Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Tony Szamboti]

Thanks, I can see where you get all your information from now.

No wonder you don't provide links for your "evidence"

In this communication I shall show that only explosives could have produced,

^^^ first line

I don't see how you can make such an ignorant statement. How exactly does my saying something by a Physics professor is on the Journal of 911 Studies indicate that it is the only place I get my information?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Could it possibly be that in WTC 7's case - UNLIKE WTC 1 & 2 - fires did not get initiated by a multistory flash ignition with the instantaneous introduction of thousands of gallons of accelerant? That perhaps it took some time for the fires to get more established than it did in The twins? That perhaps those present were more concerned about search and rescue from the catastrophic collapse of two of the largest skyscrapers in the city?

You're seriously arguing that an absence of photographs to your satisfaction is evidence that something didn't happen? And then you turn right around and assert out of thin air that it had to be floating thermite and special ops arsonists doing stealth ignitions in a building that just got thrashed by an adjacent collapse and was at high risk of a fire hazard to begin with?

It isn't just a lack of photographic evidence for fires in WTC 7 for nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed. There were a number of helicopters in the air during that time and none of them reported fires in the building before 12:15 PM. In case you don't know the North Tower went down at 10:28 AM.

 

[DGM]

The heat increase during the collapses is nowhere near enough to set fires. Physics professor Dr. Terry Morone wrote a paper about this years ago. You can't defeat the logic of what I am saying and are now reaching for straws and you have to know it.

Would that be this paper?

PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

Talk about reaching for straws. He's talking melting steel, not catching paper and such on fire.

 

[jaydeehess]

Conducted away by what and in what location? The material that was ejected from the WTC1 fire and impact floors was out of the building a second or two after collapse initiation. There was no time for the dust to settle on anything.. Have you ever seen gypsum dust in the air? I had a friend who was doing drywall in his house. He had never done it before and used his Skil saw to cut it. When I got there and showed him to use a knife he had cut two sheets to size and the house was filled with dust that took a hour to settle out.

You want a collapse that IN TOTAL took 15-18 seconds from initiation to ground floor, to create dust, have dust settle to six inches thick on the very floors that are first involved in collapse, cool the material under it and then, only after all of this, have the material that was hot and/or burning exit the building and travel the ten second transit to WTC7.

I don't recall saying anything about the travel time to WTC 7. You are though. I just said it was a long way and only a very limited amount of material made the trip and that the hot material was also very limited to begin with as well as having copious amounts of gypsum dust on it to begin with. I am also saying there would have been conductive cooling of the limited hot items before they left the North Tower thus limiting the chances even further.

I would also hope you realize that the greater the temperature difference between the hot item and whatever is cooling it the faster it cools.

Now address the hilited points.
There is no time for what you claim, to have happened.

Your fantasy limitations of the amount of material on fire is ridiculous. It is fantasy to expect small amounts of office furnishings to be on fire after ten thousand gallons of acellerant is spread over several floors.

Yes, I have a familiarity with thermodynamics. It was covered in my university physics classes.

Yes, the greater the temp delta the faster the heat transfer. Where is the substantially cooler material? The floors? Nope, concrete heated from both sides, its hot. Steel, nope the surfaces of the steel is hot. The dust? Nope its surrounded the fire area for an hour , its hot too.

When it gets ejected? Perhaps hot, non-combustables would cool fast. Fast enough to be below 450 degrees F? Maybe. However, ejected hot combustables is another story. Maybe combustion is choked off in the second or so before its ejected but once out of the building that dust blows off and its in an airstream which reignites it. BECAUSE thgere usnt enough time to conduct enough heat away to reduce temp below ignition. Its burning well when it lands.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am pretty much done showing that the fires in WTC 7 could not have been due to the collapse of the North Tower and that arson is the likely cause.

I am sure the piranhas here will try to attack while I am gone, but you are large in number and apparently have little else to do. It is clear even with pseudonym's that some here are on the site full time. That is curious in and of itself.

On the other hand I truly am just a citizen researcher and have a number of other things to do and can only stay so long.

I would hope that if there are honest rational people here, who truly did not know the very low probability of the fires in WTC 7 having been caused by the North Tower collapse, that they now have something to think about and question along with a host of other issues surrounding the impossible explanations we have been given for the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

[jaydeehess]

It would be you who is talking castle in the sky by saying the fires in WTC 7 were caused by hot material from the North Tower.

There was very limited hot material and it would have been in contact with much cooler material during the collapse. There was also a very limited amount of material that made its way to WTC 7. On top of that it has to do it on ten floors and not show up for nearly two hours. And on top of that your hypothesis can't do the same to the Verizon and Post Office buildings.

Your attempts to pooh pooh the extent of fire in the towers is ridiculous.

Verizon and P.O. very obviously had much less debris damage than WTC7 . Therefore less openings for burning debris and obviously not in the most direct path of debris in the first place. In addition the P.O. windows were wire reinforced.

What started fire in WTC5? More imaginary arson spooks?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The heat increase during the collapses is nowhere near enough to set fires. Physics professor Dr. Terry Morone wrote a paper about this years ago. You can't defeat the logic of what I am saying and are now reaching for straws and you have to know it.

Yes I can, the floors and the cores fail first the fluid dynamics, caused despersal of hot
Carbons and flammables in air, along with fine steel the finely devided steel oxidizes producing more heat and a limited amount of thermitic reactions.

Morons work was so flawed it hurt my sides when I laughed at it, he never knew the effects of oxidation or of chemical reactions like you his work was all assumption.

Once you know the mechanism of core failure, it is easy to see there is no way gypsum could settle on floors that no longer existed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Would that be this paper?



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

Talk about reaching for straws. He's talking melting steel, not catching paper and such on fire.

His work shows that the temperature increase caused by the fall of items that could make it to WTC 7 to be too low to even light paper on fire. Do you need everything spelled out for you?

 

[Spanx]

I don't see how you can make such an ignorant statement. How exactly does my saying something by a Physics professor is on the Journal of 911 Studies indicate that it is the only place I get my information?

Perhaps you could tell us where you do get your information from and provide evidence to your claims.

I'm not asking for much

 

[DGM]

His work shows that the temperature increase caused by the fall is far too low even to light paper on fire. Do you need everything spelled out for you?

Nope. Still doesn't support your view on not being able to start fires if it was hot to begin with. Nice try though.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nope. Still doesn't support your view on not being able to start fires. Nice try though.

You do need everything spelled out here and have nerve even arguing about it. Did you ever hear the saying "its better to keep your mouth shut and let people just think you might be ignorant in a specific discussion where you aren't familiar enough, rather than opening it and removing all doubt"?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Would that be this paper?



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

Talk about reaching for straws. He's talking melting steel, not catching paper and such on fire.

It was trying to show that the microspheres could only be from thermite the whole article is garbage, Jones admitted Steel can Oxidize in fires in the microspheres debate with myself and Dr. Greening, Tony is just trying desperately to pull a rabbit out of his hat, with a typical truther stawman argument.
Unfortunately the rabbit died commiting arson in building 7.

 

[Spanx]

You do need everything spelled out here and have nerve even arguing about it. Did you ever hear the saying "its better to keep your mouth shut and let people just think you might be ignorant in a specific discussion where you aren't familiar enough, rather than opening it and removing all doubt"?

Is that why you are leaving ?

 

[DGM]

You do need everything spelled out here and have nerve even arguing about it. Did you ever hear the saying "its better to keep your mouth shut and let people just think you might be ignorant in a specific discussion where you aren't familiar enough, rather than opening it and removing all doubt"?

Where does that paper talk about temperature decrease? Or are you now claiming nothing in the towers were hot enough to burn paper.

 

[pgimeno]

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

Multiple FDNY personnel reported seeing fires in WTC 7 from the exterior, some as early as about 11:00 a.m. Fires were observed on the west face around Floor 10²⁰, and several fires were seen higher up in the building, around the 20s and 30s.²¹ These fires were seen from Vesey and West Street. A firefighter reported seeing fire near the center of the south face around Floor 14, which appeared to be a single office fire. Windows were broken, and smoke and fire were coming out of the building.
​

NCSTAR 1-9 p.299.

The fire did not skip floors 10 and 14.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your attempts to pooh pooh the extent of fire in the towers is ridiculous.

Verizon and P.O. very obviously had much less debris damage than WTC7 . Therefore less openings for burning debris and obviously not in the most direct path of debris in the first place. In addition the P.O. windows were wire reinforced.

What started fire in WTC5? More imaginary arson spooks?

Did WTC 5's fires take nearly two hours to be noticed?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

His work shows that the temperature increase caused by the fall of items that could make it to WTC 7 to be too low to even light paper on fire. Do you need everything spelled out for you?

He never looked at oxidizing metals, or thermal masses his work is laughable.
He never even !ooked at carbon oxidizing in air or pyrosing plastics.
You really picked a losing argument this time Tony.
I can't take this my sides are killing me laughing to much, got to get out of here for a while.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I would hope that if there are honest rational people here, who truly did not know the very low probability of the fires in WTC 7 having been caused by the North Tower collapse, that they now have something to think about and question along with a host of other issues surrounding the impossible explanations we have been given for the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.

Tony, you seem to forget how blatant some of your problems are.

• You took bazant's written work into a real world setting when it was stated explicitly on the preface that is was a limiting case. You're an engineer; you should have spotted that right away and saved several years of repeated fatally flawed prima fascia arguments.
  
• You claimed in this very thread that WTC 1 had very little fires, all because of a bad interpretation of the NIST report and a close up shot of the impact hole when you know full well there are pictures of the south and west faces of the building that showed visible multi-story infernos
  
• You claimed in 2007 that the debris during collapse was exploding up and out when video showed the opposite (the air current behind the collapses were sucking the dust trails down from height).
  
• Ziggi made a claim that smoke from WTC 7 was coming from WTC 5 and 6 despite video showing otherwise, and you obviously didn't correct him there either.
  
• For the last year you've been claiming arson because you can't fathom the WTC 7 catching fire either as a direct result or as a secondary feature of the tower collapses, and you're trying to tell us thermite ignited everything and your support for all of this is a demeaning ad hom suggesting people bored enough on a Sunday morning are criticizing you on an internet forum.

And this list doesn't even scratch the surface... I don't know if you're intentionally lying, or if you actually believe this stuff... I really don't care... I don't waste my time worrying about your character. Your statements and claims are wrong regardless, and your retort eventually falls back on ad homs over the fact that "Grizzly Bear", "Crazy Chainsaw", or someone else is using an internet nick name rather than whether the statements are based on fact.

So sorry you find offense that people are criticizing you so harshly, but if you want people to drop that sort of criticism perhaps you should stop making wildly ridiculous claims in the first place. Some of your mistakes are frighteningly basic and it renders your constant implied notions of critics being government plants that much more weak.... You would cut the ridicule factor in half just by not making your claims' mistakes so basic

 

[Mark F]

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.

But it obviously didn't so you should revise your hypothesis accordingly.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

But it obviously didn't so you should revise your hypothesis accordingly.

The problem with his idea is the gypsum and concrete
dust is dispered rapidly in air an oxygen barring gas.