Some simple Tower 7 questions

[Quad4_72]

Quad, since you're new here I'll fill you in: judging from his past performance it is unlikely that submersible will be thinking rationally or examining evidence dispassionately any time soon. Don't knock yourself out over him if he doesn't show signs of improvement.

I had a hunch that was the case. Regardless I still would like him to answer two simple questions:

1. Where are the audio recording of the explosives that took down a building that massive?
2. What else could make THAT much smoke besides a lot of fires?

 

[volatile]

Building 7 underwent a controlled demolition.

Did you read Post 13?

 

[gumboot]

The French did not have anything to do with 1066. It was the Normands. The French term for the vikings, meaning men from the north.

Questions:

1) Where was William of Normandy Duke of?
2) What language did he speak?
3) Where did he stage his invasion from?
4) Why are do many english words associated with the nobility come from French?

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I'm sure most if not all of these questions are redundant, but I haven't found where they were asked or answered before so here goes...

Facts about WTC7 you fail to mention:

1) Inspection prior to 9/11 indicated fire proofing was well below standard, and on the floor with the enormous fuel tanks it was practically non-existant.

2) WTC7 was severly damaged in the collapse of WTC1, especially on the south face. Fire fighters reported an enormous 20-floor gash. This gash was deep enough into the structure to dislodge two elevator cars from their shafts and send them smashing into the lobby. (The elevators in WTC7 were all gathered about the core).

3) Intense fires raged across multiple floors for most of the day, and these fires remained unfought by FDNY.

4) The building was reported as leaning on an angle, and confirmed by measurement.

5) Rather than collapse straight down, the building fell backwards, badly damaging 30 West Broadway.

-Gumboot

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Substantiate this claim.

The claim being referred to was my claim that temperatures in house fires can exceed the 600C necessary to cause steel to lose half it's strength. I would have thought that a fireman would have posted the correct value rather than asking me to prove mine. I found better references a while ago in another debate, but here is one that I found quickly:

http://vincentdunn.com/dunn/State-Assembly-Dunn.pdf

The key sentence is "Flashover at 1100 to 1200 degrees F. may occur in a burning room within four minutes."

I'll look for a better reference.

 

[Kent1]

I referred you to the many pages of those accounts in the paper I wrote.

I'm very, very sorry that you think the NIST report on the WTC firefighting operations is a waste of time.

Just trolling then, submersible?

By the way, I'm quite familiar with Alex Jones' position on the FDNY and WTC 7. We had a little dust-up about it at Ground Zero. About me, Jones says,
“See, guys, this is all ‘straw man.’ We never said the firemen were involved. He just claimed we said it. He’s a liar! That’s what liars do. They build straw men.”

“Just like you heard it: he claimed we blamed the firemen. We never said that. He just made it up.”

“He blamed us for saying the firefighters were in on it.”

“He’s claiming I blame firefighters. ...And none of it’s true.”

“He set the subject, he made up that we blame the firefighters.”

Alex Jones’ PrisonPlanet.com headline:
Silverstein, FDNY Decided to “Pull WTC 7”

Prisonplanet.com headline:
People Died in WTC 7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY Guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter

Alex Jones’ Infowars.com headline:
“World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY And Others”

By the way, no one died at WTC 7. Jones got that wrong, too.

You continue to act like a little child with his fingers in his ears, submersible. Read the material I referred you to, then return with your specific objections. If you can't do at least that, then you're just trolling. It isn't mature to play games with a subject this serious.

Also I forgot, that flash he's talking about is an old school CT theory. Not used much anymore. In fact I believe it was taken out of Loose Change 2.0 because it was deemed too crazy even for them.
Hoffman doesn't even buy it,
http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/st_impact.html

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The claim being referred to was my claim that temperatures in house fires can exceed the 600C necessary to cause steel to lose half it's strength. I would have thought that a fireman would have posted the correct value rather than asking me to prove mine. I found better references a while ago in another debate, but here is one that I found quickly:

http://vincentdunn.com/dunn/State-Assembly-Dunn.pdf

The key sentence is "Flashover at 1100 to 1200 degrees F. may occur in a burning room within four minutes."

I'll look for a better reference.

"In only 3 1/2 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit."

http://www.health.state.ok.us/Program/injury/factsheets/house_fires.htm

 

[332nd]

Discworld? I always seem to get crappy replys on this forum.


The French did not have anything to do with 1066. It was the Normands. The French term for the vikings, meaning men from the north.

Me? Not a Yank, I'm from Sweden.

What?

 

[The Pig]

What page in your report explains this ?

"Conspiracy theorists have often cited the alleged “flash” just as the plane hit the tower as “proof” that there was a missile launched from the underside of the plane. 911 IPS claims that the flash could not be a reflection, as it was caught on camera from four different angles, and it is their theory that an object cannot reflect light to more than one direction. In addition, they said that “sparks” or “static discharge” “have been ruled out by every airline pilot we have spoken with”.

An object can only reflect light in one direction? My mirror must be broken.

 

[GlennB]

The claim being referred to was my claim that temperatures in house fires can exceed the 600C necessary to cause steel to lose half it's strength. I would have thought that a fireman would have posted the correct value rather than asking me to prove mine. I found better references a while ago in another debate, but here is one that I found quickly:

http://vincentdunn.com/dunn/State-Assembly-Dunn.pdf

The key sentence is "Flashover at 1100 to 1200 degrees F. may occur in a burning room within four minutes."

I'll look for a better reference.

They can substantially exceed that :

"The naturally ventilated fire produced a much smoother time evolution of room temperatures. After ventilation, the temperatures rapidly increased to the maximum temperature of 1050 °C (1890 °F). The temperatures remained around 1000 °C (1830 °F) for approximately 300 s. Once the temperatures began to decrease the values did so steadily to 500 °C (932 °F) at a rate of 0.8 °C /s."

From http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

which experimentally compares naturally and artificially ventilated house fire scenarios (non 9/11 related)

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Conspiracy theorists have often cited the alleged “flash” just as the plane hit the tower as “proof” that there was a missile launched from the underside of the plane.

Wouldn't this be like firing a missile from a missile just before the missile strike? Kinda' redundant, eh??

 

[uk_dave]

Wouldn't this be like firing a missile from a missile just before the missile strike? Kinda' redundant, eh??

It's the only way they can get their heads around the idea that a bloody great plane travelling at high speed can actually damage steel.

I always like to suggest that they take a hot air balloon flight over a body of water and then jump out from several thousand feet up....and then report back.

 

[HeyLeroy]

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/jlhudson.mpg

Another real, actual controlled demo.

Discussed here.

 

[Big Les]

Looking out from a hill over the Somerset Levels* today I noticed they're incredibly flat.

OMG !! Common sense tells me I've been transported to DiscWorld

(* ex-marshland in the W of England. Bleak but beautiful. Draining them is one of the many things that The Romans did for us. Those Romans were great, I tell ya. Shame they owe us an 'apology' for those invasions, like we're supposed to be apologising for the slave trade. The French owe us an apology for 1066, too. Though I hear they were mostly Viking immigrants to Normandy or something, so half of Scandinavia should be apologising as well. Did you Yanks ever apologise for that 'War of Independence' business? Most unseemly and violent! And such a waste of good tea. We'd have built you some nice neo-roman aqueducts eventually, too. It's all common sense, really)

Sigh, I love the levels. And the Quantock Hills. Lived right next to them (Bishops Lydeard) for 15 years.

You can keep Bridgwater though

 

[Z]

I wanted to talk about structural collapse for a moment, and this seemed a good place to do it.

Several years ago, one of the barracks on Fort Bragg, NC, near where I lived, was declared unsafe, and evacuated. Safety inspectors came because of a complaint of cracks in a wall, and a mirror shattering for no known reason, and concrete debris in the basement.

As it turns out, one of the concrete support beams in the basement had developed fractures. The inspectors said it can happen with concrete if, for some reason, the concrete sets improperly. If there had been any artillery firing near the main base area on one of the days during construction, vibrations could have caused minute cracks to begin forming, and load stress would have increased those cracks.

Under normal circumstances, a single cracking support column wouldn't have been a problem. But the barracks in question had been build a long time ago, when it was one soldier to a room, with a bed and wall locker, no air conditioning, etc. Since then, they estimate that the live load had more than quadrupled - four man rooms, much furniture, tons of personal belongings, and air conditioning units.

The building stood almost a week after evacuation, as the engineer slated to tear it down were out of the state. Then, one evening, it just fell down. Straight down, in an even collapse.

A lot of the guys asked the same exact questions the CTists do here. The answer was simply that, once a column fails to be able to support its load, it increases stress on surrounding columns. In the case of a building where loads were already exceeded - like this one - many of those columns were damaged as well, though not visibly. They, too, were unable to handle the sudden stress, and failed, transferring even more load to neighboring columns.

This transferral takes seconds.

The result is total structural failure.

The same thing happened in a poorly designed bank years ago - I saw it on a documentary on Discover Channel. The building hadn't properly accounted for dead load, and eventually underwent spontaneous structural failure due to a single column cracking.

In this regard, steel is no different. When steel is weakened by fire to half its strength - a temperature of merely 600 degrees - it loses its ability to bear its assigned load, and that load transfers to other supports. If enough supports fail, all of them will fail; meaning that the building will go from standing to not standing, just like that. No slow sag, no gentle lean, no domino-effect collapses.

Just wanted to talk... don't mind me.

 

[beachnut]

Building 7 underwent a controlled demolition. Most of the people cannot see this not because of facts but because of something with their personality. Which is what i am here for, trying to understand how certain individuals can twist reality.
Listen to this analogy....
The day when the OJ Simpson trial was to conclude, i.e. the verdict was to be read, i took a city bus to work which consisted exclusively of Afro-Americans. During the bus ride i read about the pending verdict and i started a conversation with the people around me, and when i asked their opinion about his innocence or guilt......there was a unanimous assertation that he was innocent. When I arived to work, and asked my co-workers how many afro-americans were on the jury, and they told me 11. I knew there and then that OJ Simpson was going to walk. The Jury was no longer looking for evidence, it had become an emotional race issue. Facts were secondary.
I could take two control groups - one American, the other south american.....show them the videos of the building 7 collapse and then show them other controlled demolition and asked their opinion.....i am pretty sure that a greater number of south americans will agree that there is a good possibility of a controlled demolition.......where the american counterpart will find an emotional stumbling block and think that the planes somehow brought building 7 down.
Most of the americans that are refuting the obvious, that building 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition are actually working against your freedom.

Your OJ analogy make your controlled demolition false by using such a dumb analogy!

So you say if you make up stuff you win. Too bad you have no facts to back up your controlled demolition. As the words plink off your keyboard they ring false.

OJ = controlled demolition = nut cases , would be a better analogy!

 

[StoneWT]

Another conspira-kook bites the dust

And I know it doesn't apply to tower 7, but I'll ask you again... does your paper also explain the flash of fire in these images?

9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction

General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminum flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's all it is."

General Partin says that he was contacted by vonKleist, who wanted him to support his position, which Partin was not willing to do.

 

[Trigood]

I wanted to talk about structural collapse for a moment, and this seemed a good place to do it.

Several years ago, one of the barracks on Fort Bragg, NC, near where I lived, was declared unsafe, and evacuated. Safety inspectors came because of a complaint of cracks in a wall, and a mirror shattering for no known reason, and concrete debris in the basement.

As it turns out, one of the concrete support beams in the basement had developed fractures. The inspectors said it can happen with concrete if, for some reason, the concrete sets improperly. If there had been any artillery firing near the main base area on one of the days during construction, vibrations could have caused minute cracks to begin forming, and load stress would have increased those cracks.

Under normal circumstances, a single cracking support column wouldn't have been a problem. But the barracks in question had been build a long time ago, when it was one soldier to a room, with a bed and wall locker, no air conditioning, etc. Since then, they estimate that the live load had more than quadrupled - four man rooms, much furniture, tons of personal belongings, and air conditioning units.

The building stood almost a week after evacuation, as the engineer slated to tear it down were out of the state. Then, one evening, it just fell down. Straight down, in an even collapse.

Veeerrrry interesting story. Do you know if anyone did anything to hasten the collapse, or if it just fell down? If the latter, then it's really, really lucky the building was evacuated when it was. Live loads might have made it collapse sooner, with tragic results.

A lot of the guys asked the same exact questions the CTists do here. The answer was simply that, once a column fails to be able to support its load, it increases stress on surrounding columns. In the case of a building where loads were already exceeded - like this one - many of those columns were damaged as well, though not visibly. They, too, were unable to handle the sudden stress, and failed, transferring even more load to neighboring columns.

This transferral takes seconds.

The result is total structural failure.

This is what the CTists don't understand about structural collapse: that it can begin in an instant. They ask questions such as, "Why did the buildings start to fall all at once?" as if instantaneousness alone was proof of CD. In fact, if I am not mistaken, CD can proceed in stages, as can collapse. What happens in both is gravity takes over immediately, at the instant that support is unequal to load. Instantaneousness in and of itself says nothing about CD vs. structural failure collapse.

The same thing happened in a poorly designed bank years ago - I saw it on a documentary on Discover Channel. The building hadn't properly accounted for dead load, and eventually underwent spontaneous structural failure due to a single column cracking.

It's amazing how many buildings do collapse (at least partially), in contradiction to the 9/11 troof dictum that (steel) buildings never collapse. I was reading about one recently, that collapsed in the early 20th century, although I can't remember the details at the moment.

In this regard, steel is no different. When steel is weakened by fire to half its strength - a temperature of merely 600 degrees - it loses its ability to bear its assigned load, and that load transfers to other supports. If enough supports fail, all of them will fail; meaning that the building will go from standing to not standing, just like that. No slow sag, no gentle lean, no domino-effect collapses.

Just wanted to talk... don't mind me.

Enjoyed your comments, thanks.

 

[jaydeehess]

An object can only reflect light in one direction? My mirror must be broken.

angle of incidence equals angle of reflection BUT that certainly does not mean that one can only see something in a flat mirror if one stands directly in front of it or if the object being reflected is at the same angle to the mirror as the viewer.

Also, the nose of the aircraft was oblong and quite reflective, with the Sun bright in the sky and illuminating the nose of the aircraft, so it is quite possible to have a reflection of it seen from many angles.

 

[apathoid]

I have some simple Tower 7 questions of my own:

If you, Submersible, wanted to coverup your planning of a major terror operation, would you:

1. Use paper shredders/sledgehammers/fire to destroy documents and hard drives conatined in the planning building?
2. Set the building on fire, CD it at a later time after deeming it a total loss - a less suspicious method of blowing the building up if thats what your heart is set on.
3. Blow up your building in broad daylight while the whole world was watching and have to payoff and intimidate all ASCE members(or hope they dont care)?

Look forward to our answer Sub...