Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Spanx]

I don't see major fires behind Edna as you would have us believe. See the attached photo.

Is this building 7 Tony

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You post this comment and now you want to talk about building 7

That was because Jeffrey was talking about transformer explosions possibly causing fires in WTC 7 also.

This thread needs to stay with WTC 7, and should only go to WTC 1 as it relates to how the fires were alleged to have started in WTC 7.

 

[Spanx]

We need to get back to WTC 7 here, since it is the subject of the thread.
Of course, the thread asks the question about a single column failure precipitating a complete building collapse.

What is interesting with what we know now, with the NIST structural feature omissions, is that column 79 could have never buckled, since it would have never been without lateral support. I think that answers the question of the thread.

Now since we know the official story tellers were not honest in the NIST WTC 7 report, as evidenced by the pertinent structural features being omitted, we should be asking other questions about their alleged storyline. The most pertinent I can think of is how the fires were even started in WTC 7, given that the few floors of fire in WTC 1 would have been extinguished early in the collapse by gypsum and concrete dust, and it is extremely improbable for anything hot enough to make it all the way over to WTC 7 at 350 feet away and busting into the building on ten stories from the 7th to the 30th floor and successfully igniting fires.

Who keeps going off topic ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Can anyone here tell us how much lateral force it would take to hurl a 1,000 lb. item from the 96th floor of WTC 1 (1,150 feet high) to WTC 7's 30th floor (390 feet high and 350 feet away horizontally) and then break through the building and start a fire?

 

[Animal]

We need to get back to WTC 7 here, since it is the subject of the thread.

Of course, the thread asks the question about a single column failure precipitating a complete building collapse.

What is interesting with what we know now, with the NIST structural feature omissions, is that column 79 could have never buckled, since it would have never been without lateral support. I think that answers the question of the thread.

Now since we know the official story tellers were not honest in the NIST WTC 7 report, as evidenced by the pertinent structural features being omitted, we should be asking other questions about their alleged storyline. The most pertinent I can think of is how the fires were even started in WTC 7, given that the few floors of fire in WTC 1 would have been extinguished early in the collapse by gypsum and concrete dust, and it is extremely improbable for anything hot enough to make it all the way over to WTC 7 at 350 feet away and busting into the building on ten stories from the 7th to the 30th floor and successfully igniting fires.

troofer translation
"We" - Ts and his little bubble of troofers
"Pertinent" - Insignificant
"few" - many
"extremely improbable" - likely

 

[Tony Szamboti]

troofer translation
"We" - Ts and his little bubble of troofers
"Pertinent" - Insignificant
"few" - many
"extremely improbable" - likely

This from the person who apparently doesn't think fires can be extinguished by cutting off the oxygen by smothering it with gypsum and concrete dust which would act the same as dirt.

You only need to take away one side of the fuel, oxygen, and heat triangle to extinguish a fire. When I was in the U.S. Navy we used PKP (Purple K Powder) as a fire extinguishing agent. It cut off the oxygen to the fire. The gypsum and concrete dust would act the same way.

The gypsum and concrete dust would have certainly smothered the fires in WTC 1 quickly when the collapse started. So it is a mystery to many as to how the debris from WTC 1 could have started the fires on ten floors in WTC 7, especially considering it was 350 feet away.

 

[beachnut]

I don't see major fires behind Edna as you would have us believe. See the attached photo.

The biggest office fires in history have you making up wild claims of CD. 13th year of failure for the CD lie and 911 truth's inability to grasp fire science.

911 truth - zero progress, zero evidence, zero CD.

The CD fantasy has product free thermite, or silent blast-free explosives? Where is your paper on CD? Which is your fantasy, product free thermite, or silent explosives? Reality makes CD a failed fantasy.

Now we have the fire goes out, just like my oven turned off, it is instantly cool, and I can touch anything that was in the oven right away. Good job Tony; expose zero experience with fire and heat. With 911 truth silly claims only fool people like the Boston Bombers and those who fail to think for themselves. 911 truth has a fringe audience who believe the delusional CD claim; 911 truth can't produce evidence or explain.

Fire out, room cold. Got it, sounds like woo. What great work, mocking the murdered with CD lies.

 

[GlennB]

This from the person who apparently doesn't think fires can be extinguished by cutting off the oxygen by smothering it with gypsum and concrete dust which would act the same as dirt.

You only need to take away one side of the fuel, oxygen, and heat triangle to extinguish a fire. When I was in the U.S. Navy we used PKP (Purple K Powder) as a fire extinguishing agent. The gypsum and concrete dust would act the same way.

The gypsum and concrete dust would have certainly smothered the fires in WTC 1 quickly when the collapse started. So it is a mystery to many as to how the debris from WTC 1 could have started the fires on ten floors in WTC 7, especially considering it was 350 feet away.

Smothering flames <> instantly reducing the heat of the source. This is basic science and you really should know better.

Fire crews damp down the embers of burnt-out buildings for long periods of time, days sometimes, to prevent re-ignition.

I have had major bonfires where, 10 hours later, I've stacked new prunings and found the buggers re-igniting, and that's on nothing like the scale of 9/11.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What is interesting with what we know now, with the NIST structural feature omissions, is that column 79 could have never buckled, since it would have never been without lateral support. I think that answers the question of the thread.

The OP creator doesn't agree with the NIST's conclusion that "Col 79" was the critical player in the collapse initiation, he believes it was contributory, which regardless of considering whether it's wrong not doesn't change the fact that the building would have collapsed. And his thinking is realistic enough that it warrants code related research since it would be relevant to the NIST conclusions.

You on the other hand have been focused religiously on column 79 and whether or not the NIST could tell you which bolts failed sooner and how at what time to support you're cause that they are covering up a controlled demolition that you don't even have the interest in proving. Not to mention you're clearly unphased by the idea that your starting premise on all of these arguments fails you long before the details you pursue enter the discussion. You did this with your missing jolt paper, and you're doing it again. Pardon me while I call shenanigans.

The most pertinent I can think of is how the fires were even started in WTC 7

Unfortunately for you this is not up for debate because...

given that the few floors of fire in WTC 1 would have been extinguished early in the collapse by gypsum and concrete dust

This is false, I'm not going to dignify this with any further response because you have no excuse to ignore voluminous documentation contradicting you. And...

and it is extremely improbable for anything hot enough to make it all the way over to WTC 7 at 350 feet away

...clearly something did because the building was hit. This is documented photographically. It is documented that the building was fire as well, so there are no improbables here. It happened already.

Maybe it's time to land back on topic and back in reality. If you want your "CD" to be considered a part of this discussion I suggest you start by linking it directly with the lengthy discussion you had about whether a single column could fail or not and actually show concrete proof it's a viable discussion. So far you have not, and non of your additional posts are doing the job either.

 

[beachnut]

Can anyone here tell us how much lateral force it would take to hurl a 1,000 lb. item from the 96th floor of WTC 1 (1,150 feet high) to WTC 7's 30th floor (390 feet high and 350 feet away horizontally) and then break through the building and start a fire?

Gee, E=mgh is more than enough. The cool part is you can't do the math. That is cool.

Can burning debris start fires? lol, you are unable to explain your CD lie, and now you deny fires started from falling debris. Keep up the woo about the biggest office fires in history. How does this help your CD lie?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The OP creator doesn't agree with the NIST's conclusion that "Col 79" was the critical player in the collapse initiation, he believes it was contributory, which regardless of considering whether it's wrong not doesn't change the fact that the building would have collapsed. And his thinking is realistic enough that it warrants code related research since it would be relevant to the NIST conclusions.

You on the other hand have been focused religiously on column 79 and whether or not the NIST could tell you which bolts failed sooner and how at what time to support you're cause that they are covering up a controlled demolition that you don't even have the interest in proving. Not to mention you're clearly unphased by the idea that your starting premise on all of these arguments fails you long before the details you pursue enter the discussion. You did this with your missing jolt paper, and you're doing it again. Pardon me while I call shenanigans.


Unfortunately for you this is not up for debate because...


This is false, I'm not going to dignify this with any further response because you have no excuse to ignore voluminous documentation contradicting you. And...


...clearly something did because the building was hit. This is documented photographically. It is documented that the building was fire as well, so there are no improbables here. It happened already.

Maybe it's time to land back on topic and back in reality. If you want your "CD" to be considered a part of this discussion I suggest you start by linking it directly with the lengthy discussion you had about whether a single column could fail or not and actually show concrete proof it's a viable discussion. So far you have not, and non of your additional posts are doing the job either.

The fires could have been deliberately set in WTC 7 with the excuse given that they were caused by the collapse of WTC 1.

This is circumstantially supported by the reality that no fires were observed in WTC 7 in an evidentiary way with photographs until 12:15 PM. This is 1 hour and 47 minutes after the fall of WTC 1.

This is also supported circumstantially by the reality that the fires in WTC 1 would have been quickly extinguished by the gypsum and concrete dust generated during the collapse. The mixing of materials would have also cooled hot items significantly.

It is also circumstantially supported by the reality that it would have been extremely improbable for hot debris (which could only have come from a small number of fire zone floors in WTC 1) to have been accelerated laterally enough to make the trip to WTC 7 350 feet away and then have enough force to break through the exterior all the while remaining hot enough to ignite a fire.

It is also circumstantially supported by the fact that neither the Verizon or Post Office buildings were set aflame by the collapse of WTC 1 although they were in the same proximity, yet WTC 7 had ten stories set ablaze allegedly from WTC 1's debris.

Many people do not believe the fires in WTC 7 were started by debris from WTC 1 for the above reasons and nobody here has made a case which would say different.

 

[beachnut]

This from the person who apparently doesn't think fires can be extinguished by cutting off the oxygen by smothering it with gypsum and concrete dust which would act the same as dirt.

You only need to take away one side of the fuel, oxygen, and heat triangle to extinguish a fire. When I was in the U.S. Navy we used PKP (Purple K Powder) as a fire extinguishing agent. It cut off the oxygen to the fire. The gypsum and concrete dust would act the same way.

The gypsum and concrete dust would have certainly smothered the fires in WTC 1 quickly when the collapse started. So it is a mystery to many as to how the debris from WTC 1 could have started the fires on ten floors in WTC 7, especially considering it was 350 feet away.

Wow, now fire is put out by dust, which has thermite in it in your failed fantasy, so how could the fires not start in your fantasy?

Which is it? Thermite dust started the WTC 7 fires, or WTC biggest office fires in history started the WTC 7 fires from falling debris hot enough to start paper on fire at contact, like reality?

Why is the thermite laden dust not burning in the air, like when I blew up my back yard with explosives, when the dust cloud went up it burned and formed a fireball explosion. If the thermite liars are right, the sky should be on fire on 911, burning thermite dust. LOL, you 911 truth experts need to get your story straight. Is there thermite in dust, or only in your heads?


Silent explosives, product free thermite, and now fire that can't spread fire. Which one is your fantasy?

Show your math? Balsamo can help you.

Does your office know you are posting during working hours, posting woo?

Wow; explain how this latest Gish Gallop supports your CD fantasy.

I like how fire goes out and building is cool mentality. Sounds great.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow, now fire is put out by dust, which has thermite in it in your failed fantasy, so how could the fires not start in your fantasy?

Which is it? Thermite dust started the WTC 7 fires, or WTC biggest office fires in history started the WTC 7 fires from falling debris hot enough to start paper on fire at contact, like reality?

Why is the thermite laden dust not burning in the air, like when I blew up my back yard with explosives, when the dust cloud went up it burned and formed a fireball explosion. If the thermite liars are right, the sky should be on fire on 911, burning thermite dust. LOL, you 911 truth experts need to get your story straight. Is there thermite in dust, or only in your heads?


Silent explosives, product free thermite, and now fire that can't spread fire. Which one is your fantasy?

Show your math? Balsamo can help you.

You apparently never used a powder fire extinguisher. They work very well.

Let's go a step further for those here who doubt that dust (powder) can extinguish a fire by cutting off the oxygen the fire needs to continue combustion. You may have also heard of, but never used, a CO2 fire extinguisher. In that case it is a gas that is used to cut off the oxygen and it works very well.

 

[jaydeehess]

The fires could have been deliberately set in WTC 7 with the excuse given that they were caused by the collapse of WTC 1.

This is circumstantially supported by the reality that no fires were observed in WTC 7 in an evidentiary way with photographs until 12:15 PM. This is 1 hour and 47 minutes after the fall of WTC 1.

IIRC, firefighters who inspected WTC 7 noted small fires on several floors though. I could be wrong. However, if they did see fires then were they lieing?

It is also circumstantially supported by the reality that it would have been extremely improbable for hot debris (which could only have come from a small number of fire zone floors in WTC 1) to have been accelerated laterally enough to make the trip to WTC 7 350 feet away and then have enough force to break through the exterior all the while remaining hot enough to ignite a fire.

Why do you require that the burning debris itself must break the windows?
Why do you not suppose that fires can ignite due to electrical shorts or sparks from rending steel?

It is also circumstantially supported by the fact that neither the Verizon or Post Office buildings were set aflame by the collapse of WTC 1 although they were in the same proximity, yet WTC 7 had ten stories set ablaze allegedly from WTC 1's debris.

Nor were they as affected in the form of impact damage which indicates that the debris from WTC 1 was more in line with hitting WTC 7 and not those other structures. Obviously the debris did more damage to the western portion of WTC 7 than the eastern so its also obvious that a structure even firther east would not be impacted as much as the eastern extent of WTC 7.

 

[jaydeehess]

You apparently never used a powder fire extinguisher. They work very well.

Let's go a step further for those here who doubt that dust (powder) can extinguish a fire. You may have also heard of, but never used, a CO2 fire extinguisher. In that case it is a gas that is used to cut off the oxygen and it works very well.

No one doubts that a layer of dust can smother a fire Tony. However your organization has made the case that this particular dust was heavily laden enough with therm?te as to allow the rubble fires to burn for weeks. Now you wish to say that this therm?te laden dust is a fire suppressent. Do you or do you not, see a contradiction in that?

 

[thedopefishlives]

The fires could have been deliberately set in WTC 7 with the excuse given that they were caused by the collapse of WTC 1.

This is circumstantially supported by the reality that no fires were observed in WTC 7 in an evidentiary way with photographs until 12:15 PM. This is 1 hour and 47 minutes after the fall of WTC 1.

This is also supported circumstantially by the reality that the fires in WTC 1 would have been quickly extinguished by the gypsum and concrete dust generated during the collapse. The mixing of materials would have also cooled hot items significantly.

It is also circumstantially supported by the reality that it would have been extremely improbable for hot debris (which could only have come from a small number of fire zone floors in WTC 1) to have been accelerated laterally enough to make the trip to WTC 7 350 feet away and then have enough force to break through the exterior all the while remaining hot enough to ignite a fire.

It is also circumstantially supported by the fact that neither the Verizon or Post Office buildings were set aflame by the collapse of WTC 1 although they were in the same proximity, yet WTC 7 had ten stories set ablaze allegedly from WTC 1's debris.

Many people do not believe the fires in WTC 7 were started by debris from WTC 1 for the above reasons and nobody here has made a case which would say different.

You've been talking to Chris "MSPaintFire" Sarns again, haven't you? Do you have any positive evidence for deliberately set fires, or is it merely more NIST-picking and innuendo?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It should also be noted that one of the ways fire is fought is with a fire break, where fuel is cleared away in the case of a forest so the fire can't spread.

The 350 feet between WTC 1 and WTC 7 was a very large fire break, and it seemed to have worked quite well with the Verizon and Post Office buildings. Why didn't it work for WTC 7? Could it be it actually did, but the fires in WTC 7 were deliberately set and blamed on the collapse of WTC 1? That would explain why the Verizon and Post Office buildings weren't set ablaze.

It seems that those here who don't want to believe there are serious questions about how the fires actually started in WTC 7 do not have good answers for those questions.

 

[beachnut]

You apparently never used a powder fire extinguisher. They work very well.

Or is it you making up stuff to fit some fantasy you can't define.

I used powder fire extinguishers, do they use gypsum and concrete dust. If I cover a fire with concrete dust and gypsum like dirt does, it is to save the heat and coals for a day - oops, you messed up again.

You think flames are important, and if 911 was at night, you would not have the no flame BS to play with. What a load of BS as you Gish Gallop exposing ignorance of fire and heat, with no way to tie this junk to your CD fantasy. How do powder extinguishers support the failed CD claims?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No one doubts that a layer of dust can smother a fire Tony. However your organization has made the case that this particular dust was heavily laden enough with therm?te as to allow the rubble fires to burn for weeks. Now you wish to say that this therm?te laden dust is a fire suppressent. Do you or do you not, see a contradiction in that?

No, I am trying to understand the logic of the official storyline, which alleges that WTC 7 was set ablaze and ultimately collapsed due to natural circumstances. It does not make sense in the case of how WTC 7 was set ablaze and we now know those responsible for giving us that storyline were not honest, due to the discovery that pertinent structural features were omitted in the collapse initiation analysis.

The logic is moving in the direction of the official storyline being a fairy tale instead of a real story.

 

[carlitos]

I don't see major fires behind Edna as you would have us believe. See the attached photo.

You are a sick puppy, Tony. Who in the hell cares what you see.

We need to get back to WTC 7 here, since it is the subject of the thread.

Yes.

This thread needs to stay with WTC 7, and should only go to WTC 1 as it relates to how the fires were alleged to have started in WTC 7.

Yes.

The fires could have been deliberately set in WTC 7 with the excuse given that they were caused by the collapse of WTC 1.

In your fantasy, yes. In reality, no.

It should also be noted that one of the ways fire is fought is with a fire break, where fuel is cleared away in the case of a forest so the fire can't spread.

The 350 feet between WTC 1 and WTC 7 was a very large fire break, and it seemed to have worked quite well with the Verizon and Post Office buildings. Why didn't it work for WTC 7? Could it be it actually did, but the fires in WTC 7 were deliberately set and blamed on the collapse of WTC 1? That would explain why the Verizon and Post Office buildings weren't set ablaze.

It seems that those here who don't want to believe there are serious questions about how the fires actually started in WTC 7 do not have good answers for those questions.

Fire break is, on a scale of 1 to 10 of "Tony Szamboti's stupidest analogies regarding 9/11," around a 7.5. No.

Are you still wasting your day off? Go do something else.