• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some simple Tower 7 questions

Incredible. I encountered this with the CT ejits that post on inymedia.org.uk. When you show them the data, the building regs issues, the history of fire problems, etc. then they tend to either clam up or shout "aha, but show me one that collapsed".

Clearly the entire construction industry is in on the plot!:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
Incredible. I encountered this with the CT ejits that post on inymedia.org.uk. When you show them the data, the building regs issues, the history of fire problems, etc. then they tend to either clam up or shout "aha, but show me one that collapsed".

Clearly the entire construction industry is in on the plot!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Tell them that none of your buildings have ever collapsed, therefor you are not part of the conspiracy.
 
I think the big mistake that people often make is assuming they know how a large building would fall if it fell of its own accord, and unless explosives are used, it would topple over, like a tree, or like a pile of books, when you try to extract one from the bottom. That's because they see at buildings as big, strong, steel blocks.

The fact is, larger, newer buildings tend to be built far closer to the limits of the materials used in their construction, and are therefore more prone to cascade failure. They are more like a stack of cards than a pile of books. Steel and concrete have a finite strength (although we are doing better with materials) and one way to avoid making the building pyramid shaped is to keep careful control on the amount of material that the foundations are supporting.
 
Bell said:
Tell them that none of your buildings have ever collapsed, therefor you are not part of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Ironically, one once did :(

Early in my career, we were trying to stabilise a partially collapsed late C18 obelisk about 15m high when there was an overnight storm. The foundations moved, and down it came.

Mind you, too early for C4 coated reinforcement.



Maybe a warning from the NWO to toe the line? :eek:
 
se7ensnakes said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're taking the social dynamics of a very particular sub-culture and extrapolating it to all Americans. Doesn't work that way.

Being "pretty sure" that people of a different culture would come to a different conclusion isn't proof of anything. Have you attempted to test this hypothesis? Never mind, I already know the answer.
 
I hesitate to bring up this particular area of expertise I have, but...

Back in my blue collar days I worked in the distribution department at IBM. We delivered office supplies and other materials to a number of large office buildings. Believe me when I tell you, there is a HUGE amount of flammable material in an office building. We delivered 1/2 ton pallets of copier paper on a regular basis. I can only imagine how much energy would be released if just ONE of these pallets caught fire -- a typical office building has much more.

The fire dept. conducted regular drills in these buildings, and they were serious about it. Woe to the person who tried to stay behind and get some work done during a fire drill.
 
Submersible said:
The amount of the smoke is a direct reflection on the contents of the fire and the amount of O2 allowed to be introduced to the flame, as well as the fire's ability to ventillate. A fire can actually suffocate itself if it does not produce enough heat to burn through whatever surroundings contain it. I've seen this happen many times, unfortunately it generates enough heat and toxic gasses to kill whoever is inside of the structure. (A young woman I used to date and her two young children died from smoke inhalation inside a structure that was found to be burned long after the fire started, more than 24hrs after their death)


Here is an explanation about the fire tetrahedron that should explain most of your questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle
http://www.matchrockets.com/fire/firemain.html
Click to expand...

So we're in agreement that factors other than the size of a fire can determine how much smoke is produced?
 
Submersible said:
Gumboot
Facts about WTC 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.

This doesn't explain what contents could have been placed around the steel columns to heat them enough to weaken their structural integrity, or how that heat could have been directed towards the beams instead of straight up.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of any of these terms: "advection"; "conduction"; "convection"? On what do you base your assumption that the heat will remain in columns directly above the flame tips?

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

I for one, would appreciate one image or one second of video tape that shows an "intense fire". Much like I would appreciate seeing an image of the airplane that struck the pentagon.
Click to expand...
In your experience as a "fireman", which of the following have you observed to be more common: a) building fires being stable or decreasing over time; b) building fires increasing in size and intensity over time?


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

Who reported this?
And WHY would any of you consider anything you've read to be "factual", when all of it would have to be dismissed if you consider ANY of these reports?
Click to expand...
FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
 
Submersible said:
These verbatin accounts, and those of several firemen on the scene discredit all of the one's that you have in YOUR toilet paper.
You still can't read can you.


http://legalwar.org/permalinks/2006...Metal-Under-Ground-Zero-for-Months-after-911/
Click to expand...

Did you really post those sites? No wonder you need toilet paper. A site like that needs a lot of toilet paper. A lot of toilet paper to clean up all that stuff at that site.

Where do you find all the nut case sites? Do you have a nose for this? If I knew how you found these sites, I could teach my students how to search for real information and not repeat your mistakes. Thanks for the help.

WTC7, burned and fell. Too bad you are missing the evidence to prove your points; you will need to improve your research techniques first. The site you posted actually says one thing and proves nothing. It must be really a pain in your brain to be short all the evidence to prove what you know is a large job for any toilet paper!

