• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Tony Szamboti said:
The gas explosion in NYC this past week was an enormous force and the building collapses and fires were a result.
Click to expand...

The aircraft impacts into the Twin Towers was an enormous force and the building collapses and fires were a result.
 
DGM said:
Cue TSz arguing building 7 not hit by aircraft in 3....2....1......
Click to expand...

True that I did stray a wee bit off-topic with the reference to the Twins but when the opportunity presents,...

But one could equally argue the North Tower collapse event was an enormous force and the 7 WTC building collapse and fires were a result.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Here again you are talking like an amateur and making assumptions that don't logically fit to help you maintain your bias. Not surprising for you and that is why I rarely answer you. It is generally a waste of time because you are either very dense or being disingenuous.
Click to expand...

What a fine example of troffer projection. :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The photo you showed does not support what you are saying as it is taken from the north and does not provide the proximity of the debris to WTC 7. It was likely hundreds of feet back from WTC 7 much closer to the North Tower. You would need a photo taken from the east or west to show solid debris hitting WTC 7. I am not saying none did but that it was far less than many here want to admit. There really is not much chance of it due to the distance.

Saying the fire started several feet into the building is hard to imagine as an excuse for why the fires weren't noticed for nearly two hours. Arson is a much more likely reason.



With ductile steel there would be significant deformation of each column before enough load was transferred to adjacent columns. The time for a sequential column failure around the exterior of WTC 7 can conservatively said to take at least many seconds and that is not what we see. The entire exterior comes down as a single unit. The only way it could come down the way we see is for the entire 24 column central core to have been taken out nearly instantaneously which would then pull all of the exterior columns inward at the same time and cause it to uniformly collapse. Now the entire core could not fail nearly instantaneously due to a progressive collapse. This is a serious problem for a natural failure scenario.



The exterior was not stiff enough to be pulled on at one corner of the building and then start falling at the other in a symmetric way.



I am not arguing that NIST claim of ten floors being on fire is wrong. I accept what they are saying there. However, I say ten floors being on fire in WTC 7 being caused by WTC 1 is highly unlikely due to there only being fires on a few floors in WTC 1, the 350 foot distance, gypsum dust putting out the WTC 1 fires during the collapse, the fact that no fires are observed in the Verizon and Post Office buildings, and the nearly two hour difference between when WTC 1 collapsed and the first photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7.

It is already extremely unlikely for ten floors to have defeated all those obstacles to being caused by natural fires from WTC 1 and if it was even more, as you are trying to say, then it makes the case for arson even more likely.
Click to expand...

Wow.......your ignorance of building structures, even after all these years, is astounding. Your gypsum dust claims as just comically stupid. The you top it off with a generous dose of meaningless personal incredulity :rolleyes:
 
Animal said:
What a fine example of troffer projection. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Tony and I go way back............He hates it when I call his strawmen. Maybe because I never went to college* and I find it so easy. :D


* 38 years in the building profession is my college. I joke, "I stayed at a Holiday Inn, hell, I built one........."
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Saying there were more than ten floors on fire in WTC 7 makes the argument that they were caused by the North Tower even more untenable than it already is. It is one giant hand wave by NIST to say fires on ten floors, that show up nearly two hours after the North Tower collapse, were caused by that collapse.
Click to expand...
How odd of you to say that. The ONLY evident cause of the fires anywhere, post collapse, is as a result of those collapses either by burning/hot debris, or from sparks or disruption of electric current carrierers. Yet you reject such reasoning out of hand and proclaim that a cadre of unseen arsonist spooks were running about lighting up a building that had suffered very significant impact damage and/or unseen 'leftovers' of a material that cannot conclusively be said to have existed in the area sprinkled about and ignited ( in the case of WTC7, By your very own reasoning, two hours later.

They don't bother to explain the problems with it such as the two hour delay, the massive amounts of gypsum dust that would extinguish the flames in WTC 1 during the collapse,
Click to expand...

Asked a few times now and you seem to miss it every time Tony. That gypsum dust is created as collapse ensues , that dust then supposedly coats burning materials and stays coated on those materials as that material exits the building less than a second after collapse initiated. That gypsum dust is from drywall that was very hot in the first place. Its water content would have been significantly gone by the time of collapse. So its not cooling ,all its doing is reducing oxygen availability. Now, by your own reasoning, at some distance from the towers the dust density is no longer sufficient to stop combustion. Materials from the towers would take around ten seconds to reach WTC7 ,. Can you demonstrate that something that was on fire in WTC1 could must cool below its ignition temperature, and the ignition temperature of common office contents in WTC7, within ten seconds or still have a thick enough layer of gypsum dust coating it when it bounces into an office of WTC7?
increasing the fact that there were fires on just a few floors in WTC 1,
Click to expand...
Nonsequitor. You have blatantly tried to downplay the fires in WTC1 by talking about them in relation to the total office space in the entire building. Why not just go that extra inch and talk about the percentage of office space in Manhattan south of WTC7 that ewas on fire, or the percentage of office space on fire from WTC1 to Long Island? Your comparison is just as absurd.
the 350 foot distance between the buildings, and the fact that the Verizon and Post Office buildings had no fires
Click to expand...
.
Again, can you demonstrate that materials that were ejected from WTC1 fire floors MUST be cooled below the ignition temp of common office materials in WTC7 or be coated in a blanket of gypsum dust after this travel ?
Your argument that there were even more fires in WTC 7 than NIST claims makes the case for arson even greater
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. No more do than saying a DEW did it, or pixies from Mars. There is absolutely no evidence of arson spooks beyond your own imagination. PERIOD.

As for the Verizon and Post Office. First let's deal with the Post Office. We note thgatbtge eastern side of WTC7 itself suffered much less window damage than ntge western side. So right away we can assume, without even checking the record, that the P.O. suffered much less than WTC7 wrt impact damage. Its windows were also wire reenforced.
OK, the Verizon building. The greatest number of broken windows on it were at its eastern end. Photos show it suffered much less impact damage than WTC7 did. No large holes such as seen in the SW corner of WTC7. So it might behooze you to explain exactly why you would expect an nequal number of fires in it as in #7.


The problem with your argument isn't about the >g component. It is that the symmetric free fall, or even >g fall, of the exterior of WTC 7 couldn't happen with the sequential exterior column collapse NIST argument that you support. The argument with the symmetry and sequential column failure involved together is not coherent.
Click to expand...
The eastern third of the building had a very different core structure than the western 2/3rds. The facade first failed along the line of the 'kink' which is the area of the join between the east and west. Why do you keep trying to say that the entire building was so very similar that it could only fail by bringing down 24 core columns all at once?

The third force you are talking about would be the pull-in of the entire exterior by the falling core. The entire core had to be dropping at the same time to get the symmetric exterior collapse that we witnessed. The entire core is not dropping simultaneously with the NIST east interior collapse first and then east to west progressive interior collapse. That is why their model does not replicate the real event.
Click to expand...
No, as I pointed out many times, the north side facade had already failed along the line of the kink. The south side was missing its SW corner while the eastern 1/3 was largely unaffected by WTC1 debris. That means that at global collapse initiation the larger part of the building would have its SW and NE ( the kink) already failed. The eastern third had its NW corner (at the kink) compromised, was a smaller structural section , and did not rely on the core construction of the western 2/3rds BUT would be attached to that western 2/3rds by 40 storeys pulling on it.
In fact the eastern portion twisted and fell in the opposite direction as the western portion, again indicating a differential response to the forces in the collapse.
But you completely ignore that in favourite of arson and demolition spooks. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Tony and I go way back............He hates it when I call his strawmen. Maybe because I never went to college* and I find it so easy. :D


* 38 years in the building profession is my college. I joke, "I stayed at a Holiday Inn, hell, I built one........."
Click to expand...

Common sense is my college.
 
DGM said:
Tony and I go way back............He hates it when I call his strawmen. Maybe because I never went to college* and I find it so easy. :D


* 38 years in the building profession is my college. I joke, "I stayed at a Holiday Inn, hell, I built one........."
Click to expand...
I have rebutted every one of Tony's major claims - these days I count it success when he ignores my posts. He seems to have abandoned his practice of some years of simply insulting me rather than respond.

The real two questions must be:
1) Why do Tony and his current two tag-teamers persist in coming here keeping the "discussions" circling in whack-a-mole trivialities thereby avoiding the real issues? AND

2) Why do so many of us "debunkers" still enjoy playing along with his game?

As for qualifications - I claim to have earned my Masters Degree in the University of Real World.

I'm currently working on my PhD in procrastination. One of these days I'll have to get around to finishing my dissertation.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
I have rebutted every one of Tony's major claims - these days I count it success when he ignores my posts. He seems to have abandoned his practice of some years of simply insulting me rather than respond.
Click to expand...

Likely because I'm an easier target because I freely state my education level as being below his. To him,(and possibly his followers) I'm an easy target.
 
DGM said:
Likely because I'm an easier target because I freely state my education level as being below his. To him,(and possibly his followers) I'm an easy target.
Click to expand...

Mine is below ozeco's or any other engineer here. However I have yet to see the points in my above post, made a few times now, rebutted.

So I ask, all here, in my above post where do I go wrong. I'm an adult, got big shoulders, I can take it.
 
jaydeehess said:
So I ask, all here, in my above post where do I go wrong. I'm an adult, got big shoulders, I can take it.
Click to expand...

I think you go wrong in bothering to reply to Tony at all. He has nothing to offer but appeals to his own authority, and for years now as far as I'm concerned he's had none to appeal to.

Dave
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The fires in WTC 7 did not spread vertically and NIST acknowledged that.

.
Click to expand...

DGM said:
They did not say the fires started simultaneous on all floors. They did not say the fires did not spread, they only reported fires and times they could confirm they did not speculate on origin. This comment is your literal application of conditions used in the model to real world.

Why lie?
Click to expand...

I made an edit for clarity.

The NIST did apply the fire damage on all floors at the same time in the simulation. They never claimed they all started at the same time, like Tony asserts.

This is another case of Tony attempting to blend model and reality to suit his purpose.
 
Tony did you know that cigarette butts cause 7600 building fires a year? That those little cigarette butts cause fire fatalities more than any other initiating cause? Now, the burning part of a cigarette is a circle maybe 1/2 inch in diameter and 2/3 inch long. That teeny tiny little butt kills lots of people and causes 7600 building fires a year.
That photo I gave you of the debris about to slam against Building 7 looks like pretty good evidence to me. Not proof, because we can't actually see the debris actually hitting the building. We see large gashes shortly afterwards that were caused by that debris. In all that debris, an ember no bigger than a cigarette butt could have initiated a fire.
 
chrismohr said:
Tony did you know that cigarette butts cause 7600 building fires a year? .
Click to expand...

[truther mode] Now the leader of the debunkers is claiming cigarette butts took down building 7[/truther mode]

You know where this is heading...................:)

ETA: I should have added a few LOL's, I'm slipping. :(
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Tony did you know that cigarette butts cause 7600 building fires a year? That those little cigarette butts cause fire fatalities more than any other initiating cause? Now, the burning part of a cigarette is a circle maybe 1/2 inch in diameter and 2/3 inch long. That teeny tiny little butt kills lots of people and causes 7600 building fires a year.
That photo I gave you of the debris about to slam against Building 7 looks like pretty good evidence to me. Not proof, because we can't actually see the debris actually hitting the building. We see large gashes shortly afterwards that were caused by that debris. In all that debris, an ember no bigger than a cigarette butt could have initiated a fire.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Ooooh - let me get out my thermocouple and measure the temperature of a cigarette butt .....

Actually, don't need to. Smouldering things cause fires all the time, but for the record this one, not recently puffed, registers ~540°C
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom