Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[DGM]

Unless you can show how a short would occur, your proposition of cut wires has a very low likelihood of being the cause for the fires on ten separate floors of WTC 7




Fires jumping floors is probably a 1 in 10,000 chance due to a quirk in some type of feed through which usually wasn't thought about. So you are clearly reaching here.

I'm just quoting this. I actually hope someone got your password and is posting on your account.

Honestly, I can't think of a way to reply to this.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You have presented no affirmative evidence. Do you understand that, even if you disprove the "debris did it" hypothesis, the default position does not magically become "arsonists did it"?

If the claim that the fires were started naturally by the collapse of WTC 1 is shown to be virtually impossible, then it is logical to say it appears to have only been possible by intentional arson.

 

[NoahFence]

First. Are you denying that electrical fires happen due to damaged wires?

Second. Are you denying fires can spread once started?

Are you feeling OK? I'm beginning to worry about you.

You know, I am too. This is way off the deep end.

 

[thedopefishlives]

If the claim that the fires were started naturally by the collapse of WTC 1 is shown to be virtually impossible, then it is logical to say it appears to have only been possible by arson.

Umm, no. That is a false dichotomy. You have to PROVE that it was arson, not merely assume it because of a lack of evidence for a single alternative hypothesis. If you disprove "debris did it", you still have not proven "arsonists did it". Provide your affirmative evidence for your hypothesis now, please.

 

[NoahFence]

If the claim that the fires were started naturally by the collapse of WTC 1 is shown to be virtually impossible, then it is logical to say it appears to have only been possible by intentional arson.

But it hasn't been shown to be virtually impossible. As a matter of FACT, it's the only plausible explanation.

Arson is insanity, given the circumstances of the day.

 

[BrianH]

Unless you can show how a short would occur, your proposition of cut wires has a very low likelihood of being the cause for the fires on ten separate floors of WTC 7

Insurance industry investigators claim that half of fires following structural damage from earthquakes occur via electrical ignition sources. https://www.disastersafety.org/disastersafety/fire-following-earthquake_ibhs/

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

So now a pocket of flaming debris in the dust from WTC 1 singled out and penetrated the exterior of WTC 7 and started fires on ten floors, but it didn't do it to the Verizon or Post Office buildings.

You do realise that the cause of the destruction of 7WTC was a random event and not a universal model?

This is as bad as the notion that sparks from steel impacting steel started the fires on ten floors that we have been treated to here.

I think what some of you here seem to be suffering from has been termed "an irreducible delusion".

While others just cling to moronic claims of arson and demolition.

It seems pretty clear, once scrutinized, that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by arson and blamed on the collapse of WTC 1.

Only clear to those with poor reasoning skills.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

What I would venture to say is that fires jumping floors is probably a 1 in 10,000 or less chance

Goatse is not a valid source of information. Your "I would venture" has equal value to Tarot cards in this discussion.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Do you think they thought one of the WTC towers would open up a gash making all the efforts made to compartmentalize fire moot.

You're losing it.

I'm guessing the whole "CD" option kinda flew out the window.... I have to say the change in conclusion to an equally crazy "arson" belief hit me from left field. Forget about fatal beginning assumptions, these ideas are suddenly being practically imagined into fruition... there is just no debating moving goalposts like that, period....

 

[LSSBB]

Unless you can show how a short would occur, your proposition of cut wires has a very low likelihood of being the cause for the fires on ten separate floors of WTC 7




I have never really heard that this happens but I won't say it absolutely can't happen. What I would venture to say is that fires jumping floors is probably a 1 in 10,000 or less chance due to a quirk with some type of feed through mechanism which usually wasn't thought about. So you are clearly reaching here and chances of it occurring in several instances are remote.



This is not relevant.

Fires jump floors due to HVAC ducting, among other means.

 

[beachnut]

If the claim that the fires were started naturally by the collapse of WTC 1 is shown to be virtually impossible, then it is logical to say it appears to have only been possible by intentional arson.

There goes your CD claim. Do you alway debunk yourself?

Are you saying lateral ejections could not cause a fire in WTC 7? Or a gravity collapse can['t have a lateral ejection, ejections which we saw hit WTC 7? I love your photo which proves tower junk rained on WTC 7. You do, you do debunk yourself and don't know it.


This is funny. 911 truth always tries to back in some new stupid stuff, like arson now. If you get everyone to agree on arson, you think you can back in CD without evidence, after backing in arson without evidence. Fake logic because you have no evidence for CD.

How is the thermite in the dust going? The dust from the WTC should have been on fire? What is your CD theory, silent explosives, or evidence free thermite?

 

[Justin39640]

Maybe it isn't convincing to you, but you aren't giving counter arguments so your simple comment does not show the argument has no merit. Scientifically it can be shown that it is extremely improbable for the fires on ten floors in WTC 7 to have been ignited due to the collapse of WTC 1.

We live on the same planet where embers from a poorly extinguished campfire can lead to burning down thousands of acres of forest, right?

 

[Justin39640]

Unless you can show how a short would occur,

That's actually pretty easy when you're talking about damage from steel framing in a steel building. To people who actually work with electricity and see the damage that can and does happen, you look VERY silly.

Let's not forget the countless devices that hold a charge even when a unit is powered down. Unless you're updating your "pristine building theory" to an "unoccupied and empty pristine building theory".

 

[JSanderO]

Unless you can show how a short would occur, your proposition of cut wires has a very low likelihood of being the cause for the fires on ten separate floors of WTC 7


.

A massive METAL jet engine slicing through a few 13.8 KV risers inside of grounded metal conduit... in a steel frame structure

and you think this would only be a clean sever and open circuit and not a short?

Are you serious?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A massive METAL jet engine slicing through a few 13.8 KV risers inside of grounded metal conduit... in a steel frame structure

and you think this would only be a clean sever and open circuit and not a short?

Are you serious?

There was no chance of a jet engine hitting WTC 7 and there were fires started on ten floors in WTC 7. Do you have any plausible natural scenarios for that?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Umm, no. That is a false dichotomy. You have to PROVE that it was arson, not merely assume it because of a lack of evidence for a single alternative hypothesis. If you disprove "debris did it", you still have not proven "arsonists did it". Provide your affirmative evidence for your hypothesis now, please.

Okay, I'll keep my point to

"It is scientifically improbable that debris from WTC 1 could have been the cause for the fires started on ten floors of WTC 7".

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There goes your CD claim. Do you alway debunk yourself?

Are you saying lateral ejections could not cause a fire in WTC 7? Or a gravity collapse can['t have a lateral ejection, ejections which we saw hit WTC 7? I love your photo which proves tower junk rained on WTC 7. You do, you do debunk yourself and don't know it.


This is funny. 911 truth always tries to back in some new stupid stuff, like arson now. If you get everyone to agree on arson, you think you can back in CD without evidence, after backing in arson without evidence. Fake logic because you have no evidence for CD.

How is the thermite in the dust going? The dust from the WTC should have been on fire? What is your CD theory, silent explosives, or evidence free thermite?

I am saying that

- the fire areas in WTC 1 only comprised a small percentage of the building, which limits the chances

- the fires in WTC 1 would have been smothered by heavy gypsum and concrete particles and dust very quickly once the collapse started

- hot items would have been brought into intimate contact with cooler items very quickly during the collapse and given up much of their heat

- WTC 7 was 350 feet away and the lateral force required to propel something large from WTC 1 to WTC 7 was high and unlikely given the collapse forces were vertical

- in order to cause fires in WTC 7 due to the collapse of WTC 1 its exterior would need to be breached by something that was both heavy and hot

- there were fires started on ten floors of WTC 7 yet there were no fires started in the Verizon or Post Office buildings which were right next to WTC 7 and about the same distance from WTC 1

- there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM, which was 1 hour and 47 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1 and there were helicopters flying around during that time taking video

These logical points show the reality that the probability of heavy and hot items being propelled from WTC 1 to ignite fires on ten floors of WTC 7 is exceedingly low, and that this scenario is very unlikely to be the cause of the fires in WTC 7.

 

[tsig]

There was no chance of a jet engine hitting WTC 7 and there were fires started on ten floors in WTC 7. Do you have any plausible natural scenarios for that?

Well there was this huge burning building in the vicinity that collapsed, I think that had something to do with it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nor does your incredibility. On the one hand we have the huge burning building collapsing on the other we have invisible ninja arsonists, now which hand has the chocolate?

The huge burning building (WTC 1) only had fires on about 2 to 3 % of its floor area. These fires would have been extinguished when it started to collapse. WTC 1 was 350 feet away from the building (WTC 7) that later wound up having fires on ten of its floors. These fires on ten floors weren't noticed until 1 hour and 47 minutes after WTC 1 collapsed. Neither of the buildings next to WTC 7, which were approximately the same distance from WTC 1, had fires in them.

Does any of that mean anything to you in the context of why WTC 1 was an unlikely source for the fires on ten floors in WTC 7?

 

[Animal]

The huge burning building (WTC 1) only had fires on about 2 to 3 % of its floor area.

A meaningless statistic.....but typical troofer tactic.

These fires would have been extinguished when it started to collapse.

And has been pointed out countless times.....fire need HEAT, oxygen and a fuel source......Flames are are not necessary to initiate a fire.
WTC had plenty of oxygen and a fuel source. The falling debris....even if the flames had been extinguished, could provide a heat source, as well as arcing severed electrical circuits etc.

WTC 1 was 350 feet away from the building (WTC 7)

And the towers were over 1000 ft. - not to mention the photos and videos showing that in FACT, the falling debris hit the towers.

that later wound up having fires on ten of its floors.

A fact no one seems surprised about except troofers.

These fires on ten floors weren't noticed until 1 hour and 47 minutes after WTC 1 collapsed.

Another FACT that surprises no one except troofers.

Does any of that mean anything to you in the context of why WTC 1 was an unlikely source for the fires on ten floors in WTC 7?

It is by far a much more likely source than your mythical arsonists setting fires on random fires.