DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You do agree the collapse of the towers disabled most of WTC7 fire protection? If not, explain why you don't.WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. There was no jet fuel.
You do agree the collapse of the towers disabled most of WTC7 fire protection? If not, explain why you don't.WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. There was no jet fuel.
Not relevant to this thread.You do agree the collapse of the towers disabled most of WTC7 fire protection? If not, explain why you don't.
It is if you want to draw a parallel between this fire and any on 9/11 (which you have tried).Not relevant to this thread.
I know all of this. They died fighting the fire. An attempt was made to insinuate that the fire is being fought in Dubai, but nothing was done on 9/11. That is obviously not true.
Not relevant to this thread.

The purpose of this thread is not to make conclusions of any kind, even though yours are obviously in jest. Everyone involved in the 9/11 debate should be watching this and paying attention to everything. We can make conclusions later.
Did WTC7 involve planes?Did this involve planes?
Sort of. They caused the damage that started the fires that led to the collapse of the towers. The towers compromised WTC7's fire protection systems.Did WTC7 involve planes?
Did WTC7 involve planes?
Sort of. They caused the damage that started the fires that led to the collapse of the towers. The towers compromised WTC7's fire protection systems.
Wrong. You have a high-rise building on fire. WTC 1, 2 and 7 were high-rise buildings on fire. Yes, the construction is different, and yes, their performance during a fire is going to be different, but they are all high-rise buildings that are on fire or were on fire. There are enough similarities to make this relevant.
This fire and this thread is relevant, and you know it. The end result might not be conclusive to either side, but right now it's still relevant.
This also links to the ConEd case that Bailey presented his testimony. They lost because they could not show the designers/builders should have foreseen these events. WTC7 was not poorly built or a defective design, it was just not bullet proof.And severed the water main, preventing any effective firefighting in WTC7.
Dave
From a building wired with celebratory lights AND PYROTECHNICS, and on fire in the vicinity of this lights and pyrotechnics.Multiple explosions in the past few minutes. They appear to be going off towards the bottom of the building.
Multiple explosions in the past few minutes. They appear to be going off towards the bottom of the building.
From a building wired with celebratory lights AND PYROTECHNICS, and on fire in the vicinity of this lights and pyrotechnics.
Your point?
It's pretty obvious what the point is. Explosions do not make a building collapse.
I have it on good authority that what's burning there is a German-made heat insulation system based on Polystyrene that is known for being vulnerable to ignition.
I can't link directly due to the youth of my account, but according to the skyscrapercenter website, this is a concrete building, not a steel-framed building.
Source?
Let's assume you're right, though. Did the collapsing balcony destroy all of the balconies below it? That question is entirely relevant.
Not relevant to this thread.