'What about building 7'?

[Tony Szamboti]

Cars like to burn but building contents don't.................


You're not confused.

No, he is confused and probably intentionally.

It doesn't take much thought to realize the gypsum dust falling in the collapse onto natural fires would have been very dense and would have smothered natural fires by taking the oxygen away.

As the dust drifted away from the collapse itself it thinned out tremendously and would not have had the density to smother fires in the cars. Additionally, it had probably already settled when the cars ignited, because it was the dust that likely had still burning thermite in it and ignited plastic parts on the cars to start the vehicle fires.

Do you have a better answer for the vehicle fires?

 

[JayUtah]

It doesn't take much thought to realize the gypsum dust falling in the collapse onto natural fires would have been very dense and would have smothered natural fires by taking the oxygen away.

Begging the question.

Do you have a better answer for the vehicle fires?

Do you have any direct evidence of arson?

 

[LSSBB]

It doesn't take much thought to realize the gypsum dust falling in the collapse onto natural fires would have been very dense and would have smothered natural fires by taking the oxygen away.

You're right, it doesn't take much thought to realize that. With more thought, you realize there is no way for gypsum dust to completely cover all burning material in an oxygen-proof blanket. And with even more thought, you would realize that continuing to insist gypsum dust would do so simply to avoid admitting error is folly and embarrassing for you to pursue.

 

[ProBonoShill]

No, he is confused and probably intentionally.

It doesn't take much thought to realize the gypsum dust falling in the collapse onto natural fires would have been very dense and would have smothered natural fires by taking the oxygen away.

As the dust drifted away from the collapse itself it thinned out tremendously and would not have had the density to smother fires in the cars. Additionally, it had probably already settled when the cars ignited, because it was the dust that likely had still burning thermite in it and ignited plastic parts on the cars to start the vehicle fires.

Do you have a better answer for the vehicle fires?

LOL

I really hope someone has hacked your account because this is beyond laughable.

 

[trustbutverify]

No, he is confused and probably intentionally.

It doesn't take much thought to realize the gypsum dust falling in the collapse onto natural fires would have been very dense and would have smothered natural fires by taking the oxygen away.

As the dust drifted away from the collapse itself it thinned out tremendously and would not have had the density to smother fires in the cars. Additionally, it had probably already settled when the cars ignited, because it was the dust that likely had still burning thermite in it and ignited plastic parts on the cars to start the vehicle fires.

Do you have a better answer for the vehicle fires?

This isn't meant to be taken seriously, right?

 

[DGM]

Do you have a better answer for the vehicle fires?

Yes, cars burn when exposed to fire.

Maybe you should start a campaign to use gypsum dust as a fire fighting tool. I'm sure with the enormous influence you have, you can have its adoption in no time......

 

[DGM]

, because it was the dust that likely had still burning thermite in it and ignited plastic parts on the cars to start the vehicle fires.

So you have images of this burning thermite? There are thousand of pictures of ground zero at the time of the collapse and I can't find a single one that show this burning thermite. If you're talking the size proposed in the Harrit paper, they wouldn't burn long enough to reach the ground. What piles of thermite are you talking about? Please share.

 

[DGM]

Tony:

Just today:

http://www.whdh.com/story/28570798/fiery-somerville-crash-sends-four-to-the-hospital

State Police said the crash occurred around 8 a.m. Friday when a 56-year-old Somerville woman driving a Hyundai Sonata had a medical incident and crashed into a Honda Civic, which a 26-year-old Medford woman was driving.

The civic caught fire and the driver of that vehicle was transported to Mass. General with serious injuries.

How could this be?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The TM is Dead, Long Live the TM
13 years after its birth, the world trade center master conspiracy is in decline. Hyper-nitpicks of irrelevant details, inelegant errors of logic, and creative mining - think truth movement - is less about searching for truth and more about asserting. Conspiracists explain how this paradigm reflects the inevitable course of logical discourse. And they explain why this ever-degrading breed of fallacious arguments is forsaking the sanity of reality for more insane pastures.

Who’s to Blame: The Truth Movement

As much as we love the wealth of educational knowledge in engineering and forensics, the truth movement has - for 13 years - been abandoning these scientific pastures for ever degrading quality in claims of conspiracy that just assert....

The individual checks the flow of the thread on the screen - that's one effort. During the break, they browse through the latest updates; no fires, thermite dropping on cars, the girder didn't walk off - three more claims. As the discussion eliminates those claims, two more pop up. More claims at the end of the day.

By the end of it all it repeats...

 

[chrismohr]

Tony you talked about the fire in Building 7 being limited to, I think ten or twelve floors based on the NIST Report. Some were down on the lower floors and some up higher. You said that there would have to be twelve separate electrical shorts on each of those twelve floors, a highly unlikely scenario. I asked you if you thought fires in Building 7 spread only horizontally and never spread vertically. Any answer?
Also, any claims that Building 7's fires weren't so big or limited to just the ten floors NIST talked about in their draft report (and BTW those numbers were increased in the final report) are disproven by the few videos and photos of the sides of Building 7 that sustained the most damage. I've collected those on my YouTube video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJUDQVqbMto&list=PLDD5BD81A636031A5
You can see smoke just pumping out of most of the floors except near the top. How can anyone claim that the fires were limited in size?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Chris, I will not speak for TZ on this one, but I will say that my experience in these discussions usually deals with one of two rationalities:

1) The fires are claimed to be "small" due to the lack of visible flames from the exterior of the building
2) The smoke was not emanating from WTC 7, but instead from WTC 5 and WTC 6.

Maybe he has a different reason, I don't know. But from the angles I've been exposed to, you can pretty well guess the problems that arise from the two variations above.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony you talked about the fire in Building 7 being limited to, I think ten or twelve floors based on the NIST Report. Some were down on the lower floors and some up higher. You said that there would have to be twelve separate electrical shorts on each of those twelve floors, a highly unlikely scenario. I asked you if you thought fires in Building 7 spread only horizontally and never spread vertically. Any answer?

Also, any claims that Building 7's fires weren't so big or limited to just the ten floors NIST talked about in their draft report (and BTW those numbers were increased in the final report) are disproven by the few videos and photos of the sides of Building 7 that sustained the most damage. I've collected those on my YouTube video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJUDQVqbMto&list=PLDD5BD81A636031A5
You can see smoke just pumping out of most of the floors except near the top. How can anyone claim that the fires were limited in size?

From my reading of the final NIST WTC 7 report it says ten floors were on fire. It says there were fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30. I don't know where you get that they changed it between the draft and final report. If you have a different number you should show them your evidence.

However, I would think the argument you are trying to make is that there was a vertical spread. I don't see evidence for that and there were certainly floors between fire floors that weren't on fire, even where most of the fire was (between floors 7 and 13), as floor 10 had no fire. I think that pretty much answers your question that there does not appear to have been a vertical spread.

 

[GlennB]

Are you saying you actually think the north side of the North Tower where poor Edna Cintron was standing in the hole was still that hot when the building collapsed? If so, it doesn't sound like you have thought this through very thoroughly.

There are visible flames on the same floor as her (as well as above left and above right) in the Cintron photos. There is smoke issuing from the NE corner right up to the moment of collapse. So, yes, there were clearly areas on the N side capable of setting fires in WTC7.

It looks to me like you're plucking errors out of thin air with virtually every post.

 

[Oystein]

Why would arsonists bother with floors 19, 22, 29, and 30?

How would the arsonists protect the CD charges on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13? You said earlier, when I brought up the problem that heat from fires would either destroy or set off prematurely those charges, that I should not assume they cannot be protected - but they can only be protected if not in contact with the steel they are supposed to destroy. How do explosives or thermite destroy steel they are not in contact with?

 

[Spanx]

Unbelievable comments Tony.

Instead of asking for a new investigation why not do some investigation work yourself.

Most people would ask the fire fighters about the fires in the wtc complex after the collapses, yet you just make stuff up and expect people to follow you.

 

[Spanx]

Duplicate

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why would arsonists bother with floors 19, 22, 29, and 30?

You would really need to ask them, but I believe it would be to give an impression that the entire building was affected and that it wasn't limited to just a few floors which some might take as more likely to be arson.

How would the arsonists protect the CD charges on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13? You said earlier, when I brought up the problem that heat from fires would either destroy or set off prematurely those charges, that I should not assume they cannot be protected - but they can only be protected if not in contact with the steel they are supposed to destroy. How do explosives or thermite destroy steel they are not in contact with?

I think I answered you on this already, but once more won't hurt. The charges could have been set on floors which were not set on fire, like 14 to 18 and 20 and 21. I also believe it would be possible to thermally protect the charges from the outside and the small temperature rise in the columns that they would be placed against would not affect them.

 

[Spanx]

You would really need to ask them, but I believe it would be to give an impression that the entire building was affected and that it wasn't limited to just a few floors which some might take as more likely to be arson.



I think I answered you on this already, but once more won't hurt. The charges could have been set on floors which were not set on fire, like 14 to 18 and 20 and 21. I also believe it would be possible to thermally protect the charges from the outside and the small temperature rise in the columns that they would be placed against would not affect them.

Or maybe there were no arsonists and no charges. Have you thought of that one yet?

Just like claiming Larry Silverstein admitted wtc7 was a CD, a complete load of BS

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Or maybe there were no arsonists and no charges. Have you thought of that one yet?

Just like claiming Larry Silverstein admitted wtc7 was a CD, a complete load of BS

Or maybe you just like to believe what you are told no matter what the actual evidence indicates otherwise and then bloviate that it just can't be when confronted with it.

 

[Spanx]

Or maybe you just like to believe what you are told no matter what the actual evidence indicates otherwise and then bloviate that it just can't be when confronted with it.

No Tony, I don't believe a word you say, you don't provide evidence, you just make stuff and don't do research. Your supporters may fall for it but in the real world you amount to nothing.