'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Their activity has always been nothing more than a desperate attempt to keep a match lit in a strong wind, hoping beyond hope to get that fire lit. They got as close as they were going to get back in 2006, but now they're just frustrated...
Click to expand...

I've always said that the "Truth Movement" is not about truth, it's about ego. It's the thrill of "knowing" you are among the chosen few who have it "all figured out".

Not at all intending a cheap slight, but I would assume it would make an interesting psychological study.
 
BigAl said:
Why do you care?

WTC7 collapsed due to hours of unfought fire.
Click to expand...

Problem is, there was no fire around column 79 on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event. That is a major setback for NIST's theory.
 
cooperman said:
There is another video where a rescue worker police officer says "The building is about to blow up". Is he lying or just getting it wrong?

Why does NIST not mention that 7 was leaning?
Click to expand...

FTFY.

Video sometimes cannot show a slight lean. However, eyeballs, especially on a trained firefighters, can.
 
cooperman said:
There is another video where a rescue worker says "The building is about to blow up". Is he lying or just getting it wrong?

Why does NIST not mention that 7 was leaning?
Click to expand...

Can I see the video, to place his comments in context. In the video I showed you, the guy makes quite clear he sees it leaning...For all I know, the person in the video you speak of could be telling people to get out of the area because the "building is gonna blow..." or "blow up".

There is a difference...once again, arguing semantics.

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
Problem is, there was no fire around column 79 on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event. That is a major setback for NIST's theory.
Click to expand...

So, you contend that once a fire moves to another part of a structure, that all the heat and damage that has already been done, is magically healed?
 
cooperman said:
Problem is, there was no fire around column 79 on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event. That is a major setback for NIST's theory.
Click to expand...

Oh really? A Major Setback that you or your cronies have found, yet NIST does not acknowledge it? Or if they do acknowledge it, their answer is not satisfactory.

I'm confused. Is this something that NIST has overlooked, or something they do state, but have an explanation for that does not meet your approval?

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
Problem is, there was no fire around column 79 on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event. That is a major setback for NIST's theory.
Click to expand...

Um.. Cooper. What does NIST say was the collapse mechanism for WTC7? From your last post it appears you do not know the answer to this question.

You may want to refer to my original answer to the question posed in this thread. I pointed this out to you before which you conveniently ignored.
 
cooperman said:
Problem is, there was no fire around column 79 on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event. That is a major setback for NIST's theory.
Click to expand...


"WTC7 collapsed due to hours of fire and lack of water for firefighting."​

Where did I say anything about this column 79 you speak of.


Let the record show that cooperman was first to bring up column 79. Methinks he brings some baggage with him.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:

"WTC7 collapsed due to hours of fire and lack of water for firefighting."​

Where did I say anything about this column 79 you speak of.
Click to expand...

You didn't but it would probably help if you read the NIST report. Column 79 is quite important.
 
honesty

Horatius said:
Hang around here long enough, you'll get used to it.
Click to expand...

Hi, I doubt I can maintain my civility long enough. I require a certain level of honesty in my discourse. I do not as a rule tolerate being deliberately lied to. I don't like pick pockets or sneak thieves either.
I understand the illogical nature of faith so I do not debate matters of faith. We are looking at historical facts. If someone interprets them differently but is sincere I will look at it from their point of view to access my understanding. If someone closes their eyes and puts their fingers in their ears and starts chanting I pack up and go drink beer. It is really not important to me what anyone insists as long as their views will not get me or another soldier or person injured.
I do not understand the motive but I don't understand quite abit I see today. I know lots of sayings about debating things with people who do not require reason or facts to maintain a point of view.
 
cooperman said:
You didn't but it would probably help if you read the NIST report. Column 79 is quite important.
Click to expand...


'Hours of fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapsed."​

That is an accurate description of why WTC7 collapsed.

It doesn't matter if the point of failure is column 79 or 78 or 80 or something else altogether for the sake of this discussion.
 
I believe, the article above that I linked to, is one of the main reasons why the 2006 call of "No steel building has every collapsed due to fires alone." was changed to,

"No Steel Framed SKYSCRAPER has ever COMPLETELY COLLAPSED due to fires alone."

And this study had severe limitations, as expressed by the author, as follows,

Another important finding of this study was the lack of readily available, and well-documented, information on partial or total structural collapse due to fire. Unless the fire event was significant for other reasons, e.g., loss of life, very little information was available.
Click to expand...

TAM:)
 
cantonear1968 said:
So is the collapse mechanism. Do you know what it is?
Click to expand...

Yes I do

Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder connecting Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor.

The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor … This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support in the east-west direction. The column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation
Click to expand...

NCSTAR 1-A, p 19-20

You really should read the report.

The report also says

Failure of a floor beam in fire is a rare event, and, indeed, there have been many building fires that have not resulted in even local failures of the floor system. The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire
Click to expand...

Note that NIST do call them ordinary building content fires and admit that such a failure is rare.

The people predicting 7's collapse should probably take Randi's million dollar clairvoyance exam.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
Oh really? A Major Setback that you or your cronies have found, yet NIST does not acknowledge it? Or if they do acknowledge it, their answer is not satisfactory.

I'm confused. Is this something that NIST has overlooked, or something they do state, but have an explanation for that does not meet your approval?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

They simply don't mention it. Christopher7 has covered this in detail here before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom