'What about building 7'?

[The Big Dog]

Another interesting point to add, which shows the more likely reason for the fires in WTC 7 was arson, and that the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires is unlikely, is that there were no fires in either the Post Office or Verizon buildings. They were on either side of WTC 7, and like WTC 7 were about 350 feet away from the WTC site, and also had some small amount of debris damage, but no fires.

The Michael Hess video shows dozens of fires burning in and around WTC 7.

Weren't you saying the gypsum put them out?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

WTC7 was hit by at least one major lump of burning debris from WTC1. Those other two buildings were not.

But you're missing the point. Absent the unpredictable strike(s) of burning debris on WTC7 there would have been no reason to expect raging fires in the building. What then?

Where is your evidence for a major lump of burning debris striking WTC 7? Additionally, one major lump of burning debris hardly provides a basis to say fires on ten floors were started by the collapse of the North Tower.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The Michael Hess video shows dozens of fires burning in and around WTC 7.

Weren't you saying the gypsum put them out?

Gypsum dust would have put the fires out in the North Tower when it collapsed and anything burning from it would have never reached WTC 7 at 350 feet away. That is also why neither the Post Office or Verizon building had any fires. The fires on ten floors in WTC 7 had to be started by arson.

 

[DGM]

Where is your evidence for a major lump of burning debris striking WTC 7? Additionally, one major lump of burning debris hardly provides a basis to say fires on ten floors were started by the collapse of the North Tower.

Is it your claim that wtc7 did not receive any damage from the North Tower collapse? Can impact damage to buildings not cause fires in your expert opinion?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Gypsum dust would have put the fires out in the North Tower when it collapsed and anything burning from it would have never reached WTC 7 at 350 feet away. That is also why neither the Post Office or Verizon building had any fires. The fires on ten floors in WTC 7 had to be started by arson.

Dust would not put out fires, DA only insulates the coals.

 

[The Big Dog]

Gypsum dust would have put the fires out in the North Tower when it collapsed and anything burning from it would have never reached WTC 7 at 350 feet away. That is also why neither the Post Office or Verizon building had any fires. The fires on ten floors in WTC 7 had to be started by arson.

Wow, that is amazing. I just said that I was watching a video that has dozens of fires that you claim would have been put out by gypsum. And you ignore that and bring up something completely different.

That is some fine truthering.

 

[DGM]

That is some fine truthering.

Best they got..........

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Where is your evidence for a major lump of burning debris striking WTC 7?

Speaking of major lumps of burning debris, can you tell Gerry he has some posts to respond to:

"The top of the columns at floor 16 were fixed in the global x- and y- directions, to prevent lateral displacements..."

Note, only the top and bottoms were fixed in the x- and y- directions, the rest of the columns could move in all directions.

Where does it say top AND bottom?
They were free in the z axis.

Just before the bit that I quoted.

...Here, let me read out p484 NCSTAR 1-9 for ya:

"Displacement Boundary Conditions

The column nodes at the base of the 16 story model were fully fixed to model the rigidity of the grillage and foundation (Chapter 2). The top of the columns at Floor 16 were fixed in the global x- and ydirections, to prevent lateral displacements, and were free in the global z-direction, to allow vertical displacement of the columns in response to gravity loads and thermal expansion. The purpose of the ANSYS model was to simulate the accumulation of local damages and failures up to the initiation of overall global collapse due to fire. The building was not expected to displace significantly in the x- and y-directions outside of the floors with no fire and there was no interaction between adjacent columns for relatively small motions in the z-direction, due to limited load re-distribution mechanisms."​

No other Displacement Boundary Conditions are mentioned, and since they explicitly state those for the bottom and the top of the 16-story assembly, I am sure you will agree with what I implied initially: the 16-story FEA model DOES reflect the deformations and displacements in all directions that reality necessarily must have seen - on all floors except the very top and the very bottom. It would help your credibility to admit that the model does indeed reflect movement of all nodes on all the relevant floors (5-13 at least) in all spatial directions. If you go on denying or ignoring this FACT, this would serve to further undermine your credibility.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Is it your claim that wtc7 did not receive any damage from the North Tower collapse? Can impact damage to buildings not cause fires in your expert opinion?

That claim of his is nothing new. The first time he brought it up, the theories got more and more bizarre and ridiculous. And started from the same hair splitting detail nitpicking thats been going through the rounds again.

 

[DGM]

That claim of his is nothing new. The first time he brought it up, the theories got more and more bizarre and ridiculous. And started from the same hair splitting detail nitpicking thats been going through the rounds again.

It really is an odd claim. It's kind of insulting that he would bring it here and expected no one to call him on it. It's almost like he's got'n used to being above reproach.

 

[beachnut]

Gypsum dust would have put the fires out in the North Tower when it collapsed and anything burning from it would have never reached WTC 7 at 350 feet away. That is also why neither the Post Office or Verizon building had any fires. The fires on ten floors in WTC 7 had to be started by arson.

Wow; more BS. Had to be.

The building was severely damaged in the September 11 attacks when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed directly across the street. Scaffolding which had been erected on the facade for renovation work did nothing to stop the fiery debris from raining into the building and tearing a gash deep down its northern face.[4] Two office workers were killed when they were trapped in an elevator. The firestorm raged out of control for several days; the building, which had housed businesses including Hanover Capital, Frost & Sullivan, and IKON Office Solutions, was completely gutted. It is believed that 90 West's heavy building materials and extensive use of terra cotta inside and out helped serve as fireproofing and protected it from further damage and collapse, as opposed to the more modern skyscraper at 7 World Trade Center, which suffered similar damage and collapsed later that day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_West_Street

oops, was this arson too?

 

[JSanderO]

Gypsum dust would have put the fires out in the North Tower when it collapsed and anything burning from it would have never reached WTC 7 at 350 feet away. That is also why neither the Post Office or Verizon building had any fires. The fires on ten floors in WTC 7 had to be started by arson.

Why couldn't the fires be started from electrical shorts, or overloads?

Have you see a Con Ed sub station explode and cause massive fires? It happened from FLOODING during Sandy on 14th Street.

Con Ed reported loss of something like 13 (don't recall the precise number) of 13.8kv feeders. Sounds to me that this could result in electrical fires, transformer explosions and so forth... As you may know the over load protection for the high voltage lines is very slow and equipment can overheat and explode.

There were reported explosions in 7wtc at the moment of the plane hitting and severing high tension risers in 1wtc... coincidence? Didn't 7 lose power shortly thereafter? Why?

 

[LSSBB]

Why couldn't the fires be started from electrical shorts, or overloads?

Have you see a Con Ed sub station explode and cause massive fires? It happened from FLOODING during Sandy on 14th Street.

Con Ed reported loss of something like 13 (don't recall the precise number) of 13.8kv feeders. Sounds to me that this could result in electrical fires, transformer explosions and so forth... As you may know the over load protection for the high voltage lines is very slow and equipment can overheat and explode.

There were reported explosions in 7wtc at the moment of the plane hitting and severing high tension risers in 1wtc... coincidence? Didn't 7 lose power shortly thereafter? Why?

Actually that's a great point also.

The downtown Grand Forks fire is another illustrative disaster:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Red_River_Flood_in_the_United_States#Downtown_Grand_Forks_fire

Charlie fires can create Alpha ones.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It really is an odd claim. It's kind of insulting that he would bring it here and expected no one to call him on it. It's almost like he's got'n used to being above reproach.

I called him on it before in the "Total Building collapse From Single Column Failure" thread last year. AFAIK that's when he started pushing it. Either way, he's still pushing it a year later, and has no intention of changing his mind to fit the evidence. Alongside his literal application of Bazant's limiting models, it's basically a fatally flawed prima fascia argument.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The simple reality is that the fires in WTC 7 could not possibly have been started by the North Tower collapse and the symmetric free fall collapse of the building could not possibly have been a result of the fires in it. Both are fairy tales used in the NIST WTC 7 report. That report was weak when it was first published and was heavily criticized. It has since lost all credibility due to its need to omit pertinent structural features to even get to a hypothesis that had some superficial plausibility. Unfortunately, for those who would promote the myth that fires brought this building down, the report fell completely apart when scrutinized after the drawings were released, and the omitted features were discovered.

The only real answers are arson to start the fires and controlled demolition to cause the symmetric free fall collapse by removing eight stories of core columns low in the building.

No poster on this forum who still wants to believe that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the North Tower collapse and that WTC 7 collapsed due to those fires has called anyone on anything in that regard and they have never provided any proof or evidence to back their beliefs.

 

[Redwood]

Gypsum dust would have put the fires out in the North Tower when it collapsed and anything burning from it would have never reached WTC 7 at 350 feet away. That is also why neither the Post Office or Verizon building had any fires. The fires on ten floors in WTC 7 had to be started by arson.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic, Tony. Were these vehicles set afire by stealth ninjas? Isn't it about time you took a step back, looked at the big picture, and called it quits?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic, Tony. Were these vehicles set afire by stealth ninjas? Isn't it about time you took a step back, looked at the big picture, and called it quits?

I have looked at the big picture and tend to think it was settling thermite that caused the vehicle fires. The vehicles had a significant amount of plastic on their exterior which would have readily ignited and spread. The buildings weren't nearly as vulnerable as their exteriors don't contain flammable material.

What do you think caused those vehicle fires Redwood? And if you think it is the same thing that caused the fires in WTC 7 please explain what you think the mechanism would have been and why it wouldn't have affected the Post Office and Verizon buildings.

It is sad that you so easily use the word pathetic in a discussion with others.

 

[beachnut]

I have looked at the big picture and tend to think it was settling thermite that caused the vehicle fires. The vehicles had a significant amount of plastic on their exterior which would have readily ignited and spread. The buildings weren't nearly as vulnerable as their exteriors don't contain flammable material.

It is sad that you so easily use the word pathetic in a discussion with others.

It is pathetic to keep pushing the lie of themite; not a single piece of steel was damaged by thermite. What a silly lie.

Thermite, was a fantasy made up out of BS by Jones. The paper published in a vanity journal proves it was not thermite. Why did Jones lie?

Where is Jones? Your fantasy of CD, the silly inside job BS, if true, would be the biggest story since Watergate. But it is nonsense, fantasy based junk mocking the murder of thousands on 911 by 19 terrorists who you ignore.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic, Tony. Were these vehicles set afire by stealth ninjas? Isn't it about time you took a step back, looked at the big picture, and called it quits?

Wow, he said it was thermite, flying through the air, which was not seen burning in the air, or ground on 911. Zero thermite found, zero damage by thermite.

Now 911 truth will take thermite, drop it from 700 feet, and start a car on fire.

 

[NoahFence]

Where is your evidence for a major lump of burning debris striking WTC 7? Additionally, one major lump of burning debris hardly provides a basis to say fires on ten floors were started by the collapse of the North Tower.

There's a massive gash in the building, the side of the building facing WTC 1.

Honest question:

Do you think you're fooling anybody?

 

[NoahFence]

I have looked at the big picture and tend to think it was settling thermite that caused the vehicle fires. The vehicles had a significant amount of plastic on their exterior which would have readily ignited and spread. The buildings weren't nearly as vulnerable as their exteriors don't contain flammable material.

It is sad that you so easily use the word pathetic in a discussion with others.

LOL


The best and brightest AE 9/11 mind.

OH MY GOD.

Pathetic.