all like I did. I looked at the evidence and it's clear we need a new investigation. Fire has never resulted in the complete collapse of buildings before, and I thought that was a design-specific issue that should be explored in any thinking, but clearly the statistics don't lie. The idea that these buildings, WTC 7 especially, could have collapsed is a complete farce.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
You know, it's the beginning of the month and I decided to take a fresh look at the issues that folks like Ziggi were bringing up. I apologize for mocking y'all like I did. I looked at the evidence and it's clear we need a new investigation. Fire has never resulted in the complete collapse of buildings before, and I thought that was a design-specific issue that should be explored in any thinking, but clearly the statistics don't lie. The idea that these buildings, WTC 7 especially, could have collapsed is a complete farce.
Click to expand...

Its a shame others while away their time, as you do indicate actual interest.
 
chrismohr said:
...NIST did say "it is possible that potential ignition sources entered WTC 7 through openings created in the south and west faces of the building during the collapses of the towers. ... the available data suggests that this was highly likely." Whether fires were started by the Tower collapse or arsonists is secondary....
Click to expand...

Yes Chris, that is how Oystein presented that quote from NIST, but the ...dotted part...represents the most important bit of that quote which he edited out. I showed you the full quote before and note the highlighted part which Oystein cut out:
Since fires were observed on the ground surrounding WTC 7, it is possible that potential ignition sources entered WTC 7 through openings created in the south and west faces of the building during the collapses of the towers. NIST found no evidence to confirm this possibility, but the available data suggests that this was highly likely.
Click to expand...

I have pointed out to you this sort of behavior several times here and in our emails. As for the ignition sources debate, I have pretty much said all I have to say about that:
...the important thing to remember is that NIST admits it found no evidence that burning debris from the Towers started fires in WTC7, or that fires spread from floor to floor. You are free to look into the data yourself and come to a different conclusion, but when you do that you have to make sure to clearly note that your conclusion is not NISTs conclusion because it found no evidence to support it. You have a BIG problem because several of your forum buddies like to conflate their own opinions with NISTs report, giving the false idea that NIST supports what they are saying, and then you trust them and make their opinions your own.
Click to expand...

The rest of your post raised some interesting points and I´ll address them one by one as I have time the next few days.
 
MODS

By the way MirageMemories has not been able to log in even though his suspension has been lifted.:(
 
Ziggi said:
By the way MirageMemories has not been able to log in even though his suspension has been lifted.:(
Click to expand...

You'll want to PM them or mention it in forum management so that they give you a quicker response on the matter
 
JSanderO said:
Chris,
NB how few columns going axially (vertically) directly beneath the 4 sides of the trapazoidal frame which was from floor 8 to flr 47.

north curtain wall/moment frame - 5 columns
east curtain wall/moment frame - 4 columns
south curtain wall/moment frame - 10 columns (unbraced for 6 stories)
east curtain wall/moment frame - 5 columns

There were 57 columns in the perimeter above floor 8 and only 26 below floor 8

Both the east and west were braced frames below floor 8... and likely folded inward as not columns but the entire braced frame which included the columns

The entire building was surrounded by a 2 story belt truss at the perimeter from floors 5-7 functioning as a sort of rigid based the the frame above

Essentially the support below the perimeter braced frame failed almost at once and the 4 sides came down together.
Click to expand...
So as I ask myself, what could support this huge perimeter wall, I wonder (but don't know): could the two-story belt truss near the bottom support the perimeter wall for six seconds or so? If I just had a single wall it would fall over. But if I make four walls linked together, that can stand. because the right angles alone provide way way more support than a single unattached wall. Add the truss and maybe it can withstand the internal collapse? I don't know, but I still wonder, would a CD of the interior first have the same effect anyway? And since the CD Tony advocates started asymmetrically inside the building (and why???), the exterior would have to have the same problem holding together those six seconds either way???
 
jaydeehess said:
Quote:
NIST found no evidence of the pathway the fire took to reach the north face, nor when it arrived at this face
Click to expand...
Paraphrase from the bottom of page 244. Sorry if its not verbatim, my tablet won't allow copy/paste from the PDF nor can I view two windows at once.

Point is that Ziggi et al have been trying to tell us that when NIST says it found no evidence that it means they are saying it did not occur. This sentence illustrates the true contextual meaning. NIST is obviously not saying there was no path for 11th floor flames to reach the north face, nor is it saying that the fire did not reach the north face. It is describing to gap in information and nothing more.

When NIST says it found no evidence that burning debris from WTC1 started the fires in the streets or WTC7, it is not it claiming it did not happen. It is instead saying no direct imagery could be found to positively identify that mechanism. The report DOES go on to state that it is "highly likely" that is the cause of the fires. There was no video in which a burning piece of debris is observed to land inside WTC7 and ignite materials there. Unsurprising since cameras were largely trained on the towers themselves, as they collapsed.

Of course reading comprehension on this matter seems to be a big problem for some truthers.
Click to expand...
NIST, using the same available data that TSz found it 'highly likely' that fires were started by WTC7 debris, while Tony states the opposite. How the **** this can be twisted into supporting the notion fiction that its not probable is quite the mind flip. I must be in the time slip, nothing will ever be the same.
 
I note that by the same token as having no direct imagery of burning debris entering WTC7 , neither does TSz have same of his arson agents BUT there is a multitude of imagery of fires in WTC1 and fires in the streets after its demise. It requires no making up a fiction of thermite dust pixies or arson agents to surmise that these fires are directly related to the expulsion of burning debris from WTC1.
 
jaydeehess said:
I note that by the same token as having no direct imagery of burning debris entering WTC7 , neither does TSz have same of his arson agents BUT there is a multitude of imagery of fires in WTC1 and fires in the streets after its demise
Click to expand...

So, did these arsonists run around setting fire in the streets without anyone noticing them doing it?
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
Yes Chris, that is how Oystein presented that quote from NIST, but the ...dotted part...represents the most important bit of that quote which he edited out. I showed you the full quote before and note the highlighted part which Oystein cut out:

I have pointed out to you this sort of behavior several times here and in our emails. As for the ignition sources debate, I have pretty much said all I have to say about that:
...the important thing to remember is that NIST admits it found no evidence that burning debris from the Towers started fires in WTC7, or that fires spread from floor to floor. You are free to look into the data yourself and come to a different conclusion, but when you do that you have to make sure to clearly note that your conclusion is not NISTs conclusion because it found no evidence to support it. You have a BIG problem because several of your forum buddies like to conflate their own opinions with NISTs report, giving the false idea that NIST supports what they are saying, and then you trust them and make their opinions your own.
Click to expand...
...
Click to expand...

Is that the standard of proof that you want to be held to yourself, and that you want to hold your fellow truthers to - that you absolutely discount and reject that which is "highly likely" giben the available data and accept only that for which there is direct evidence?

A simple Yes or No will do :)
 
Matthew Cline said:
So, Did these arsonists run around setting fire in the streets without anyone noticing them doing it?
Click to expand...

That, we're told, was caused by fizzling thermite flying over from WTC1. But we're also told that hot debris couldn't make it that far, therefore arsonists must have set the fires in the building.

It's quite a mystery ;)
 
Ziggi said:
...
The rest of your post raised some interesting points and I´ll address them one by one as I have time the next few days.
Click to expand...

What, you don't have time to present the biggest inside job conspiracy in history? Is saving the world part time for you?

Where is the overwhelming evidence your movement claims to have, and why can't you present it for WTC 7?

What started the fires in your fantasy CD version? Right, you can't say, you have no evidence.

For WTC 7, why are you fooled by the 911 truth CD claims? In CD what is the ratio of explosives to the energy released due to gravity, E=mgh?

Do you share in the ad money from the debunking the debunkers woo web site based on ignorance?
 
chrismohr said:
Add the truss and maybe it can withstand the internal collapse? I don't know, but I still wonder, would a CD of the interior first have the same effect anyway? And since the CD Tony advocates started asymmetrically inside the building (and why???), the exterior would have to have the same problem holding together those six seconds either way???
Click to expand...
Shame Chris.. What you are doing is called "thinking"!

...more seriously - as you know I rarely engage in these speculations of engineering side tracks - I know enough to know that I don’t know enough.

BUT the big issues are always "Would a CD initiated collapse behave differently?" "How?" "Why?"

Truthers assume that there is some magic about CD which changes the laws of physics. There isn't. Same laws of physics. So if there is any apparent need for magic it is the truther claimants burden of proof to support the claim. (AND explain their magic.) NOT your or my responsibility to prove it wrong. End of most discussion for me.
 
Matthew Cline said:
Does burning thermite even generate sparks which can float away?
Click to expand...

I suppose it would have to be great lumps of the stuff, given that we're told it was sufficient to set cars on fire.

TS has has been asked repeatedly why this (fictional) material could hop the gap while red-hot metal couldn't, but he keeps avoiding answering such specifics. I increasingly suspect he's "having a laugh", as we Brits say :)
 
chrismohr said:
So as I ask myself, what could support this huge perimeter wall, I wonder (but don't know): could the two-story belt truss near the bottom support the perimeter wall for six seconds or so? If I just had a single wall it would fall over. But if I make four walls linked together, that can stand. because the right angles alone provide way way more support than a single unattached wall. Add the truss and maybe it can withstand the internal collapse? I don't know, but I still wonder, would a CD of the interior first have the same effect anyway? And since the CD Tony advocates started asymmetrically inside the building (and why???), the exterior would have to have the same problem holding together those six seconds either way???
Click to expand...

The purpose of the "moment frame" of the exterior was to resist lateral loads, holding the frame together.

http://www.propertyrisk.com/refcentr/steel-side.htm
 
chrismohr said:
So as I ask myself, what could support this huge perimeter wall, I wonder (but don't know): could the two-story belt truss near the bottom support the perimeter wall for six seconds or so? If I just had a single wall it would fall over. But if I make four walls linked together, that can stand. because the right angles alone provide way way more support than a single unattached wall. Add the truss and maybe it can withstand the internal collapse? I don't know, but I still wonder, would a CD of the interior first have the same effect anyway? And since the CD Tony advocates started asymmetrically inside the building (and why???), the exterior would have to have the same problem holding together those six seconds either way???
Click to expand...

In the hull and core concept the perimeter is a rather rigid "membrane" (kind of)... with strong spandrel beams. It acts more as a unit because of the strength of the connections and the spandrels.... its elements act as one... Ergo when it lost axial support it dropped like a 4 sided box.... kinda
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom