Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Tony Szamboti]

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



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.




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



A fact no one seems surprised about except troofers.


Another FACT that surprises no one except troofers.



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

The amount of fire in WTC 1 is very relevant, as well as the number of floors ignited in WTC 7. They both have an effect on the statistical probability.

The height of the twin towers does not change the requirement for a large lateral force to propel a large heavy item capable of penetrating WTC 7's exterior.

The probability of enough large heavy and hot items being propelled 350 feet from WTC 1 during it's vertical collapse to ignite fires in WTC 7 on ten non-contiguous floors is extremely low, and you have no valid argument saying otherwise.

 

[Animal]

The amount of fire in WTC 1 is very relevant, as well as the number of floors ignited in WTC 7. They both have an effect on the statistical probability.

The height of the twin towers does not change the requirement for a large lateral force to propel a large heavy item capable of penetrating WTC 7's exterior.

The probability of enough large heavy and hot items being propelled 350 feet from WTC 1 during it's vertical collapse to ignite fires in WTC 7 on ten non-contiguous floors is extremely low, and you have no valid argument saying otherwise.

Your "probability" means squat since there is multiple sources proving the FACT that debris from the tower struck WTC 7.

The rest of your gish gallop is an argument from incredulity and does nothing except expose your religious fervor.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It looks to me like neither you or anyone else here has a plausible counter argument to the point that

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

I'm just going to keep my point to:
this has nothing to to do with whether building 7 collapsed due to single column failure or otherwise.

This is the third debate derail you've made since being asked to back up the "CD" claim and instead of answering to that curiosity in relation to the thread you concocted an arson scenario out of thin air. Is there some disease associated with elaborating on the CD claim?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Have we had any affirmative evidence presented for Tony's affirmative claim?

No?

I will take that as a concession that you have none, since this is at least the 5th time I have asked for you to present it. Your claim is rejected for lack of affirmative evidence. Strikingly similar to your lack of affirmative evidence about your claim of the walk-off being impossible...

 

[NoahFence]

It looks to me like neither you or anyone else here has a plausible counter argument to the point that

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

and what you are actually saying is that you are going to take your ball and go home because the scenario suggested by the above is not something you want others to see or hear about.

Counter arguments have been given numerous times. That you willfully ignore them doesn't make it so they don't exist, despite your pleas to the contrary.

 

[pgimeno]

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".

With "scientifically" defined as...

The chances of sparks igniting fires without a volatile fuel mixture present are slim to none because I say so.

The fact is that it can be shown that the chances of large hot debris being launched from a few fire affected floors, in a building which was collapsing vertically, with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip to WTC 7, penetrate it, and start fires, are virtually nill for one instance let alone ten floors, which was never a claim anyone made but I need to refute a straw man in order to be right.

That is hard to imagine occurring in a vertically driven collapse.

3. This hot 10 ton section would not be able to start fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 28, and 30 because I say so.

Unless you can show how a short would occur simply cutting electrical wires will not produce a fire.

Additionally, you have the problem of explaining how this could happen on ten separate floors. What are the chances of that?
It is also curious as to why this did not happen in the Verizon and Post Office buildings.

(the underlined cursive parts are my own additions)

Therefore, "scientifically" is defined by Tony as "I don't believe it and I pass the burden of proof" and "I have debunked a straw man". That's what "scientifically" stands for in the above.


Now let's check with reality:

I am saying that

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

When something topples, as was the case, the higher it is the farther it reaches. Upper floors had a greater chance of reaching farther. Bad logic.

- 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

The plausibility of the existence of pockets of flaming material refutes these two unproven claims. Point that you keep ignoring for your "scientifically improbable" claims.

- 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

Toppling works horizontally and was responsible for the far reaching of the walls. The towers were more than 350 feet tall, so when the walls toppled they could easily reach WTC7. And they did. Point that you keep ignoring for your "scientifically improbable" claims.

- 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

Wrong. It would need to be breached by something that was heavy, then penetrated by something that was hot. Bad logic.

- 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

They were not breached because the walls did not topple in their direction. You debunk yourself because as you said above, the buildings "would need to be breached by something that was both heavy and hot". Due to their alignment, or lack thereof, with WTC1, the buildings were not breached by something heavy. Therefore, that alone explains the absence of fires. That argument is a non-starter.

- 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

Please show ANY videos filmed between 10:28am and 12:15pm that show the lower floors of WTC7 without fire or smoke. Unless you do, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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.

These logical points turn out to be quite illogical, as proven above.

 

[jaydeehess]

The chances of sparks igniting fires without a volatile fuel mixture present are slim to none.

Like paper, carpeting, that type of material?

The fact is that it can be shown that the chances of large hot debris being launched from a few fire affected floors, in a building which was collapsing vertically, with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip to WTC 7, penetrate it, and start fires, are virtually nill for one instance let alone ten floors.

Have you Shown this yet?

I think it is embarrassing for the CTs trying to generate fairy tale, that the fires in WTC 7 were ignited by clandestine Spooks running about WTC 7 starting fires

 

[NoahFence]

So if arson was the culprit, why bother with 4 hijackings and 4 crashes, two of which are hundreds of miles away?

Tony - that question is for you. I know you have no desire to answer it but I figured I'd try.

Also - yet another outstanding question:


WHEN was the fire started in WTC7? Before or after the collapses? I'm trying to determine in your fantasy, if it was predetermined or if the arsonist(s) just saw a window of opportunity and took advantage of it.

Thanks!

 

[Justin39640]

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?

Ninja arsonists makes more sense?

How can you even deny it got hit? Don't you remember the whole "charge the standpipe system from a FDC" conversation. It's generally accepted, on both sides, that debris from the second collapse damaged the sprinkler system. Jennings and Hess couldn't get down the stairwell because it was blocked by debris. A 2000 degree piece of steel will have plenty of HEAT to start fires after a 350 foot, couple of seconds journey.

I tend to agree that burning debris didn't start those fires but damage to systems and equipment in 7WTC from the second collapse did. I won't rule out hot debris may have helped some. Also seismic damage may have started some of the fires. You know, there's never a problem with fires after an earthquake.

 

[Justin39640]

The height of the twin towers does not change the requirement for a large lateral force to propel a large heavy item capable of penetrating WTC 7's exterior..

You're obviously ignoring collisions and things put under spring pressure. Nice engineering bro...

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

As pointed out before, those other two structures simply were not as directly in the path of the debris. Thus less likelihood of breakage and fires.

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.

Why, who said that?
Its one possibility of the cause of fire. No one suggested that it was THE cause of all fires.

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

On the contrary. People here are using KNOWN mechanisms to arrive at possible causes.

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

Which has absolutely no evidence at all to support it other than your personal incredulity and assumption of nefarious intent by the spooky them[/].

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

When someone claims

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

I generally expect some kind of science or probability to follow, not unscientific "probably" assertions unbacked by any external evidence or supplementary justification or supporting sources.

 

[DGM]

I generally expect some kind of science or probability to follow, not unscientific "probably" assertions unbacked by any external evidence or supplementary justification or supporting sources.

He uses his real name.

 

[thedopefishlives]

When someone claims

I generally expect some kind of science or probability to follow, not unscientific "probably" assertions unbacked by any external evidence or supplementary justification or supporting sources.

My favorite part is that a picture has been linked twice in this thread, doing exactly what Tony explicitly says it cannot do (cross from WTC1 to WTC7 and not directly impact the buildings on either side). Hard to argue it's improbable when we have an image of it happening.

 

[pgimeno]

My favorite part is that a picture has been linked twice in this thread, doing exactly what Tony explicitly says it cannot do (cross from WTC1 to WTC7 and not directly impact the buildings on either side). Hard to argue it's improbable when we have an image of it happening.

It was staged. Or doctored. Or both.

 

[LSSBB]

My favorite part is that a picture has been linked twice in this thread, doing exactly what Tony explicitly says it cannot do (cross from WTC1 to WTC7 and not directly impact the buildings on either side). Hard to argue it's improbable when we have an image of it happening.

That was exactly my point. Why start a derail to avoid substantiating an argument about a missing inch and stiffeners, and then avoid answering questions during the derail?

 

[gerrycan]

That was exactly my point. Why start a derail to avoid substantiating an argument about a missing inch and stiffeners, and then avoid answering questions during the derail?

And still you just don't get it.

 

[NoahFence]

And still you just don't get it.

I think you should elaborate.

For the lolz.

 

[gerrycan]

I think you should elaborate.

For the lolz.

I think you should acknowledge that the omissions of the beam stubs and the stiffener plates occurred.
The one inch difference in the underseat plate has already been admitted by NIST as has the omission of the stiffener plates in their analysis. We can move onto the relevance of them once you have done that.
The important thing to realise here is the 0.75 inch anomaly that was created as a result of NISTs erratum statement.

 

[tsig]

I think you should acknowledge that the omissions of the beam stubs and the stiffener plates occurred.
The one inch difference in the underseat plate has already been admitted by NIST as has the omission of the stiffener plates in their analysis. We can move onto the relevance of them once you have done that.
The important thing to realise here is the 0.75 inch anomaly that was created as a result of NISTs erratum statement.

I'm sure it was a 0.74944210987 inch anomaly.