'What about building 7'?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Notice how the Truthers point out Celcius as being a low number, say around 400 to 500* Celcius? They never ever say Fahrenheit in any of their arguements, because they think that Celcius is some lower number than Fahrenheit. When in reality Celcius is converted into Fahrenheit automatically & the temperature is higher than the number of Celcius.

Let's say 400* Celcius, for example, it's converted into 752* Fahrenheit.

So Truthers will replace Fahrenheit with Celcius, without ever knowing that it's converted into Fahrenheit.

Damn idiots!

 

[Sabretooth]

Can ANY truther answer this question?

What medium or item can cut structural steel, in multiple places, with precision, that not only is very quiet, but also does not produce a blinding flash of light, is fire-proof, and can be applied without being detected either before, during, or after it's use?

As long as this question goes even partially unanswered, the CD theory is dead.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think part of it is NIST has worded it in such a way that the layperson, without the assumptions that professionals would make, would find misleading, or at minimum confusing.

In a nutshell, after reading this section of the report, I get the following cole's notes version...

1. Heat on numerous floors, led to expansion of the steel in many locations, especially on floors 8-14.
2. This expansion (and contraction) lead to a combination of weakening and sheering forces, that caused BREAKAGE of the connections etc...
3. These breakages led to the internal collapsing of numerous floors, but in particular a stretch of floors from the 13th down until the 5th floor.
4. The loss of these floors left column 79 unsupported for a span of 8-9 floors, which led to the buckling of column 79, which was the initiating event of the total collapse.

Anyone arguing the above, and if so, please clarify where I have got it wrong.

TAM

in case it gets lost in the shuffle, for the sake of my need to know, is the above assessment essentially a brief version of what NIST considers the initiation of the collapse? What have I gotten wrong?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Can ANY truther answer this question?

What medium or item can cut structural steel, in multiple places, with precision, that not only is very quiet, but also does not produce a blinding flash of light, and can be applied without being detected either before, during, or after it's use?

As long as this question goes even partially unanswered, the CD theory is dead.

Theoretical nanothermite paint applied with a theoretical applicator that is self protected from the thermite, and is timed to apply 100 layers of thermite in a matter of seconds. These devices are placed on numerous columns of the buildings by guys dressed up like window washers, painters, electricians, and is done...WHEN NO ONE IS LOOKING.

TAM

 

[tsig]

MM, Red, Cooper...

Do any of you have a point? Are we going to hear it anytime soon?

How many twoofers can dance on the head of a pin?

None 'cause they can never get to the point.

 

[triforcharity]

If the fireproofing was rated for 3 hours then it is quite important how long the fire burned for in a given location.

Saying "the building burned for 7 hours, which is longer that the fireproofing is rated for therefore it would collapse" is not honest. In fact, when taking into account the avoidance of the issue of how long the fire burned in a specific location, it is lying.

Actually, the SFRM was designed for 2 hours protection. But you see, the problem with the SFRM was that if it was not applied EXACTLY as directed, the stuff would fail. It would flake off, and become ineffective.

Also, just because a fire has moved to a different part of a building, doesn't mean the heat just magically disappears. It's still there.

 

[triforcharity]

WTF? Are these serious questions?

You are seriously asking me if an area cools down when the fire goes out? Umm, yes , it does.

The "size" of the fires is a meaningless quantifier. The fires were fuelled by ordinary office contents and had a standard, expected, temperature range which the fireproofing was rated for.

Um, not really. The heat will still continue to build i the roof area of the building. In fact, with a large fire, such as what we saw in 7WTC, it most certainly IS important. It is not a meaningless quantifier. A small fire, what you would typically see in an office building (one-two rooms, no flashover, water from sprinkler systems and firefighters ) it would have no problem protecting against. But, a VERY large fire, like we say there, would go well beyond the SFRM's ability to protect the building.

THe other thing that you need to consider, is that the SFRM is not designed specifically to protect the buildng. It is designed to protect the occupants. It allows more time for the occupants to evacuate, and the firefighters time to extinguish the fire, safely.

 

[triforcharity]

Proving a theory false does not require another theory. You know this. You are simply trying the age old disinfo tactic known as "Demand complete solutions".

Tough luck. I do not need an entirely new theory in order to show that the NIST theory is false.

Heres a stupid example to illustrate what I mean:

The NIST theory states that column 79 failed. Suppose column 79 was found at a scrapyard and examined and it revealed that column 79 showed no signs of failure. That would immediately disprove NISTs theory, but without a new theory.

Come on, are we reinventing the wheel here? You do not need a new theory to prove an existing one wrong.

But yet, to this day, not a single truther has proven that NIST is wrong.

Care to be the first? Write it all down, list any assumptions and show your math. We would be more than happy to look at it.

Get on it! Time's wasting!

 

[triforcharity]

It cools down immediately. There are no flames there anymore. Stuff is no longer burning.

We really do have to walk you through kindergarten stuff. Putting a fire out in a given location will cool the area down. This isn't new, people have known about it since they discovered fire.

So, what you're saying is that if I turn off my stove, it instantly become cool, right? I wouldn't recommend teaching your children that.

BTW, the fires were not extinguished, or "put out" as you state.

 

[T.A.M.]

So, what you're saying is that if I turn off my stove, it instantly become cool, right? I wouldn't recommend teaching your children that.

BTW, the fires were not extinguished, or "put out" as you state.

I think the problem over this whole discussion, is the word "immediately" and the words "Cool down".

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

So you see WTC7 as a large thermos bottle heating up over 7 hours?

Even though the south and east sides of WTC7 were venting the internal heat and receiving a cool inflow of fresh air, you believe a sufficient body of heat was maintained to cause the column 79 failure on the 13th floor.

All from roving office cubicle fires which the NIST estimated peaked after 20 minutes.

Amazing.

MM

Do you understand what fresh air does to fires? Do you know what the chimney effect is?

PEAKED, not extinguished. That is the key.

 

[triforcharity]

It's also assumed that it was applied properly when the building was constructed, and from what I've heard, this wasn't the case in some parts of the WTC complex.

This is absolutely true. The SFRM, if not applied PERFECTLY, will not work as designed. It will flake, and become useless. This was true for the ENTIRE WTC complex. This is actually true for MOST buildings that use SFRM. It is very unusual that you find a building built before 1990 that the SFRM is applied perfectly.

 

[triforcharity]

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]

Sure, it's stupid, as it does not show NIST wrong. He is basing his assumptions on ONE picture, not MANY as NIST did.

Not to mention that this guys is nothing more than a carpenter.

He has no formal training in fire science or thermodynamics.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Do you understand what fresh air does to fires? Do you know what the chimney effect is?

PEAKED, not extinguished. That is the key.

MM doesn't know what fresh air does to a fire. He can't think straight or much remember why on windy days, at a camp ground, that a campfire burns hotter & brighter when fresh air moves through it.

But MM's blind to realize that the smoke plums from the Towers where blowing south. Meaning that fresh air was feeding the fires.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Not to mention that all the plastics and such that are inside the building create a nice fuel rich atmosphere that will flash over regularly. This will also add to the heat of the surrounding area.

 

[leftysergeant]

Do you understand what fresh air does to fires? Do you know what the chimney effect is?

PEAKED, not extinguished. That is the key.

Where the twoofers go wrong here is that the fresh air is coming in mostly from the bottom, and that those gashes which vented exhaust hot gases guided them into close contact with the parts of the building which failed.

We can see in the videos that a lot of rooms were in flashover. This means that hot gases at or near ignition temperature were spreeading along the cielings (undersides of floors) thus heating floor trusses. Were the building not ventilated, the fire would go out, but the gases could still be hot enough to burst into flames the second air reaches it. (Google backdraught or look up the discussions about it on this forum.)

If those hot, non-burninng gases are dragged out of the interior to those gashes, they WILL reignite. It does not appear that flames were not exiting from somewhere on the southerly parts of WTC 7 at any time between full involvement of the effected floors and the collapse.

 

[DGM]

It's funny that the resident "truthers" don't actually want to address what NIST says.

 

[triforcharity]

in case it gets lost in the shuffle, for the sake of my need to know, is the above assessment essentially a brief version of what NIST considers the initiation of the collapse? What have I gotten wrong?

TAM

I think you summed it up quite nicely. I personally don't see anything wrong with it, other than Planet X is not factored in at all.....

 

[willhaven]

It's funny that the resident "truthers" don't actually want to address what NIST says.

They don't like to answer this question either.

"Why do we fireproof steel frame buildings?"

That question doesn't usually get a straightforward sensible answer.

 

[cooperman]

They don't like to answer this question either.

"Why do we fireproof steel frame buildings?"

That question doesn't usually get a straightforward sensible answer.

Here is a better question.

"Why do we bother fireproofing steel frame buildings when they can completely collapse even when they have the fireproofing on?"