Did you see the steel building brought down with toilet paper?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67656&highlight=toilet+paper
 
Whenever a CT brings up the Windsor building it is one of the most ironicomical (both ironic and comical) things I have seen.

The steel in that building failed! The core columns made of concrete did not and are credited with keeping the collapse that did happen slow and from becoming a general collapse. The Windsor is in fact an example of what happens to structural steel in a fire. The fact that it took a long time to suffer partial collapse is due to the intact fireproofing and the concrete core.
 
Gravy said:
WTC 5, office fire only. You've seen this before, Submersible.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044aa72598802f.jpg[/qimg]



WTC 5, office fire only. You've seen this before, Submersible.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044aa72598802f.jpg[/qimg]
​

You really need ot read the FEMA report on buildings 4, 5, and 6. You will find it enlightening.
Click to expand...

No I haven't seen that picture before, but it does a good job of showing how the metal beams could have become that warped and still not fail to support their load. According to that image, for tower 7 to fall "flush" like it did, the majority of the beams would have to had simultaneously reached a temperature much higher than the one you show to completely fail to hold up the structure. Thanks !

I guess that explains what could have caused all of them to reach such a high temperature and in such a synchronized fashion. Not !
 
beachnut said:
What??????????????

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/124474550e45019258.jpg[/qimg]

OH, fires destroyed floor in building 5; the floors failed due to fire, the steel failed due to fire. I think they even shot some water on this fire, not sure.

The small vertical beams in your image that are NOT damaged are not part of the main support beams. The only similarities they have with the massive steel trusses that held up tower 7 are that they are probably made with the same temperature and tensile strength ratings, but they are much smaller, and obviously NOT damaged by the fire.


But given enough fire and time, fire will bring down your house and your steel building!

Yeah, if it actually catches on fire, anything can be burned away.

Building 5 floors failed due to; fire.

THIS IS A STRUCTURAL FAILURE IN BUILDING 5, I would like to report it, it is in a lot of reports, I can sell you one at NIST! I bet if I read all of NIST I can save a kitty!

The beams that you see broken or missing were part of the interior structure between floors, much much smaller than the massive beams that you would find supporting the weight of the entire structure.

If I looked long enough, or wait long enough, this stuff will show up on CT sites as proof Hitler started the fire, but I bet most CTers, including fearless leader Alex Jones etal do not read NIST, its is a lot of pages and that would confuse Alex Jones and Fetzer stopped reading when he was blinded by CT leaderism.

Just as if you wait long enough NIST will provide those "final reports" eh??


Who said there was no structural failure in 5 or 6?
Click to expand...

Neither one of those buildings fell flat out of the sky, so eventho' there was obviously some structural failure it apparently wasn't enough to cause them to fall... eventho' it appears as if they burned quite a bit more and sustained 10x as much damage as tower 7/
 
Submersible said:
Neither one of those buildings fell flat out of the sky, so eventho' there was obviously some structural failure it apparently wasn't enough to cause them to fall... eventho' it appears as if they burned quite a bit more and sustained 10x as much damage as tower 7/
Click to expand...

But they did not have 20,000 gallons of fuel and 20 story gash in their sides, nor were they 47 stories tall! As you can see from CT nut case who build chicken wire WTCs to prove it never happen; little buildings seem to stand partially like the 5 story piles of WTC1 WTC2, and WTC7.

You are in a deep need for some facts. You will never find them. Most CT guys are making up stuff, what are you doing?
 
Submersible said:
No I haven't seen that picture before, but it does a good job of showing how the metal beams could have become that warped and still not fail to support their load. According to that image, for tower 7 to fall "flush" like it did, the majority of the beams would have to had simultaneously reached a temperature much higher than the one you show to completely fail to hold up the structure. Thanks !

I guess that explains what could have caused all of them to reach such a high temperature and in such a synchronized fashion. Not !
Click to expand...
Still haven't read the NIST interim report on WTC 7, or the NIST FAQ, eh, sub? Oh, well. I guess this horse isn't thirsty. So long.
 
Gravy said:
Please point out which of the quotes on the page you linked to refutes any of the FDNY's eyewitness "TOILET paper" quotes I provided about the fire and damage to WTC 7.

Or do you just have a thing against firemen?
Click to expand...

Do you keep trying to imply that I have something against firemen because you have so much invested in defending the claims they made? There are several firemen who have provided information that contratict the one's you have used to bring yourself to "fame".
Molten steel underneath the rubble piles would be impossible if there were no incendiary devices on the lower levels of the buildings.

Here is another website that contain many if not all of the same claims, but the have a few pictures as proof.
What could have caused this, since the fires in tower 1&2 would have been all but suffocated when the buildings collapsed?

http://www.investigate911.com/question-4.htm


626_molten_metal111111.jpg

911moltensteel222222.JPG
 
Last edited:
Exactly what is it about this photo that tells you this is steel, rather than any other type of metal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom