'What about building 7'?

[twinstead]

Well that fire somehow brought down that building, because there certainly isn't any evidence for anything else.

 

[Miragememories]

"There is nothing extraordinary about this. So Red, when the flames go out does the surrounding temperature instantaneously go back to average room temp?"

Since when does 7 hours equate with instantly?

MM

 

[GlennB]

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?

This has been explained to you several times.

If you're willing to listen I'll try to explain again with an analogy. Create a small fire of dry wood in a bbq. Stick a pot of water on it while the wood is burning with visible flame. The water heats up somewhat. The flames stop. The embers glow. The water then boils even though the fire has cooled and is no longer flaming.

Not only visible flame causes things to get hot. It takes time for things to get hot, depending on the material. mass and shape.

Hope that helps.

 

[BigAl]

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.

The building stays hot long after the fire dies down.

In the absence of firefighting and water, the steel is heated by conduction and convection for long after the fire appears to have dissipated.

There are no eyewitness that say that anything but unfought fire caused WTC7 to 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.

 

[beachnut]

Since when does 7 hours equate with instantly?

MM

The fires were burning for weeks. Or was that months?

Thermite does not burn for months, or week, or hours. Darn.

Gage is not a good source, if you source Gage you have failed faster than free-fall.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

Do your homework.

The NIST theory is predicated on a single location of sustained heat.

MM

 

[BigAl]

Do your homework.

The NIST theory is predicated on a single location of sustained heat.

MM

Cite?

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

Nothing in the above statement even remotely suggests that the hot air and smoke venting on the south face of WTC7 would stop rising and make an abrupt turn into the building on the 12th floor.

No significant smoke was observed exiting the opposite side of WTC7 (north side).

No science at all in your thinking.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

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

Jeez, I thought you'd know this?

And limited fuel burn faster.

Go back to kindergarten.

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

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?

After the fire moved on from the particular area? Have you never heard of radiating heat, convection, etc... You can raise the temperature of something in many ways, of which direct flame is only one. Thank god, or I would never be able to cook that roast, boil an egg, or heat my house.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

Nothing in the above statement even remotely suggests that the hot air and smoke venting on the south face of WTC7 would stop rising and make an abrupt turn into the building on the 12th floor.

No significant smoke was observed exiting the opposite side of WTC7 (north side).

No science at all in your thinking.

MM

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.

 

[cooperman]

After the fire moved on from the particular area? Have you never heard of radiating heat, convection, etc... You can raise the temperature of something in many ways, of which direct flame is only one. Thank god, or I would never be able to cook that roast, boil an egg, or heat my house.

TAM

Can you answer the question of why the NIST fire analysis puts fire at the area of the initiating event on floor 12 at the time of collaps but photographs and NISTs previous statements contradict this?

 

[Miragememories]

This has been explained to you several times.

If you're willing to listen I'll try to explain again with an analogy. Create a small fire of dry wood in a bbq. Stick a pot of water on it while the wood is burning with visible flame. The water heats up somewhat. The flames stop. The embers glow. The water then boils even though the fire has cooled and is no longer flaming.

Not only visible flame causes things to get hot. It takes time for things to get hot, depending on the material. mass and shape.

Hope that helps.

Your point?

That water boils at a much lower temperature than steel weakens?

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

Can you answer the question of why the NIST fire analysis puts fire at the area of the initiating event on floor 12 at the time of collaps but photographs and NISTs previous statements contradict this?

Do you have a quote where NIST says that at the time of the initiation of the collapse, there were FIRES on the 12th floor?

TAM

 

[cooperman]

Do you have a quote where NIST says that at the time of the initiation of the collapse, there were FIRES on the 12th floor?

TAM

Oh. My. God.

I have just posted images from NISTs fire analysis that show they have fire around column 79 on the 12th floor within 20 miuntes of the initiating event.

 

[Miragememories]

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.

That one trick pony routine of yours is really pathetic Al.

MM

 

[RedIbis]

The building stays hot long after the fire dies down.

That's not what you said. You said that the steel temp increases after the fire moves on. Are you really sticking with that?

 

[Miragememories]

They have no shame cooperman.

It is another burial routine where they fill a few pages with garbage posts
in the hope that visitors will overlook the real discussion, short as it was.

MM

 

[DGM]

I wonder why these arguments haven't raised any eyebrows in the building and SE world?

 

[RedIbis]

After the fire moved on from the particular area? Have you never heard of radiating heat, convection, etc... You can raise the temperature of something in many ways, of which direct flame is only one. Thank god, or I would never be able to cook that roast, boil an egg, or heat my house.

TAM

Yes, after the fire moved on. Do you really think that steel increases in temp, because that's what some of your cohorts are suggesting.