'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

Just a friendly reminder, its 2010.

Still no new investigation.

Not sure how this thread is gonna help achieve one.

That is all.

Well duh! Obviously an endless discussion of the topic on internet forums will force a new, accountable investigation, and its also good for picking up chicks.

 

[beachnut]

Because the NIST fire simulations are patently wrong and contradict their own statements and photographic evidence. How exactly does the girder between columns 79 and 44 fail when the fire has burned out there over an hour before? If you were a skeptic you would be asking these questions.

Now prove it. Now is where a degree and experience in structural engineering would come in handy.

When you prove NIST wrong, you are stuck with fire as you pointed out but lied when you posted (in error, because it debunks your delusions of CD and debunks 911 truth) One Meridian Plaza fire report.

Perhaps it could have looked like the One Meridian Plaza fire

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

This was a 38 storey building that burned for 18 hours over several floors. There was no pressure to fight the fire and it only burned out when it reached the 30th floor and the sprinklers there put it out. It was described as the fire of the century and 3 fireman died trying to tackle it. Eventually they abandoned firefighting efforts and let it burn.

It didn't collapse. After EIGHTEEN hours of uncontrolled fire.

The bold part is a lie, they fought the fire for 18 hours and kept the building from collapsing, and the sprinkler worked on the 30th floor as you said; No water or sprinklers in WTC 7 worked.

They fought the fire all the time. When they got out in case of collapse they put water on from other positions.

After evacuating the building, portable master streams directed at
the fire building from several exposures, including the Girard Building #l
and One Centre Plaza, across the street to the west were the only
firefighting efforts left in place.

The report you posted debunks building can't collapse due to fire, the report debunks thermal expansion can't happen to cause failures, and more. Did you read it? Like you read NIST?

 

[T.A.M.]

Better yet, show me,

1. That the girder between Column 79 and 44 on floor 12 was critical (in terms of it needed to fail due to fire as opposed to failing due to the floor coming down on it from 13)
2. Show me what should have happened, if that girder did not have sufficient heat applied to it at the time of event initiation.

Thanks

TAM

Edit: I am off to bed...I will read further tomorrow.

 

[cooperman]

1. Explain the relevance of that particular girder in the collapse initiation.
2. If that girder WAS critical to the collapse initiation, does the existing evidence indicate that that girder was not sufficiently hot at the time required for it to be so to cause expansion and contraction resulting in shearing forces that caused the girder to fail?

TAM

1. Try reading the report.

2. IF?????? IF?????? You have just proved you have not read the report. Please read it. Until then you are wasting my time and yours.

Heres a hint; That girder wasn't the thing that was expanding.

 

[cooperman]

Better yet, show me,

1. That the girder between Column 79 and 44 on floor 12 was critical (in terms of it needed to fail due to fire as opposed to failing due to the floor coming down on it from 13)
2. Show me what should have happened, if that girder did not have sufficient heat applied to it at the time of event initiation.

Thanks

TAM

Edit: I am off to bed...I will read further tomorrow.

Again, try reading the report.

1. That girder did not directly fail due to fire, it wasn't the thing that was expanding. Floor 13 failed after the failure of the girder.

2. The heat on that girder doesn;t matter. Read the report.

You picked a wise time to go to bed.

 

[jaydeehess]

1. Explain the relevance of that particular girder in the collapse initiation.

ooh ooh allow me.
That girder had beams butting up against it only on one side and thus if those beams were heated they would expand and push the girder.

2. If that girder WAS critical to the collapse initiation, does the existing evidence indicate that that girder was not sufficiently hot at the time required for it to be so to cause expansion and contraction resulting in shearing forces that caused the girder to fail?

TAM

Short answer, no. Any lateral force on that girder could move it since it was unconstrained along one side. Thus the idea that the girder could have been pulled rather than pushed during the cooling/contraction stage rather than the heating/expansion stage. This would occur because as the beams heat and expand they sag and deform and but having deformed they do not re-straighten during cooling and will then pull on the girder they are attached to as they contract along their length.


OR a small explosive was placed at the girder's truss seat and 7 hours after the collapses of WTC 1&2 this was set off, the girder fell taking out the floor in turn taking out several more floors resulting in col79 being unbraced over several floors allowing col 79 to buckle due to long slender column forces, resulting in a vertical progression of floor collapses at col 79 all the way to the rooftop resulting in a massive amount of debris impacting adjacent lower level core structural members, compromising the south end of the cantilever truss supports, resulting in 47 storeys of mass on the Con-ed columns which were never designed to take that load and thus failing in quick succession.


All that needed to be done was place one explosive at that column truss seat and allow the fire to rage past it ,,,,,,,,,,, anyone know of high explosives that can survive such temperatures without either being set off or degrading?

 

[beachnut]

1. Try reading the report.

2. IF?????? IF?????? You have just proved you have not read the report. Please read it. Until then you are wasting my time and yours.

Heres a hint; That girder wasn't the thing that was expanding.

Like you read the One Meridian report, and fail to read the thread? The fire department saved the building from collapse. You missed why. This too is called firefighting, which you think they stopped doing at 11 hours. oops

[The fire was stopped when it reached the 30th floor, which was
protected by automatic sprinklers. As the fire ignited in different points
this floor level through the floor assembly and by autoexposure through the
windows, 10 sprinkler heads activated and the fires were extinguished at
each point of penetration. The vertical spread of the fire was stopped
solely by the action of the automatic sprinkler system, which was being
supplied by Fire Department pumpers. The 30th floor was not heavily
damaged by fire, and most contents were salvageable. The fire was
declared under control at 3:Ol p.m., February 24, 1991.

You debunked 911 truth on fire, fire fighting, collapse, thermal expansion; posting this report. http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

You said;

they abandoned firefighting efforts and let it burn.

You told a lie due to lack of reading your own post sources.

They never abandoned firefighting efforts, and the firefighters took action to save the building from collapse.

One Meridian Plaza was dismantled because it was destroyed by fire. Like WTC 7, 5, 6, 1, and 2. Fire does this. Delusions don't do much but mislead people who are gullible.

Better publish your proof of what you got. Why have you failed to publish your findings? Your findings?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Look at the post I was responding to. It seemed to be claiming that collapse was inevitable in a large uncontrolled fire burning for many hours. I was simply demonstrating this wasn't the case.

BS. Here's the quote you were responding to...

I love that so many debunked canards are still around.

Ordinary office fires. There's no such thing as all fires are pretty extraordinary. I mean can you melt a cast iron wood stove using just "ordinary" wood?

You bet. I've done it. Lots of things that are considered "ordinary" burn quite spectacularly. And when there's no water to fight the fire.....well what do you think should have happened?

In fact I think that's a good to-the-point question for Cooperman and friends. What do you think should have happened if it was just an "ordinary office fire" without water to fight it if not cause an eventual collapse? What should it have looked like?

Note the italicized (original emphasis, even) phrase "without water".

So was it failure of your eyes or your brain when you decided that an office fire that was fought with water for most of its existence would be a reasonable example of what an unfought office fire should look like?

Do you ever look at the context of my posts [...]?

Of course. As such, I don't believe it's out of line for me to request that you read and understand all the words put in front of your face before responding. Your track record to date is rather abysmal.

 

[jaydeehess]

You picked a wise time to go to bed.

Given that it is well past 1 am where TAM is, yes.

Its approaching midnight here so I too will bid you a bon nuit.

 

[cooperman]

BS. Here's the quote you were responding to...




Note the italicized (original emphasis, even) phrase "without water".

So was it failure of your eyes or your brain when you decided that an office fire that was fought with water for most of its existence would be a reasonable example of what an unfought office fire should look like?

I have bolded the lie.

For the last 7 hours the meridian plaza fire wasn't fought at all. For the first 11 hours they tried to fight it unsuccessfully as they had problems with the water pressure. The report states that the fire was uncontrolled for the entire period.


It is a perfect comparison for the wtc7 fire.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I have bolded the lie.

For the last 7 hours the meridian plaza fire wasn't fought at all. For the first 11 hours they tried to fight it unsuccessfully as they had problems with the water pressure.

Your deficiencies run much deeper than anyone could have expected. It seems we actually have to begin with defining for you simple words such as "most":

most

pron.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb) The greatest part or number: Most of the town was destroyed. Most of the books were missing.

Ignoring for the moment your blatant lie about the last 7 hours of the fire, the last time I checked, 11 was greater than 7. My statement is truthful.

The report states that the fire was uncontrolled for the entire period.

Regardless of their failure to control the fire in those 11 hours, it was fought, which is much more than WTC7 had in any of its 7 hours of burning.

And about the last 7 hours, which has been repeatedly pointed out to you:

After the evacuation (at 7:30 AM), the only fire suppression efforts left were water streams being directed to the building from the neighboring Girard Trust Building and One Centre Square.

This hardly qualifies as "wasn't fought at all". What seems to be your difficulty in absorbing this information?

It is a perfect comparison for the wtc7 fire.

It is not.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I have bolded the lie.

For the last 7 hours the meridian plaza fire wasn't fought at all. For the first 11 hours they tried to fight it unsuccessfully as they had problems with the water pressure. The report states that the fire was uncontrolled for the entire period.


It is a perfect comparison for the wtc7 fire.

Liar.



As the fire was going into its sixth hour it had spread up to the 26th floor. With inadequate water pressure coming from the standpipes, firefighters stretched hoses up the building's stairwells to help fight the fire.

While hoses were being taken up to the fire a sprinkler technician arrived to fix the water pressure. This improved the hose streams, but the fire had engulfed several floors and could not be contained with just hoses.

By 7:00 AM, almost eleven hours into the fire, firefighters were able to get control of the fire on the 22nd through 24th floors, but the fire was still out of control on the 25th and 26th floors and was spreading upwards. Structural damage observed inside the building by firefighters and consultations with a structural engineer led to fears that the damaged floors might collapse.

At 7:00 AM an order to evacuate the building was issued by Fire Commissioner Roger Ulshafer and the building was completely evacuated by 7:30 AM. After the evacuation, the only fire suppression efforts left were water streams being directed to the building from the neighboring Girard Trust Building and One Centre Square.

The fire's spread only stopped when it reached the 30th floor which was the first fire affected floor to have automatic sprinklers. Ten sprinklers extinguished the fire on the 30th floor and prevented continued spread. Contained by the automatic sprinklers and running out of fuel, the fire was declared under control at 3:01 PM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza#Fire.27s_end

 

[beachnut]

911 truth lies and and NIST looks better.

Where does Gage put his thermite to make this happen and how did the fuses avoid being destroyed by fire? Who said there were no fires on 12?

Where do we find in a real journal the Gage lies about floor 12 based on nothing but delusions?

Does 911 know the fire model is temperature, not flames? Hard to see fire in the daytime. Had 911 happened at night, the fires would have been the biggest ever seen, but the sun washed out the flames.

The more 911 truth brings up NIST, the more it sticks out they have done zero work, only lies. Gage lies, and people use it as their evidence.

 

[beachnut]

I have bolded the lie.

For the last 7 hours the meridian plaza fire wasn't fought at all. For the first 11 hours they tried to fight it unsuccessfully as they had problems with the water pressure. The report states that the fire was uncontrolled for the entire period.


It is a perfect comparison for the wtc7 fire.

Is that the best quote mining you can do?

The report does not say the fire was uncontrolled, they said this.

After more than 11 hours of
uncontrolled fire growth and spread,
interior firefighting efforts were
abandoned due to the risk of structural
collapse.

What is your point? They only said uncontrolled, once, for uncontrolled fire growth.

I have bolded the lie.

For the last 7 hours the meridian plaza fire wasn't fought at all ...

Big lie, like Gage who does not care, he just spews them to make money. What is your excuse? Did you read and comprehend the paper you posted? http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

BTW, this called fighting fire.

After evacuating the building, portable master streams directed at
the fire building from several exposures, including the Girard Building #l
and One Centre Plaza, across the street to the west were the only
firefighting efforts left in place.

Page 17, from the report you posted! It says, they fought the fire the whole time! Are you telling lies, or making up nonsense?

I have bolded the lie.

For the last 7 hours the meridian plaza fire wasn't fought at all. ...

Further more as pointed out but you missed it...
The fire department saved the building.

The vertical spread of the fire was stopped
solely by the action of the automatic sprinkler system, which was being
supplied by Fire Department pumpers.

This is called fighting the fire too, ask a fireman, they are good at this stuff. What was your point? BTW, someone reminded me they fought the fire the whole time, I would only mention they left the building interior for fear of collapse; someone recently reminded me there was much more to the story, and I have had the report for years.

I...
It is a perfect comparison for the wtc7 fire.

NOT TRUE! Why do you lie? Gage has the same problem.

The report you posted exposes your lies; read the report before you make a mistake and make up lies.

 

[Travis]

So I am not surprised. I ask what he thinks a large office fire would look like if there were no water and he says it should look like an office fire that was fought with water sources outside the building....that by the way so wrecked the building anyways it had to be torn down.

There were no pumping trucks at WTC7. There was no effort to fight that fire at all.

Also, I'm intrigued, if these buildings are pretty much impossible to be destroyed by fire then why are firefighters so scared about being in them when they are on fire? Indeed why even bother with firefighters if all they have to do is let the fire burn itself out since the building is impervious to fire induced collapse?

 

[leftysergeant]

For the last 7 hours the meridian plaza fire wasn't fought at all.

Stop that. You are lecturing us about fire fighting and historic fires when there probably is, between all the people who have visited this post today, more hours of fire fighting experience than you and a couple of your family members will ever in a couple generations have time to acquire. Don't try to present mushroom food a chocolate mousse where we are watching.

Did you even bother to read the wiki article about the fire you are citing? I did and it does not even appear, from your comments, that we are interpretting the same fire scene. This may be because you have no training in any aspect of fire investigations or suppression.

The referrence clearly states that they set up "portable master streams" outside the buiolding. Let me explain something about "portable master streams." These are also referred to as "deluge guns." That is a more descriptive than technical term for them. These are those bloody huge nozzles the size of a small artillery piece that shoot streams of water high enough to reach the roof of a good-sized office building. It has to be firmly weighted down or attached to a very heavy vehicle to keep it in place. No man can hold one against the pressure at which it operates. This is not just walking away and letting the sucker burn. In one hour, they probably pumped enough water onto the building to sink an Arleigh Burke class vessel. We are still talking about some bloody serious hose streams.

For the first 11 hours they tried to fight it unsuccessfully as they had problems with the water pressure. The report states that the fire was uncontrolled for the entire period.

The water pressure problems were only internal, and still less a hinderance than was to loss of water pressure at WTC7. As for the fire being "uncontrolled," it was a great deal better-controlled than were those in WTC 7, and delivered probably far less heat to the steel because none of the fire protection had been removed from the steel, and were not burning across as many floors nor venting through so many chimneys as were those fire in WTC 7.

It is a perfect comparison for the wtc7 fire.

Only in the sense that it destroyed the structural integrity of the building.

No, don't tell me that I am interpretting the history wrong. I used to do that sort of thing for a living.

 

[leftysergeant]

Indeed why even bother with firefighters if all they have to do is let the fire burn itself out since the building is impervious to fire induced collapse?

Er...mostly, I guess, because if we don't at least try to put it out it will act less like Meridian Plaza and more like the Windsor Tower and send hot steel cascading down around its perimeter and maybe set something else on fire.

Except for that honking great concrete core, the Windsor Tower, from a fire fighting standpoint, more resembled WTC 7 than did Meridian Plaza.

 

[Travis]

Er...mostly, I guess, because if we don't at least try to put it out it will act less like Meridian Plaza and more like the Windsor Tower and send hot steel cascading down around its perimeter and maybe set something else on fire.

Except for that honking great concrete core, the Windsor Tower, from a fire fighting standpoint, more resembled WTC 7 than did Meridian Plaza.

But we're talking about skyscrapers that are somehow magically impervious to fire.

 

[T.A.M.]

1. Try reading the report.

2. IF?????? IF?????? You have just proved you have not read the report. Please read it. Until then you are wasting my time and yours.

Heres a hint; That girder wasn't the thing that was expanding.

I have read the report. It does not specify, that ican see that that particular girder was critical. By critical, i mean that that one girder was what caused the inner collapse of the floors 13 to 5.

I am only wasting your time if you choose to reply.

TAM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And here we go again with a Controlled Demolition proponent that does not know how to do a building precedent study...