'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cooperman said:
They simply don't mention it. Christopher7 has covered this in detail here before.
Click to expand...

Ok so if NIST does not mention there was no fire on floor 12 near column 79 at the time of event initiation, then how does Christopher7 or anyone else who does not have access to the investigation evidence prove that there wasn't?

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
Yes I do



NCSTAR 1-A, p 19-20

You really should read the report.

The report also says



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.
Click to expand...

Wonderful! Now please tell me specifically what you find scientifically erroneous with their conclusions.
 
cooperman said:
Yes I do



NCSTAR 1-A, p 19-20

You really should read the report.

The report also says



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.
Click to expand...

Yes, so going back to an earlier point, your very quote there, proves that they were talking about BUILDING CONTENTS when describing the fires as ordinary office fires.

CLEARLY the lack of firefighting and lack of sprinkler system working, for SEVEN HOURS, makes these office fires FAR from ORDINARY.

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
Yes I do



NCSTAR 1-A, p 19-20

You really should read the report.

The report also says



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.
Click to expand...

Or more likely passed the FDNY test for promotion to lieutenant. Behavior of steel structures in fire is part of the exam. On 9/11 everyone with relevant expertise knew that WTC7 was doomed.

Your point?

Do you have an alternative theory as to why WTC7 collapsed or are you just JAQing off?
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
Yes, so going back to an earlier point, your very quote there, proves that they were talking about BUILDING CONTENTS when describing the fires as ordinary office fires.

CLEARLY the lack of firefighting and lack of sprinkler system working, for SEVEN HOURS, makes these office fires FAR from ORDINARY.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

You think the fires burned for 7 hours in one location? Once the ordinary building content is burned up the fire moves on. It will only spemd 20 minutes in any one location.

The fires were ordinary office fires.

The fire on floor 12 was burned out well before it is meant to have caused the initiating event anyway.
 
ok

Hi, OK when do we get to hear "What really happened" Why do these topics require so long to get to the point? I don't really care what made WTC7 fall down. I care about WHO was behind it and WHY did they do it.
I know it fell down. I don't need a proof of that. If people think it was more then having another building bounce off it and set it alite followed by burning for hours I don't see where that matters IN THE END!
I understand the engineers and architects interest. I'm neither. If it was not Islamic insurgents then who was it?
 
cooperman said:
You think the fires burned for 7 hours in one location? Once the ordinary building content is burned up the fire moves on. It will only spemd 20 minutes in any one location.

The fires were ordinary office fires.
Click to expand...
so what?
The fire on floor 12 was burned out well before it is meant to have caused the initiating event anyway.
Click to expand...

Two words for you: "heat soak". A structure doesn't cool off when part of a fire dies down. Fireproofing is useless in a fire in the absence of water for firefighting. There was no water for WTC7.

Nothing about the collapse of WTC7 surprises anyone with relevant expertise and is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.
 
cooperman said:
You think the fires burned for 7 hours in one location? Once the ordinary building content is burned up the fire moves on. It will only spemd 20 minutes in any one location.

The fires were ordinary office fires.

The fire on floor 12 was burned out well before it is meant to have caused the initiating event anyway.
Click to expand...

No. 20 minutes refers to the seat of a fire. Not the fire itself, and certainly not the heat. Flames will radiate from a seat of a fire for many feet. It's called a rollover. When a rollover gets to a superheated state, it becomes a flashover. That is commonly called a backdraft, but it is actually not. Backdraft is something completly different.

The FUL that was FEEDING the fires were ordinary building contents. The fire, as a whole, was not ordinary at all.

Please go back, and read the entire report on 7WTC. It can be found at http://wtc.nist.gov

Thanks.
 
cooperman said:
Why must I have an alternate theory in order to question the NIST theory?
Click to expand...

You don't. However, what relevant experience do you have to question people who are very much qualified to determine the cause of the collapse? Or, are you just arguing out of personal beliefs?

I know this will be hard to understand, being a truther and all, but why don't you write your objections down, show your math, and have it published in a respectable journal? You would be a god among the truthers, since, to this day, that has not occured.
 
what is so hard to understand about the fact that building 7 fell because of structural damage and fires caused by the collapsing Twin Towers? How and why can Truthers be so blind to the obvious?
 
cooperman said:
The OP is very deceptive in claiming that damage caused by the towers collapse contributed to 7's collapse. It didn't. wtc7 was, according to NIST, destroyed by ordinary office fires. I know it is hard to adjust after years of claiming the collapse was caused by diesel fuel and a 10 storey gash, but that is the official story.

If you want to combat toofers saying "what about building 7?" then to mention damage from the wtc collapse is lying.
Click to expand...

WTC1's collapse damaged the mains water supply starving WTC7 sprinkler system on its lower floors. Not to mention hampering the ability of fire fighters to use their equipment. So the collapse of WTC 1/2 very much did have a contributing factor to the buildings demise, over and above the multiple fires the falling debris started.
 
triforcharity said:
You don't. However, what relevant experience do you have to question people who are very much qualified to determine the cause of the collapse? Or, are you just arguing out of personal beliefs?

I know this will be hard to understand, being a truther and all, but why don't you write your objections down, show your math, and have it published in a respectable journal? You would be a god among the truthers, since, to this day, that has not occured.
Click to expand...

Frank Greening has already sent his concerns about the wtc7 report to NIST and they were ignored.

I have no expertise in building collapses but neither do most of the people here. One advantage I do have over you all is that I have actually read the report.
 
cooperman said:
Frank Greening has already sent his concerns about the wtc7 report to NIST and they were ignored.

I have no expertise in building collapses but neither do most of the people here. One advantage I do have over you all is that I have actually read the report.
Click to expand...

I have read the report, and most likely understand it much better than most truthers do, yourself included. I use it almost daily during my lectures. Do you understand what "heat soak" is? How about thermal expansion? Fuel loading?

Dr. Greening had questions about the DRAFT report. Since the final report came out, does he still hold those same questions?

I am not asking you to submit your questions to the NIST. I am asking you to put all your objections down on paper, list any assumptions, show your math and reasoning, and submit it to any of the dozens of respectable journals that discuss this type event. What are you afraid of?
 
Last edited:
cooperman said:
Frank Greening has already sent his concerns about the wtc7 report to NIST and they were ignored.

I have no expertise in building collapses but neither do most of the people here.
Click to expand...
Firemen do.
One advantage I do have over you all is that I have actually read the report.
Click to expand...

Why do you doubt the opinions of the many eyewitness that do have relevant expertise and first-hand knowledge of how WTC7 collapsed? These people say it was fire. There are no eyewitnesses that say that anything but unfought fire was the reason for the collapse.

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.
 
Last edited:
cooperman said:
You think the fires burned for 7 hours in one location? Once the ordinary building content is burned up the fire moves on. It will only spemd 20 minutes in any one location.
Click to expand...
Wrong, fires will burn in one location as long as there is fuel available to burn. Fires don't check wall clocks to see when the next coffee break is.

The fires were ordinary office fires.
Click to expand...
You call 47,000 sq/ft fully involved in fire ordinary? What fire department do you run with?

The fire on floor 12 was burned out well before it is meant to have caused the initiating event anyway.
Click to expand...

And the damage done by the unchecked fire instantly cooled and healed its self?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom