• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
000063 said:
Ah, yes. The bad guys collapsed a 110 story skyscraper, sending debris flying willy nilly, and then suddenly became very, very concerned about collateral damage in this one specific instance.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. The theory has to make sense ? Someone should tell the truthers...
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7.
Click to expand...

Why does it "seem" impossible ?

Do you know anything about the physics involved ?

Where is your evidence for a major lump of burning debris striking WTC 7?
Click to expand...

Unlike you, some of us actually looked into this thing.

Another interesting point (snip)
Click to expand...

It's only "interesting" because you're looking for things that are suspicious and sinister to fuel your evil government fantasies. Real-life government is evil enough as it is.

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.
Click to expand...

Argument from incredulity. You are simply stating that it's impossible, based on your incorrect and biased observations.

That report was weak when it was first published and was heavily criticized.
Click to expand...

Yeah, by truthers who demonstratably know nothing about physics, architecture or stuff in general.

I have looked at the big picture and tend to think it was settling thermite that caused the vehicle fires.
Click to expand...

Thermite ? Now I know you haven't researched this at all. You're just making it up as you go.
 
JayUtah said:
Still waiting for you to show us the statistical probability computation that supports this estimate.
Click to expand...

He licked a finger, stuck it in the air, and detected 100% certainty of the need to say something.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I have read the NIST reports
Click to expand...

No you haven't.

BasqueArch said:
NYPD and FDNY, under orders from Giuliani ignite vehicles around WTC site as a cover story for WTC3,4,5,6 catching on fire from the falling burning Twin Towers but Hess and Jennings stop for lox and bagels and arrive too late at Verizon and the Post Office to sprinkle thermite on them but in time to set alight WTC7 as a cover story for the collapse of the north tower onto it as a cover story for the demolition of the north tower as a cover story for the plane crashing into it as a cover story for the misdirection demolition of the south tower as a cover story for the plane crashing into it as a cover story for Larry Silverstein to collect enough insurance money to rebuild a much more expensive WTC7 with less rentable area years later but not enough to rebuild the WTC complex because he tried to pay the least amount of insurance but the lenders forced him to buy at least what the PANJ had and their existing bridge insurance had not been revised with the wrong wording on the policy so he got much less that what he should have to cover him in this plot; and as a cover story for NWO Clinton, Bush and Obama to steal rugs from Afghanistan and sand from Iraq.
Click to expand...

It's supposed to be funny, but this is exactly how CTers operate. They never let go of their claims, so they have to make up new claims to cover the holes in the previous claims. Unlike, say, science, which just adjusts to reality. WTC1 collapsed ? Explosives. Why ? Has to be some insurance fraud. How does it explain WTC7 ? Had to be demolished also. Why ? Probably had sensitive documents inside, and they didn't know how to burn paper. How does that account for the fires inside ? Arson. And the cars in the street ? Thermite from WTC1.

It's just endless nonsense.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Sure it can if you cut two wires with a current flowing through them and then lay a significantly resistive but conductive item across them without the wires being in contact. It will work like an electric stove element. Just cutting the wires won't do though. It needs to maintain contact with both, otherwise you have an open.

Are you proposing this is what happened on ten floors of WTC 7?
Click to expand...
Tony,
First of all, electrical shorts can cause fires. Remember TU Delft? http://www.archdaily.com/827/tu-delft-architecture-school-devastated-by-fire/
That was a short circuit in a coffee machine. Oh, and by the way, that building was a modular one, with something like eight sections to it, separated by stairwells etc. And it was steel-reinforced concrete, which is a more fire-resistant structure than Building 7. And one of the modules collapsed, mostly straight down, very fast.
I had long arguments with Chris Sarns about the fires on the various floors of Building 7. I don't remember all the details, but in essence he was arguing with me that fires don't move from floor to floor. I get the impression that you're telling me that each floor of Building 7 had to have a separate cause for its ignition. That fires can move horizontally through a building but not vertically?
I'm not saying an electrical short started the fires in Building 7. I just wouldn't mock the hypothesis. My initial impression is that burning or very hot debris from the collapse of the Tower hit the side of Building 7. The precise ignitor could have been hot or flaming debris... or maybe an electrical short. Or maybe sparks from metal on metal. The only hypothesis I can rule out is thermite, because there is no evidence for it. You are making a logical jump that is just plain wrong. First you try to prove it couldn't have been flaming or hot debris because the fire had migrated to the other side of the building. It can't be electrical shorts because fires never travel vertically, even over seven hours, and there would have had to be separate electrical firestarting mechanisms on ten separate floors. Therefore it MUST be thermite. Bad logic.
 
GlennB said:
He licked a finger, stuck it in the air, and detected 100% certainty of the need to say something.
Click to expand...

That's my suspicion, but I would like to know whether that estimate is an engineer's estimate that can be supported by pages of analysis showing the factors that were considered and the pre-existing statistical basis for each of the factors. Or instead whether this is a Truther's estimate based on nothing more than a wild guess wrapped loosely in an appeal to authority.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Chris, photos of the gash on the SW corner of WTC 7 is mostly viewed from the west and it is low in the building. I would say there is a possibility that thermite from the North Tower could explain the fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. However, there were also fires on floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 that the gash on the SW corner can't explain.
Click to expand...

Really ? Can you show your math for that ?

If you read my post you would realize I agree that thermite from the North Tower may have caused fires on the lower floors of WTC 7 and maybe even got in the windows up top as you theorize.
Click to expand...

Which is nonsense. There is no evidence of thermite whatsoever, and that's ignoring the fact that you can't use thermite to demolish a building.

there is logic in what I am saying
Click to expand...

Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean that it's logical.

Also, I doubt you or any other CTer aside from the mentally ill ones actually believe this story. It's fun make-believe designed to make your lives more interesting.

Sure Noah, sparks from metal impacting metal caused the fires in WTC 7 and on the vehicles. Cows must be able to jump over the moon too in Noahfence world.
Click to expand...

Translation: "I know nothing about how these things work, but it doesn't agree with what I want to believe."

You probably aren't surprised because you don't really know enough about the building collapses which occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

:id:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
A conductive path to ground can be the other side. You still need two conductive connections on opposite sides of the resistive conductive element. There can't be a dielectric, such as carpeting, paper, wood, or wallboard, in between.

Again, are you proposing your makeshift stove element effect is what happened to cause fires on ten floors in WTC 7?
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that you also know nothing about electricity ?

First, the likelihood of the circumstances needed for resistive conductive items being randomly connected to a hot wire and conductive path to ground on ten different floors is exceedingly low
Click to expand...

So an electrical fire or one caused by flaming debris and collapsing skyscrapers is unlikely but one set by silent explosives and secret government agents in order to cover an insurance fraud by a private owner is likely ?

Oh, and please show your math, again.

The logic shows the fires in WTC 7 were due to arson or thermite from the North Tower. There are no other options.
Click to expand...

"What I think" isn't "the logic" just because YOU can't think of anything else.
 
I wouldn't mock the electrical short hypothesis either, although I think there are more straightforward mechanisms to consider.

Several years ago we had an accident in our high-bay assembly facility. The elephant door jumped its track and tore loose a fire sprinkler, which flooded the floor of the bay with a foot of fire-suppression water. Although the duty facility officer quickly shut off the FS water at the standpipe and killed power to the affected portion of the building, there was still a lot of arcing from battery-powered backup units scattered throughout the area. These were the ordinary consumer-grade power backups that a lot of people put on critical computers at their homes and offices. Even with main power shut off, an office building is not immune to electrical mishaps.
 
Belz... said:
"What I think" isn't "the logic" just because YOU can't think of anything else.
Click to expand...

Allow me to emphasize this. The arson-by-thermite hypothesis is an affirmative claim for which no direct evidence is offered. It's held simply because it is alleged "no other explanation" accounts for various observations. In other words, it's a default that purportedly must hold after other claims are said to fail. However, the proponent of such an indirect argument has the burden to prove both (a) that he has identified all other possible causes, and (b) that they could not have occurred. Prove, not merely suggest. Tony's line of reasoning is a well-worn conspiracy theory technique for avoiding any sort of burden of proof.
 
Does anyone know of a detailed report of damages to the Verizon building? For example, I wonder if it had working sprinklers, if any went on, what the amount of damage was by the fall of WTC1...

I think the most important feature that sets the burning buildings (WTC7 as well as 5 and 6...) apart from those of its neighbors that didn't light up after the twins had fallen (Verizon, Post Office, WFC...) is that they sustained deep and large gashes by exterior wall steel tumbling and crashing.

(Did 130 Liberty St burn? It had a major gash, too, IIRC)
 
DGM said:
Wrong. You only need to cut one and connect to a ground. Need me to explain electrical systems 101?
Click to expand...

You should probably start explaining it to him with electrical systems 010.

An short in an old refrigerator caused our house to burn down in 1980. No thermite or arsonists.

When I was in the navy our ship had several electric fires, and we didn't even have a skyscraper fall on us. I used a six volt lantern battery and steel wool to light my cigarettes if my lighter died.

Hell, you don't even need to cut the wires. The hotter they get the more resistance they have, which makes them hotter, and so on. Look up 'eddy current' and 'hysteresis loss', amongst other things.
 
swright777 said:
You should probably start explaining it to him with electrical systems 010.

An short in an old refrigerator caused our house to burn down in 1980. No thermite or arsonists.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It's much more likely that you had sensitive information in your house and that you hired black ops mercenaries to burn it down.
 
Tony -
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the arson of WTC 7. In your educated opinion, was it a spur of the moment decision, taking advantage of the chaos of the day, or pre-planned by whoever was responsible for hijacking of the 4 planes?
 
NoahFence said:
Tony -
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the arson of WTC 7. In your educated opinion, was it a spur of the moment decision, taking advantage of the chaos of the day, or pre-planned by whoever was responsible for hijacking of the 4 planes?
Click to expand...

I think it was just arsonists walking by seeing the building empty and thinking why not. Luckily the thermite was already in the building painted on the beams.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom