DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[stateofgrace]

You wouldnt really have to cut it, just weaken it, right?

I imagine a device like that would be quiet, right? Oh wait,what about all those explosions were heard?

Any ideas? Just one of your own will do.

Maybe DC can tell us all about it when he also names the fire fighters he believes may have been in involved in mass murder.

 

[leonAzul]

Cut to the chase:

The fire department thought it would be prudent to evacuate all persons from WC7 because WC7 seems to be unstable?

Make it so!

Evacuate! Pull the m****s!

Get them home safe!

 

[Firefighter01]

Now it's a good thing that they have an approval period for new members or else this post may have been my first and last due to some very "choice" words to say the least.

"A building on fire is essentially a building under demolition" -Anthony Avillo, Fireground Strategies

Now bear with me after all I am "barely literate, and a firebug."

The point about the "Small" fires says to me.

1. Your either blind, or mentally handicapped
2. Do not know anything about..... well common sense
3. Did not bother to do ANY research at all
4. Have never been in a fire, or attempted to exstinguish a fire.

or a combination of all the above.


Lucky you i have my shoes off an can perform some mathamatics and edumacate you cus you need to get learned.

Each floor is roughly 43200 square feet
Now each floor being roughly 10 feet high ( a conservative shot in the dark i don't really know, and didn't really even bother to look)

so 43200 x 10 = 432000 Cubic feet

Now the formula I am going to use is called the Modified Iowa Formula

GPM(Gallons Per Minute) needed for a fire by size

GPM = (Cubic feet of fire area /100) x 1.5

So say half of one floor not even a full floor is fully involved with fire
about 216000 cubic feet

GPM = (216000/100) x 1.5

about 3240 GPM is needed to control that fire

ok now for my favorite part FIREHOSES!!!!! YAH SPRAY STUFF WITH WATER!!!

a 1 and 3/4 inch hose which is the standard size handline and i believe is what they were using in the towers that day flows 150GPM

your gonna need roughly 21.6 1 and 3/4 inch hoses to fight that fire. That is ALOT of water and that is only HALF on one floor. Considering that each tower just had a jetliner crash into it with 10000 gallons of jet fuel, along with all the combustible office material. its a very very very very very stupid thing to say that the fires were small enough to be put out with a couple of handlines and proves you no nothing about fire science, firefighting, or even common sense.


I GOTZ MORE MATH SKILLZ!!!

I would hope that you know what a BTU is!? It is taught in every highschool chemistry class.

In North America, the term "BTU" is used to describe the heat value (energy content) of fuels.

Your standard ordinary combustibles (wood, paper, cloth) yield about 8000 BTU's

Plastics yield about 16000 BTU's

Jet Fuel yields 135000 BTU/gallon.

Considering that the last estimate i saw pointed to around 7000 BTU's for 1 hour sustained would be enough to weaken steel used in truss systems.

It got a little warm in there.

But hey what do I know, I'm just "barely literate, and a firebug." to hell with hours and hours of training and school in Firefighting, Emergency Medical Services, Hazardous Materials, Building Construction, Fire Tactics and Strategy, Fire Pump Engineering, Technical Rescue, Incident Command, Fire Investigation, Fire Inspection, Dive Rescue. It's not like anyone's life depends on it.

I'm a firefighter. I just drive real fast in a big red truck, break some stuff, and play with a hose.

Someone in here really feeling adventurous. find an updated estimate on how much BTU's to weaken steel in one hour the last one i had is from quite some time ago.

 

[johnny karate]

Welcome, Firefighter01! Your post was very informative.

And please try not to be offended by the crap Tweeter spews. He's just a petty troll with nothing more to offer this forum than bile and idiocy.

 

[leonAzul]

Now it's a good thing that they have an approval period for new members or else this post may have been my first and last due to some very "choice" words to say the least.

Welcome, brother.

Your testimony is very welcome!

In the aftermath, I sent hundreds of rain slickers to help and protect y'all; I hope it helped. Please, give some light to the benighted.

 

[DC]

Now it's a good thing that they have an approval period for new members or else this post may have been my first and last due to some very "choice" words to say the least.

"A building on fire is essentially a building under demolition" -Anthony Avillo, Fireground Strategies

Now bear with me after all I am "barely literate, and a firebug."

The point about the "Small" fires says to me.

1. Your either blind, or mentally handicapped
2. Do not know anything about..... well common sense
3. Did not bother to do ANY research at all
4. Have never been in a fire, or attempted to exstinguish a fire.

or a combination of all the above.


Lucky you i have my shoes off an can perform some mathamatics and edumacate you cus you need to get learned.

Each floor is roughly 43200 square feet
Now each floor being roughly 10 feet high ( a conservative shot in the dark i don't really know, and didn't really even bother to look)

so 43200 x 10 = 432000 Cubic feet

Now the formula I am going to use is called the Modified Iowa Formula

GPM(Gallons Per Minute) needed for a fire by size

GPM = (Cubic feet of fire area /100) x 1.5

So say half of one floor not even a full floor is fully involved with fire
about 216000 cubic feet

GPM = (216000/100) x 1.5

about 3240 GPM is needed to control that fire

ok now for my favorite part FIREHOSES!!!!! YAH SPRAY STUFF WITH WATER!!!

a 1 and 3/4 inch hose which is the standard size handline and i believe is what they were using in the towers that day flows 150GPM

your gonna need roughly 21.6 1 and 3/4 inch hoses to fight that fire. That is ALOT of water and that is only HALF on one floor. Considering that each tower just had a jetliner crash into it with 10000 gallons of jet fuel, along with all the combustible office material. its a very very very very very stupid thing to say that the fires were small enough to be put out with a couple of handlines and proves you no nothing about fire science, firefighting, or even common sense.


I GOTZ MORE MATH SKILLZ!!!

I would hope that you know what a BTU is!? It is taught in every highschool chemistry class.

In North America, the term "BTU" is used to describe the heat value (energy content) of fuels.

Your standard ordinary combustibles (wood, paper, cloth) yield about 8000 BTU's

Plastics yield about 16000 BTU's

Jet Fuel yields 135000 BTU/gallon.

Considering that the last estimate i saw pointed to around 7000 BTU's for 1 hour sustained would be enough to weaken steel used in truss systems.

It got a little warm in there.

But hey what do I know, I'm just "barely literate, and a firebug." to hell with hours and hours of training and school in Firefighting, Emergency Medical Services, Hazardous Materials, Building Construction, Fire Tactics and Strategy, Fire Pump Engineering, Technical Rescue, Incident Command, Fire Investigation, Fire Inspection, Dive Rescue. It's not like anyone's life depends on it.

I'm a firefighter. I just drive real fast in a big red truck, break some stuff, and play with a hose.

Someone in here really feeling adventurous. find an updated estimate on how much BTU's to weaken steel in one hour the last one i had is from quite some time ago.

hi

weaken steel how much and what kind of fireprotection?

 

[Firefighter01]

Good question.

i don't have to much time at the moment running to my second job.

at 1000 degrees F steel is expected to fail.
at 1200 degrees F steel has lost 60% of its strength
at 400 degrees F steel begins to lose strength

just what i remeber off the top of my head.

so gotta do some conversions if oyu wanna talk BTUs, Fire protection, again i'll have to look it up. got plenty of books just remeber where to look.

 

[MarkyX]

Would it have sounded anything like 04:57 in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0


(Incidentally, can any debunkers explain why that video shows rescue workers walking round building seven saying "the building is about to blow up"?)

You know that last part of the video has been edited by a 9/11 denier, right?

It's using NBC footage but trying to use CNN watermarks.

 

[DC]

Good question.

i don't have to much time at the moment running to my second job.

at 1000 degrees F steel is expected to fail.
at 1200 degrees F steel has lost 60% of its strength
at 400 degrees F steel begins to lose strength

just what i remeber off the top of my head.

so gotta do some conversions if oyu wanna talk BTUs, Fire protection, again i'll have to look it up. got plenty of books just remeber where to look.

a36 will be around 70% at 1000°F (steel temp), you expect it then already to fail?
the rest of your numbers is correct.

 

[WildCat]

a36 will be around 70% at 1000°F (steel temp), you expect it then already to fail?

Looks like a typo to me.

Have you found anyone who has managed to cut a column with thermite yet DC? The assumption that this can be done seems essential to your beliefs, so it's important for you to prove it can be done yes?

Maybe you could give some pointers to Jones and the truthburn guys, as they seem to be utterly unable to replicate a feat they maintain was done dozens (at the least) times on 9/11.

Should be no problem for a smart truther like you though!

 

[DC]

Looks like a typo to me.

Have you found anyone who has managed to cut a column with thermite yet DC? The assumption that this can be done seems essential to your beliefs, so it's important for you to prove it can be done yes?

Maybe you could give some pointers to Jones and the truthburn guys, as they seem to be utterly unable to replicate a feat they maintain was done dozens (at the least) times on 9/11.

Should be no problem for a smart truther like you though!

no i have not tryed to use thermite to cut steel, horizontaly, in the way it is described in said patent, nor did i try it in another way.

would you be that sceptical, also against the OCT, you would never accept NIST claiming collapse initiation = global collapse while they refer to some oversimplyfied elementary calculations that come noware close to what we observed.

but when the huge normaly very good institute is doing that its ok, but when i say they maybe could have used something like described in said patent, you expect me to find someone that does this. one demonstration of a smaller device is not accepted, it is indeed much to smal, but it shows that the "system" works.

i just hope you are also that sceptical as you are here against politicans and official theorys.

 

[WildCat]

no i have not tryed to use thermite to cut steel, horizontaly, in the way it is described in said patent, nor did i try it in another way.

Why not? Thermite has never been used to cut horizontally, yet this is exactly what the truthers are claiming.

would you be that sceptical, also against the OCT, you would never accept NIST claiming collapse initiation = global collapse while they refer to some oversimplyfied elementary calculations that come noware close to what we observed.

Nowhere close to what we observed? The building was subjected to forces many time what it was designed to withstand. It was expected to collapse all the way to the ground, and it did! NIST isn't making the extraordinary claim, truthers are.

but when the huge normaly very good institute is doing that its ok, but when i say they maybe could have used something like described in said patent,

The patent says nothing of cutting horizontally, which is a requirement of truther claims.

you expect me to find someone that does this. one demonstration of a smaller device is not accepted, it is indeed much to smal, but it shows that the "system" works.

Like I said before, that doesn't even appear to be thermite but some sort of gas/plasma cutter. And you admit it is much too small! A device large enough to cut a column the size of the ones in the WTC would be the size of a small truck. Maybe someone would have noticed dozens of these clamped to the columns throughout the building?

i just hope you are also that sceptical as you are here against politicans and official theorys.

I'm much more skeptical of extraordinary claims than ones which are accepted by the entire structural engineering community. You're the one trying to overturn the dominant paradigm, you need more than speculation to do so.

Now, a demonstration of a small device (you do admit that your thermite cutter would have to be small and not noticeable, don't you?) capable of cutting a large column horizontally is essential to your case. Until you demonstrate such a device is even possible you may as well speculate that a giant invisible Godzilla brought down the towers.

 

[wooooody64]

So my question remains: Why doesn't the FDNY agree with the assertion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot.com/2007/11/explosive-ny-firefighters-testimony-9.html

 

[WildCat]

Within a month of 9/11, NYC fire commissioner Thomas Von Essen, a 30-year NYFD vet, set up interviews with fire, port authority police and EMT first responders to record their initial impressions of what they experienced on Sept 11.

The stories of 503 men and women ran to 12,000 pages. Graeme MacQueen, a recently retired religious studies professor, read them all. In addition to the heartrending nature of many of the stories, the consistent theme was of hearing, feeling and seeing explosions, a controlled demolition.

Failure to officially acknowledge this evidence is further proof of an inside job. MacQueen (McMaster University, Ontario, Canada) narrowed down the testimony of 118 first responders as especially court-worthy testimony.

But he notes the entire testimony was excluded by the 9/11 Commission, as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Oh looky, a word-for-word copy and paste job from here: http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot.com/2007/11/explosive-ny-firefighters-testimony-9.html

Why the hell can't truthers compose a post in their own words?

It's also a violation of forum rules wooooody64.

 

[DC]

Why not? Thermite has never been used to cut horizontally, yet this is exactly what the truthers are claiming.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GD6NIYVS

"Spectre has begun to design a new class of devices that are an updated version of the earliest use of thermite technology dating back more than 100 years.

These first examples of thermite technology were so-called "gravity flow" devices that generated extremely high temperature metal flows that were used for welding or penetrating metal objects. This approach is not nearly as efficient as our focused jet torches for penetrating or cutting but provides a simple and easy-to-use solution for situations where something other than a highly focused cut is required. Our unique approach has the added advantage of being user-scalable. While our advanced thermite torch designs are carefully engineered for relatively specific requirements, this approach allows users to simply add additional units to a pile of units that will ultimately create a larger mass of super-heated metal."

Nowhere close to what we observed? The building was subjected to forces many time what it was designed to withstand. It was expected to collapse all the way to the ground, and it did! NIST isn't making the extraordinary claim, truthers are.

yes Bazant comesnowhere close to what is observed. also not in his newest "paper"

The patent says nothing of cutting horizontally, which is a requirement of truther claims.


Like I said before, that doesn't even appear to be thermite but some sort of gas/plasma cutter. And you admit it is much too small! A device large enough to cut a column the size of the ones in the WTC would be the size of a small truck. Maybe someone would have noticed dozens of these clamped to the columns throughout the building?

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6183569.html

when you read the patent, you can clearly read that it is indeed the "gas" that is used for the cut, and the gas is created by a thermite like substance.

and exactly because it uses the gas, i would say you can it use only horizontaly, i think you cant direct the "nozzle" downwards, cause then the gas will be blocked.

I'm much more skeptical of extraordinary claims than ones which are accepted by the entire structural engineering community. You're the one trying to overturn the dominant paradigm, you need more than speculation to do so.

Now, a demonstration of a small device (you do admit that your thermite cutter would have to be small and not noticeable, don't you?) capable of cutting a large column horizontally is essential to your case. Until you demonstrate such a device is even possible you may as well speculate that a giant invisible Godzilla brought down the towers.

most do prolly agree that WTC1 and 2 was gravity only collapses, but when its about WTC7 they sure not ALL agree

while we reconstruct totaly destryed airplanes to find out exactly what happened, very detailed.

in a building collapse that killed 1000's of peoples, we only get elementary calculations.....

ok

 

[peteweaver]

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/uploaded/thermite_cutting_sys_071210_4337.jpg

something like that i think

Thermite is not an explosive. It burns through things, it does not blast.

Therefore as it burns through something, it must remain in contact with its target otherwise it would fall off and burn through something else, rendering it less useful than a dalek's sucker.

Large core columns are quite thick, even to blast them with RDX requires a large amount of precutting with oxy acetylene torches. And to expect thermite, which isn't even explosive, to cut them when its never ever been tested in that capacity despite the use of thermite in welding for many decades.

 

[WildCat]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GD6NIYVS

We've been through this DC. That's a large device, attached by cables to an even larger device, that cuts a piece of rebar an order of magnitude smaller than a WTC column. And to top it all off it's a gas jet, not thermite and the name of the file is "large torch. It's not even thermite!

yes Bazant comesnowhere close to what is observed. also not in his newest "paper"

We didn't observe the towers collapsing to the ground?

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6183569.html

when you read the patent, you can clearly read that it is indeed the "gas" that is used for the cut, and the gas is created by a thermite like substance.

So now we've moved the goal post from thermite to a "thermite like substance", whatever the hell that is. And how is this at all compatible with the truther smoking-gun evidence of thermite, this video?

and exactly because it uses the gas, i would say you can it use only horizontaly, i think you cant direct the "nozzle" downwards, cause then the gas will be blocked.

And how big is this device, exactly? If you're proposing a scaled up version of the one in your video you're proposing a device the size of a truck. Dozens of them, all clamped to the support columns of WTC 7 - and nobody in the building notices them!

You seriously believe that?

most do prolly agree that WTC1 and 2 was gravity only collapses, but when its about WTC7 they sure not ALL agree

Which ones don't? Where are they published?

while we reconstruct totaly destryed airplanes to find out exactly what happened, very detailed.

Sure, in cases where a mechanical failure is the culprit. Certainly not in the case of a deliberate crash.

in a building collapse that killed 1000's of peoples, we only get elementary calculations.....

ok

Sometimes elementary calculations are all that is needed. For example, if I drop an 80 lb. bag of concrete on someone's head from 10 feet up elementary calculations are all that is needed to show he is doomed. No need really to detail exactly which vertabrae will be crushed, which bones will fracture, which internal organs will hemorrhage.

Same with the WTC.

 

[DC]

why the scale of a truck? how do you come to that conclusion?

and what device was connected to it?

and why the hell do you conspiracy.deniers keep comparing apples to pears? or upper tower parts with heavy sollid masses and lower tower parts with lighter not so strong things like human body parts?

when you want to compase the towers to a concrete block , take two concrete blocks, 80 lbs and drop it on a 160 lbs concreteblock. lets see how the smaller one will crush the biger one.....

 

[WildCat]

why the scale of a truck? how do you come to that conclusion?

The nozzle would have to be as big as the column, yes? And it would have to be big enough to hold enough thermite to cut a large coumn.

and what device was connected to it?

Follow the cables/hoses and it connects to a larger box, several times larger than the cutting device.

and why the hell do you conspiracy.deniers keep comparing apples to pears? or upper tower parts with heavy sollid masses and lower tower parts with lighter not so strong things like human body parts?

I would bet you the mass density of a human body is more than that of a large building. At any rate, the prnciple is the same - static load vs. dynamic load. I can easily carry a 80lb bag of concrete on my head, I doubt I'd survive one falling on me from 10 feet up. The kinetic energy involved is too great, same as with the towers once collapse is initiated.

when you want to compase the towers to a concrete block , take two concrete blocks, 80 lbs and drop it on a 160 lbs concreteblock. lets see how the smaller one will crush the biger one.....

Now who's comparing apples to oranges? This makes me think you're not really an engineer.

The towers were not solid blocks. The lower mass wasn't destroyed all at once, it was destroyed one floor at a time.

 

[DC]

The nozzle would have to be as big as the column, yes? And it would have to be big enough to hold enough thermite to cut a large coumn.


Follow the cables/hoses and it connects to a larger box, several times larger than the cutting device.


I would bet you the mass density of a human body is more than that of a large building. At any rate, the prnciple is the same - static load vs. dynamic load. I can easily carry a 80lb bag of concrete on my head, I doubt I'd survive one falling on me from 10 feet up. The kinetic energy involved is too great, same as with the towers once collapse is initiated.


Now who's comparing apples to oranges? This makes me think you're not really an engineer.

The towers were not solid blocks. The lower mass wasn't destroyed all at once, it was destroyed one floor at a time.

how large are your trucks pls?

what device is connected pls? how big is it and especially, what does it do?

why did you change the upper tower part with a solid concrete block? but the lower one with a human?
it was one and the same object before bazant cuttet it in 2. and like david copperfield he changed it with a solid block and you didnt even realize it.

strange strange