'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cooperman said:
Which location?

The fires in the location of column 79 on the 12th floor were out long before the initiating event.
Click to expand...
A fire that burned all of its fuel in that location would likely have caused damage to the structure. If the fire moved elsewhere and weakened more of the alternate load paths, eventually the building can fall.

A building burns for ~6 hours and conspiracy theorists are surprised. I am not surprised.
 
RedIbis said:
The steel continued to heat up even after the fire moved on? Why does everything associated with the official story have to be so extraordinary to make it work?
Click to expand...

Yet you have nothing less "extraordinary" to submit as YOUR version of events?
 
I know you have all seen this image because Christopher7 has posted it numerous times. Would anyone like to address it?

wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg
 
Disbelief said:
There is nothing extraordinary about this. So Red, when the flames go out does the surrounding temperature instantaneously go back to average room temp?
Click to expand...

No.

When a fire moves on, does the steel temp continue to increase?
 
cooperman said:
I know you have all seen this image because Christopher7 has posted it numerous times. Would anyone like to address it?

[qimg]http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9051/wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The steel-framed building was on fire for hours and there was no water for firefighting.

Why do you doubt the opinions of the many eyewitness that do have relevant expertise and first-hand knowledge of how WTC7 collapsed? Nobody with relevant knowledge says 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.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
A. Was it rated for 3 hours....proof.
B. If it was, what exactly does this rating mean?
C. Where does this issue prove the wtc7 nist report wrong...i want you to list the exact area it contradicts.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Requires research and comprehension; it will not happen. Oops, they rolled out the Gage junk...
 
BigAl said:
The steel-framed building was on fire for hours and there was no water for firefighting.

Why do you doubt the opinions of the many eyewitness that do have relevant expertise and first-hand knowledge of how WTC7 collapsed? Nobody with relevant knowledge says 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.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.
Click to expand...

ENough of the hand waving. Why does NIST's fire analysis not match the photographs?
 
cooperman said:
ENough of the hand waving. Why does NIST's fire analysis not match the photographs?
Click to expand...

How many pictures and how much video of the ire WTC7 fire have you seen?

Steel-frame buildings of fire for hours with no water for firefighting are expected to collapse. Everyone at WTC on 9/11 anticipated it.

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.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard
Gage, AIA.
 
BigAl said:
How many pictures and how much video of the ire WTC7 fire have you seen?

Steel-frame buildings of fire for hours with no water for firefighting are expected to collapse. Everyone at WTC on 9/11 anticipated it.

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.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard
Gage, AIA.
Click to expand...

The fire analysis does not match the photographic evidence, or indeed NISTs previous statement that the fire on floor 12 was burnt out by 4:45pm. In fact the fire on the east side was burned out at 4pm. How exactly did the initiating event occur when the fire was long gone?
 
cooperman said:
The fire analysis does not match the photographic evidence, or indeed NISTs previous statement that the fire on floor 12 was burnt out by 4:45pm. In fact the fire on the east side was burned out at 4pm. How exactly did the initiating event occur when the fire was long gone?
Click to expand...

Heat soak.

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.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard
Gage, AIA.
 
BigAl said:
There was no water to cool down a very hot building. The steel continued to heat up and expand and weaken.
Click to expand...

For steel to continue to expand, enough ambient heat must be maintained to compensate for the heat lost as a result of the steel's thermal conduction.

In the absence of a sustained source of heat, the steel temperature will drop and it will contract.

If the area served by fire is not sealed, ambient temperatures will also be significantly effected by the constant replacement of air.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
For steel to continue to expand, enough ambient heat must be maintained to compensate for the heat lost as a result of the steel's thermal conduction.

In the absence of a sustained source of heat, the steel temperature will drop and it will contract.
Click to expand...

Not according to one of our resident firefighters. Apparently, the steel continues to heat up even after the fire has moved on.
 
cooperman said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...
Heat rises. Lower floors were on fire. The front of the building was punched open in places. This allowed heat to rise over several floors at the front. All the hot gases were exhausting to the south face of the building. Heat was being conducted upward through the steel columns themselves.

Simple fire science here.
 
Miragememories said:
For steel to continue to expand, enough ambient heat must be maintained to compensate for the heat lost as a result of the steel's thermal conduction.

In the absence of a sustained source of heat, the steel temperature will drop and it will contract.

If the area served by fire is not sealed, ambient temperatures will also be significantly effected by the constant replacement of air.

MM
Click to expand...

Air feeds the fire oxygen, which in turn makes the fire burn hotter.

Jeez, I thought you'd know this?:eye-poppi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom