Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

chrismohr said:
Chainsaw, interestingly, when I prepared to debate Richard Gage in 2011, I told him I was confused about nanothermite and thermate, both of which he was claiming were present. He said he believed nanothermite was used in the Towers and thermate was used in Building 7. So the thermate sparks from Building 7 could have set off the cars near the Towers??
Click to expand...

No, the cars burned long before WTC7 fell.

The idea that thermite sparks floated over and ignited inflammable trims on cars is asinine in the extreme. It would take substantial amounts of hot material to ignite car tyres or car trim. But this is exactly what happened, and is witnessed by the debris piles photographed in Barclay St and burning cars elsewhere but much further away.

It would take large lumps of hot material to set fires in those cars and there is no earthly reason why similar lumps couldn't start fires in WTC7 itself. None at all.
 
GlennB said:
No, the cars burned long before WTC7 fell.

The idea that thermite sparks floated over and ignited inflammable trims on cars is asinine in the extreme. It would take substantial amounts of hot material to ignite car tyres or car trim. But this is exactly what happened, and is witnessed by the debris piles photographed in Barclay St and burning cars elsewhere but much further away.

It would take large lumps of hot material to set fires in those cars and there is no earthly reason why similar lumps couldn't start fires in WTC7 itself. None at all.
Click to expand...

Except most of the ignited cars have ignition sources already present, clogg a running hot engines air system and the engine will die but the fuel injection will continue to dump fuel pump will continue to run, a throttle body injection or Carborator can then catch fire.
Batteries produce hydrogen gas when a car over charges the battery, and that is easy to ignite.
There are other sources of car ignition other than the building though I do not doubt that some were ignited by burning carbons from the fires.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Square box columns like in the towers are strongest, as they resist sheer lag, H columns are notorious for shear lag fracture.
Shear lag fracture is evident though even in the strong box columns. In the towers core,
As the welds sheared without tension deformation.
Click to expand...

C79 had 2" thick sideplates added.
 
MileHighMadness said:
W14 Rolled Steel Columns with side stiffening Plates.
Click to expand...
That is the answer to the speed of the collapse, the shape causes sheer Lag, under the sudden overloading.
The Columns do not have time to bend in tension at the welds so they break at the free ferrite deformations. The steel frame is pulled down and deformed by the long span trusses,
Then the stone granite wall falls.
 
MileHighMadness said:
Actually, 2 Side Plates 4" thick x 26" long at the bottom of the building, reducing to 3", then 2" and finally eliminated near the top of the building.
Click to expand...

Are there any pictures of that columns tear, that would tell you the failure mode, if it was shear lag shearing of the column.

NIST may have photos available they did for the towers.
 
gerrycan said:
This from the guy who stated that the main function of the outrigger truss on wtc1 was to take the weight of the antenna???
Click to expand...

Not what I said... The hat truss distributed the antenna loads to almost all the core columns AND 16 locations at the facade... acting like a huge end plate for the tube largely supported by the core columns.

The hat truss was designed to support the antenna I believe as three columns it was over were the 3 smallest in cross section of the core and this is precisely where a 360 ton concentrated load was.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Except most of the ignited cars have ignition sources already present, clogg a running hot engines air system and the engine will die but the fuel injection will continue to dump fuel pump will continue to run, a throttle body injection or Carborator can then catch fire.
Batteries produce hydrogen gas when a car over charges the battery, and that is easy to ignite.
There are other sources of car ignition other than the building though I do not doubt that some were ignited by burning carbons from the fires.
Click to expand...

I think your analysis of how engines work when they "die" is entirely wrong, but anyway - why would parked cars in a sidestreet just after two skyscrapers have been hit by planes be sitting there with their engines running ? Who leaves the engine running when abandoning a car, even if they were abandoned in a panic and not just parked long-term.
?
 
GlennB said:
I think your analysis of how engines work when they "die" is entirely wrong, but anyway - why would parked cars in a sidestreet just after two skyscrapers have been hit by planes be sitting there with their engines running ? Who leaves the engine running when abandoning a car, even if they were abandoned in a panic and not just parked long-term.
?
Click to expand...

Were the cars abandoned when the planes hit or when the buildings collapsed as people ran from the debris cloud?

I have also experience flooding and engine fire in a truck do to agricultural lime dust clogging the air filter,
The throttle body injection on the mid 1990s GMC burst into flames from flooding.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
No, the cars burned long before WTC7 fell.

The idea that thermite sparks floated over and ignited inflammable trims on cars is asinine in the extreme. It would take substantial amounts of hot material to ignite car tyres or car trim. But this is exactly what happened, and is witnessed by the debris piles photographed in Barclay St and burning cars elsewhere but much further away.

It would take large lumps of hot material to set fires in those cars and there is no earthly reason why similar lumps couldn't start fires in WTC7 itself. None at all.
Click to expand...

In the video of Hess at the window on the north side of WTC7, fires in the street are easily seen aren't they? So "large lumps" of hot stuff made it past #7. In this case "large" need not be much more than a few pounds.
Closer in, as Crazy Chainsaw points out, larger chunks might simply crush parts of a vehicle. Smash a battery and the spark might ignite freed hydrogen, crush a gas tank and that too may ignite especially if the engine is running at the time.( I mentioned before about seeing vehicles burning under the earthquake collapsed elevated highway in San Francisco)
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Were the cars abandoned when the planes hit or when the buildings collapsed as people ran from the debris cloud?

I have also experience flooding and engine fire in a truck do to agricultural lime dust clogging the air filter,
The throttle body injection on the mid 1990s GMC burst into flames from flooding.
Click to expand...
At the response to the first impact, fire vehicles would have blocked some streets. Any vehicle there was there for the duration. That might include large delivery vehicles and buses.
At first collapse an exodus from the area began and traffic, I kind of expect , would have snarled on some streets. Then of course police, fire and medic vehicles would be there with engines running.
 
Did anyone see which way the OP Topic ran away???

OK it is a lot of fun exploring these side line issue. Personally I dislike being led by the nose by truthers as they evade the real issues. And recent discussion is playing into the truthers objective with a vengeance. The original claims lost out of sight as we faithfully run after truther details. :(

AND there are still two real issues which are:

1) The OP question "What about building 7?" - ambiguous as I said many posts back - does it mean:
(a) What reasons do truthers claim for WTC to be demolished - lots of them asserted - precious few truthers prepared to put forward reasoned argued support: OR
(b) Why does the truth movement put so much emphasis on WTC7 - IMO that one is the real one and it is obvious.

They cannot prove - never have been able to prove CD so they rely on reversing burden of proof demanding that debunkers DISprove CD. They lost that with the twins - but forWTC7 the evidence is mostly hidden so harder for debunkers to DISprove. But we have rebutted every one of their claims which brings us to "real issue #2":

2) What is - what was - the truthers original claim? Essentially we were (and should still be ;)) demolishing the original T Szamboti claim that NIST was wrong with its WTC 7 collapse explanation.

We are discussing remotely related details - exactly where T Sz et al want us to be - because the original claims by T Sz and recycled/plagiarised by others were:
(c) They claim that the NIST report was wrong on the detail of Girder Walkoff initiating Column 79 failure. They still haven’t proved that one NOR properly addressed the unproven assumption it relied on despite the main flaw being explained to T Sz several years back.

(d) They claim that since the detail is wrong the whole NIST explanation is falsified. That one is simply false logic - Szamboti et al know that and AFAIK they have NEVER addressed it. AND itis the killer point for their house of cards claims - Pepper letter and all other versions; AND

(e) Then they assert that errors in the NIST report are sufficient to warrant remedial action - more investigation. They haven't even tried to prove that bare assertion.


Meanwhile - on those details - surely there can be no doubt that WTC7 was a steel framed building which was on fire and the fires not actively fought after internal passive fire limiting devices had failed. And it collapsed.

Likewise many motor vehicles in the vicinity of those collapsing buildings were on fire. Wow! Astonishing stuff? Or astonishing that we let the Sz et al claque get away with the evasive derails?

So my position is simple:
The truth movement wants us discussing WTC7 because they think it makes it harder for us to prove them wrong;

They have made via T Sz a set of claims about alleged NIST errors and consequences they allege flow from the errors. All of those claims not proven.

And we are discussing details because that is where the truthers want us:

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

My personal preference is to not let them jerk my chain even if the topic of speculation is interesting.

But that is my preference. :o
 
jaydeehess said:
At the response to the first impact, fire vehicles would have blocked some streets. Any vehicle there was there for the duration. That might include large delivery vehicles and buses.
At first collapse an exodus from the area began and traffic, I kind of expect , would have snarled on some streets. Then of course police, fire and medic vehicles would be there with engines running.
Click to expand...

Which just further pokes holes in Tony's real-time arson theory.
 
000063 said:
Which just further pokes holes in Tony's real-time arson theory.
Click to expand...
Tony will be happy with that. As long as we are poking holes in his evasive nonsense he doesn't need to defend his main claims.

Tho' why he periodically comes here to post nonsense is a puzzle. :confused:

All that changes is the identity of the "trolling tag team" partners.
 
2) ...What is - what was - the truthers original claim? Essentially we were (and should still be ;)) demolishing the original T Szamboti claim that NIST was wrong with its WTC 7 collapse explanation.

We are discussing remotely related details - exactly where T Sz et al want us to be - because the original claims by T Sz and recycled/plagiarised by others were:
(c) They claim that the NIST report was wrong on the detail of Girder Walkoff initiating Column 79 failure. They still haven’t proved that one NOR properly addressed the unproven assumption it relied on despite the main flaw being explained to T Sz several years back.

(d) They claim that since the detail is wrong the whole NIST explanation is falsified. That one is simply false logic - Szamboti et al know that and AFAIK they have NEVER addressed it. AND itis the killer point for their house of cards claims - Pepper letter and all other versions; AND

(e) Then they assert that errors in the NIST report are sufficient to warrant remedial action - more investigation. They haven't even tried to prove that bare assertion.


Meanwhile - on those details - surely there can be no doubt that WTC7 was a steel framed building which was on fire and the fires not actively fought after internal passive fire limiting devices had failed. And it collapsed.

Likewise many motor vehicles in the vicinity of those collapsing buildings were on fire. Wow! Astonishing stuff? Or astonishing that we let the Sz et al claque get away with the evasive derails?

So my position is simple:
The truth movement wants us discussing WTC7 because they think it makes it harder for us to prove them wrong;

They have made via T Sz a set of claims about alleged NIST errors and consequences they allege flow from the errors. All of those claims not proven.

And we are discussing details because that is where the truthers want us:

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

My personal preference is to not let them jerk my chain even if the topic of speculation is interesting.

But that is my preference. :o[/QUOTE]

Hi Ozeco,
And I even hesitate to allow myself to be boxed into the "Defender of NIST" category! Because their report almost certainly has a flaw somewhere. To me the central question of "What About Building 7?" is only peripherally about NIST, and primarily, was Building 7 brought down by CDs or as a natural consequence of the unfought fires?"
You're right about some of the other stuff, like the jaw-dropping assertion that the Towering Inferno's collapse onto Building 7 could NOT have been the initiating factor for the fire. Even I came to a place where I said I can't argue this any more.
For me a more valid issue is their assertion that the perimeter walls could not have stood up at all after the asymmetrical interior collapse. You have to admit, it was a pretty phenomenal collapse, not the kind I (a layman) would have predicted. And can the whole wall stand up after an asymmetrical interior collapse and then fall so symmetrically? I'll be interested to read what Ziggi says about that.
But I feel your exasperation, as Bill Clinton would have said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom