• 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:
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..
Click to expand...

Tony, I think Chris needs another perspective to understand the discussion. He seems to be assuming that once load is transferred from failed columns to surrounding columns, that these will also automatically fail the instant they face the extra burden. Are you sensing the same thing?

It might help Chris to take another look at the Twins and why the tops did not collapse down for about an hour after the jets took out several columns. I think he might see that even though the load was transferred very quickly from failed columns to surrounding ones, that these surrounding columns did not instantly fail, and not at all for about an hour.
 
Ziggi said:
Tony, I think Chris needs another perspective to understand the discussion. He seems to be assuming that once load is transferred from failed columns to surrounding columns, that these will also automatically fail the instant they face the extra burden. Are you sensing the same thing?
Click to expand...

No. Not one person here believes that. Even to suggest it suggests something profoundly wrong about your reading comprehension.
 
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...

But in this case the ember would have to survive 300plus ft journey in a smothering concrete/gypsum dust cloud, and land in a room that that also gets smothered with that same dust. Try throwing a cigarette butt in a sandbox and see if it starts a big fire.
 
GlennB said:
No. Not one person here believes that. Even to suggest it suggests something profoundly wrong about your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

For once, try let Chris answer for himself. The constant flood of answers on his behalf from several people makes it seem like you all think he cannot answer for himself.
 
Ziggi said:
But in this case the ember would have to survive 300plus ft journey in a smothering concrete/gypsum dust cloud, and land in a room that that also gets smothered with that same dust. Try throwing a cigarette butt in a sandbox and see if it starts a big fire.
Click to expand...

You forgot to add the ignited thermite to the concrete/gypsum dust cloud.
 
Ziggi said:
But in this case the ember would have to survive 300plus ft journey in a smothering concrete/gypsum dust cloud, and land in a room that that also gets smothered with that same dust. Try throwing a cigarette butt in a sandbox and see if it starts a big fire.
Click to expand...

Throw one on the pile of paper on your desk and see what happens. You can pile dust on top if you wish. Your desperation is obvious, "researcher", you come here to thwart our attack, an attack you always have to seek out.
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
But in this case the ember would have to survive 300plus ft journey in a smothering concrete/gypsum dust cloud, and land in a room that that also gets smothered with that same dust. Try throwing a cigarette butt in a sandbox and see if it starts a big fire.
Click to expand...

Time is way overdue to put evidence in support of you and Tony's assertioneering.
 
Ziggi said:
But in this case the ember would have to survive 300plus ft journey in a smothering concrete/gypsum dust cloud, and land in a room that that also gets smothered with that same dust. Try throwing a cigarette butt in a sandbox and see if it starts a big fire.
Click to expand...

The dust cloud is quite well oxygenated and wouldn't smother anything. Hell, not even Tony is saying that the dust cloud would smother anything. At least he's got the sense to limit his smothering hypothesis to the dense core areas of the collapse.
 
DGM said:
Throw one on the pile of paper on your desk and see what happens. You can pile dust on top if you wish. Your desperation is obvious, "researcher", you come here to thwart our attack, an attack you always have to seek out.
Click to expand...

I prefer burning my desk with hot steel plenty of that in the towers, small pieces would travel hundreds of feet.

The substance need not even be smoldering, it would have been easiest for a piece of plastic or rubber to stay lit in air travel over to building 7 and light the fire.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I prefer burning my desk with hot steel plenty of that in the towers, small pieces would travel hundreds of feet.

The substance need not even be smoldering, it would have been easiest for a piece of plastic or rubber to stay lit in air travel over to building 7 and light the fire.
Click to expand...
Also think "branding iron". No flame there but, it would surely ignite paper. The whole "arson" argument is laughable. The desperation is not even veiled at this point.
 
Oystein said:
They confound me, I admit.
But when the candles are back on, I realize I am confounded and do not claim with perfect assuredness that "everybody agrees" blown-out candles cannot possibly continue burning and instead someone stealthily lit them with a lighter, nor do I start fabulating about thermite.
Click to expand...

The candle goes out the candle comes back on, you can't explain that.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
No, I don't say every column in WTC 7 needed to be wired. Just eight stories of the 24 central core columns.
Click to expand...

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

Tony Szamboti said:
Danny Jowenko said the same thing and that it wasn't that hard.
Click to expand...
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.


Tony Szamboti said:
He just didn't think it could be done on the same day. Have you seen the interview with him?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Ziggi said:
But in this case the ember would have to survive 300plus ft journey in a smothering concrete/gypsum dust cloud, and land in a room that that also gets smothered with that same dust. Try throwing a cigarette butt in a sandbox and see if it starts a big fire.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
The massive conflagration would need to only have an ember worth of heat left.
 
NoahFence said:
Wrong.
The massive conflagration would need to only have an ember worth of heat left.
Click to expand...
The part I like the best is, their "thermite" set fire to the cars but couldn't do the same to buildings. Bit'n again by their own inconsistency. If they claim flying "thermite" set fire to wtc7 it would have done so to others. Another miracle property to the magical "thermite", it's selective as to what it sets fire to and hates cars.
 
Ziggi said:
Tony, I think Chris needs another perspective to understand the discussion. He seems to be assuming that once load is transferred from failed columns to surrounding columns, that these will also automatically fail the instant they face the extra burden. Are you sensing the same thing?

It might help Chris to take another look at the Twins and why the tops did not collapse down for about an hour after the jets took out several columns. I think he might see that even though the load was transferred very quickly from failed columns to surrounding ones, that these surrounding columns did not instantly fail, and not at all for about an hour.
Click to expand...

Ziggi, yes Chris' scenario for the failure of WTC 7 is not coherent and I think when he learned the instantaneous types of failures he was thinking of can only happen to brittle materials it should have caused him to rethink what he has been supporting if he is being honest with himself.

There is only one way the entire exterior of WTC 7 came down in a symmetric way and that is with all 24 columns of the central core collapsing at the same time and pulling the exterior inward. The problem is that couldn't have been due to natural circumstances.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
The part I like the best is, their "thermite" set fire to the cars but couldn't do the same to buildings. Bit'n again by their own inconsistency. If they claim flying "thermite" set fire to wtc7 it would have done so to others. Another miracle property to the magical "thermite", it's selective as to what it sets fire to and hates cars.
Click to expand...

Do you think thermite from the North Tower could have caused the fires in WTC 7?
 
DGM said:
Of course not. There was no "thermite". Only pointing out your inconsistency.
Click to expand...

There is no inconsistency because there was no two hour time lag noticed when it came to the burned cars. That they were burned right away but WTC7 started burning 2 hours later indicates debris from the Towers set the cars on fire, but not B7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom