WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[Newtons Bit]

That there are more drawings out there than you or I have seen is undoubtedly true, as is the fact that NIST failed to represent connections and elements in a manner supported by analysis of the drawings you cite above. What we have is a selective release of drawings and a misrepresentation of their contents.

And what evidence do you have of this?

 

[gerrycan]

How would the existence or non-existence of certain plans prove an inside job?

That's a bit of a leap. What is clear however, is that NISTs investigation was based on incomplete and distorted information as far as the connection at comumn 79 is concerned. To what extent will only be clear if and when we have a chance to put all the drawings that are relevant to this connection on the table, something that NIST have failed to do publicly in their analysis.

 

[gerrycan]

And what evidence do you have of this?

Missing stiffner plates would be one example of NISTs misrepresentation of the connection. As to the extent of their failure to release all the drawings that are relevant to this, time will tell as more details and drawings hopefully come to light, facilitating a more complete investigation of their hypothesis.

 

[gerrycan]

So when do you plan to show evidence that they do? All of the drawings I've seen agree that floor 33 is one of the TYPICAL S-8 floors (among several others). The index you showed does not support the numbering (dash something) you claim should exist.

Why didn't you just show us the whole page? You have to understand why we would think this was deceptive.

I showed you what I had managed to get via a screen capture. As far as being deceptive goes, I would suggest you point that one in NISTs direction and request a full and frank release of all the drawings that are relevant to the connection and elements around column 79, after all, a failure on their part to comply with such a request would surely be deceptive wouldn't it?

 

[Oystein]

I showed you what I had managed to get via a screen capture. As far as being deceptive goes, I would suggest you point that one in NISTs direction and request a full and frank release of all the drawings that are relevant to the connection and elements around column 79, after all, a failure on their part to comply with such a request would surely be deceptive wouldn't it?

Quite frankly, you make grave claims, accusations even, but refuse to present evidence. This video thingy is unworthy and silly in at least two regards.

I propose you shut up till you have evidence to actually show, and no, a YT video will not be accepted.

 

[000063]

How would the existence or non-existence of certain plans prove an inside job?

That's a bit of a leap. ...

Uh.

 

[Animal]

That's a bit of a leap. What is clear however, is that NISTs investigation was based on incomplete and distorted information as far as the connection at comumn 79 is concerned. To what extent will only be clear if and when we have a chance to put all the drawings that are relevant to this connection on the table, something that NIST have failed to do publicly in their analysis.

Your ignorance of computer modeling and fire simulation is as great as your ignorance or construction document interpretation.

 

[DGM]

I showed you what I had managed to get via a screen capture. As far as being deceptive goes, I would suggest you point that one in NISTs direction and request a full and frank release of all the drawings that are relevant to the connection and elements around column 79, after all, a failure on their part to comply with such a request would surely be deceptive wouldn't it?

You showed us nothing that indicates there are any other drawings relevant to the connection. You found some drawings that are from a remodel but refuse to show what these drawings contain. Why are you holding these back? Could it be they don't support your argument? You think NIST held back information, that's all you've proved.

 

[Miragememories]

"So are you saying that even with odds against it of a million-to-one, you would accept the credibility of the NIST 'prevailing heat from migrating office cubicle fires' hypothesis?"

"Yes, assuming you're representing the hypothesis correctly. Because it actually happened. Unlikely events happen all the time."

Unlikely events are called 'unlikely' for a reason.

"...No matter how many words you're using, you're saying "it looked like a CD to me"...."

"Well I didn't think you had to be a detective to see that?"

"Plastic can look like an apple. What something looks like is not what it is."

But a plastic apple bears no resemblance to the demolition of WTC7.

As we know, through human skill and artistry, it is possible to fool the eye regarding a real apple vs. a plastic or wax one.

But such engineering artistry from random fires migrating through office cubicles over a 7 hour period? A period in which a great deal of the heat they generated dissipated.

Supposedly, these random migrating fires, accomplished this amazing feat of demolition engineering, using a theoretical mechanism that is beyond human ability to prove physically.

"Particularly, with a visual outline previously identifiable only with steel towers felled by controlled demolition?"

"No matter how many words you're using, you're saying "it looked like a CD to me". I doubt you'll be able to provide examples of these "towers", since no building over 30 stories has been CDed. And I'll bet none of them will be on fire."

"You state that no buildings over 30 stories have ever been felled by controlled demolition [commercially].

Since these buildings tend to exist in high density commercial areas, there are obvious reasons for using other demolition methods.

Probably the biggest single reason, other than the debris cloud, is that it is hard to get buildings to drop straight down."

"So you cannot provide any evidence of the similar towers you claimed existed. Gotcha."

You aren't making any sense.

"The NIST hypothesis requires very smart fires and a secret fuel stash."

"So because they determined it probably went a certain path, it means that it had to have been directed along that path?"

No. The NIST in their report, mapped the location and progress of the fire activity throughout the afternoon.

What the NIST failed to do was present the case of extreme fire targeting column 79, particularly around the time of the building's total collapse.

"Fires that amazingly performed a complete high speed building demolition."

"Most demolitions don't take seven hours."

That's another reason why it wasn't the fires. They were not at the right place for five sequential floors, for a long enough time or at the right time.

They weren't hot enough and they could not sustain sufficient heat long enough.

The migrating office cubicle fires passed by column 79 and continued on a north westerly track until WTC7 suddenly collapsed.

Undamaged, fireproofed steel, rated for over 2 hours, at best exposed to maybe 30 minutes of flames, followed by ambient air temperatures varying as the migrating fires moved on.

"What steel towers? Provide examples."

As in steel office towers since WTC was a steel office tower. Here is an example of a 31 story concrete & steel office tower demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_anYswmGMeM&feature=related

I realize that 'collapse outline' aside, there is of course a big difference between an 18 and a 47 story steel office tower.

But are you honestly suggesting that office furnishing's fires were able to effectively make WTC7 implode and totally collapse?

That you believe buildings taller than 30 stories are more likely to implode than to topple?

That you believe that the visual collapse outline of a 47-story steel office tower is naturally more likely to resemble a controlled demolition?

That an off-balance topple, as gravity acts on WTC7's perceived point of structural failure, is not to be expected?

"You appear to be confused so I'll re-phrase that question.

Do you believe that demolition engineers could do what the NIST argues was possible with the prevailing heat from migrating office cubicle fires?

Induce a column failure comparable to what the NIST claims to have happened to the undamaged column 79."

"Yes, but it'd be a much, much worse than million-to-one chance of them pulling it off right. Of course, any statistician can tell you that million to one chances are well known for being unreliable. Unlikely things may happen, but a sane engineer should never count on them.

Of course, once you include the other factors you're ignoring (building on fire on multiple floors, having to plant explosives and wiring in secret in a heavily trafficked building in the middle of Manhattan, using an experimental method of demolition), then it's out and out impossible."

First of all, I would say that without reasonable proof to the contrary, the chance of WTC7 totally collapsing in the incredible manner which it did, as a result of office cubicle fires, is not something any competent engineer would have imagined possible.

And I am not ignoring the independent fires migrating on the other floors.

The necessary technology could have been installed in the core via elevator access under cover of upgrading and/or servicing.

With radio-controlled activation, most if not all of the thermally protected devices would remain unaffected by roaming peripheral office cubicle fires. Unless the enclosed elevator shafts on those lower floors were breached, damage from the main fire activity was certainly not likely to have been much of a concern.

No.

Are you arguing that the bad guys somehow directed the fire? Since when was this something controlled demo companies do in high rises, ever?

How did they make sure WTC 1 hit 7 and gave them an excuse, without damaging any of the explosives or wiring?

"No.

What I am saying is that building demolition companies would have to be magicians in order to get the necessary abeyance of reality to create high speed total steel building collapses by fire."

"They sure would. Which is why they don't use fire, on account of it being unreliable. Who do you think you're rebutting here? Fire can collapse steel buildings. It'd be nigh-impossible to do in any sort of controlled manner, but it could happen. Whether a CD crew could make fire collapse the building is not relevant to the question of whether random fire made the building collapse. Quit trying to backdoor "CD" so you can backdoor "explothermite".

I'd also like to assert that your "high-speed" has no objective scientific definition in this context, and you're using it to add credibility.

Also, you didn't answer my last question;

"How did they make sure WTC 1 hit 7 and gave them an excuse, without damaging any of the explosives or wiring?"

I'm not sure what you're looking for with this fishing expedition."

No one, outside of a war zone, uses fire as a means for destroying a building's usefulness. Fire alone, cannot be sufficiently 'controlled' to make a steel office tower implode.

The high speed failure of steel office towers not intentionally demolished by a lower floor core removal, will inevitably perform an off balance topple.

If you are right that fire can collapse steel office towers, you should have no difficulty providing a valid example.

Assuming structural and demolition engineers are smarter and have more resources than the average migrating office cubicle fire, they should be able to test the mechanism behind the NIST collapse hypothesis and prove it possible...or not.

I mean if a random fire can do it, it should be much easier using an engineered fire.

MM

 

[DGM]

MM:
I know the question was dumped into AAH but, What do you think about gerry's evidence?

Was it compelling or nonexistent? (or something in between that you will expand on)

 

[twinstead]

MM sorry, I'm no expert in structural engineering. I prefer to consult with experts concerning the collapse. Your opinion is noted, but a second opinion is in order, and from the people I've talked to you are in the abject minority with your objections to NIST.

 

[DGM]

.

The high speed failure of steel office towers not intentionally demolished by a lower floor core removal, will inevitably perform an off balance topple.

MM

And you talk about lying. I know, you didn't actually lie, it's just you have no clue what you're talking about. I bet you're ready to back this statement with science, NOT!

 

[Animal]

Unlikely events are called 'unlikely' for a reason.





But a plastic apple bears no resemblance to the demolition of WTC7.

And the collapse of WTC bears no resemblance to an explosive demolition

As we know, through human skill and artistry, it is possible to fool the eye regarding a real apple vs. a plastic or wax one.

But such engineering artistry from random fires migrating through office cubicles over a 7 hour period? A period in which a great deal of the heat they generated dissipated.

Supposedly, these random migrating fires, accomplished this amazing feat of demolition engineering, using a theoretical mechanism that is beyond human ability to prove physically.

Steel weaken by heat has been a known issue for 150 years. That troofers cannot grasp that simple fact is beyond comprehension

You aren't making any sense.
No. The NIST in their report, mapped the location and progress of the fire activity throughout the afternoon.

What the NIST failed to do was present the case of extreme fire targeting column 79, particularly around the time of the building's total collapse.

The troofer version of a "three card monty"
column 79 did not need to be weaken by fire in order for the building to collapse the way it did.

That's another reason why it wasn't the fires. They were not at the right place for five sequential floors, for a long enough time or at the right time.

They weren't hot enough and they could not sustain sufficient heat long enough.

The migrating office cubicle fires passed by column 79 and continued on a north westerly track until WTC7 suddenly collapsed.

Undamaged, fireproofed steel, rated for over 2 hours, at best exposed to maybe 30 minutes of flames, followed by ambient air temperatures varying as the migrating fires moved on.

That has to be one of the lamest troofer tap dances around the fact I have ever seen.

As in steel office towers since WTC was a steel office tower. Here is an example of a 31 story concrete & steel office tower demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_anYswmGMeM&feature=related

And a reinforced concrete structure is similar to a steel framed structure like an elephant is to a giraffe.

I realize that 'collapse outline' aside, there is of course a big difference between an 18 and a 47 story steel office tower.

But are you honestly suggesting that office furnishing's fires were able to effectively make WTC7 implode and totally collapse?

When fire go for 7 hours unfought........yup.

That you believe buildings taller than 30 stories are more likely to implode than to topple?

If you knew the slightest thing about steel frame structures, you would know a high rise will always "implode" instead of toppling.

That you believe that the visual collapse outline of a 47-story steel office tower is naturally more likely to resemble a controlled demolition?

That a structural collapse and a controlled demolition both are dependent on gravity, only clueless troofers believe they would be different.

That an off-balance topple, as gravity acts on WTC7's perceived point of structural failure, is not to be expected?

The only people that expect a topple are the willfully ignorant and the terminally stupid.

First of all, I would say that without reasonable proof to the contrary, the chance of WTC7 totally collapsing in the incredible manner which it did, as a result of office cubicle fires, is not something any competent engineer would have imagined possible.

Actually, competent engineers assume that likely possibility every day, which is why steel building structures are protected by fire resistant construction.

And I am not ignoring the independent fires migrating on the other floors.

No, you just ignore 905 of the facts

The necessary technology could have been installed in the core via elevator access under cover of upgrading and/or servicing.

Which just goes to show your ignorance of building design and building operations.

With radio-controlled activation, most if not all of the thermally protected devices would remain unaffected by roaming peripheral office cubicle fires. Unless the enclosed elevator shafts on those lower floors were breached, damage from the main fire activity was certainly not likely to have been much of a concern.

Troofer fantasy

No one, outside of a war zone, uses fire as a means for destroying a building's usefulness. Fire alone, cannot be sufficiently 'controlled' to make a steel office tower implode.

The high speed failure of steel office towers not intentionally demolished by a lower floor core removal, will inevitably perform an off balance topple.

Troofer wishful thinking

If you are right that fire can collapse steel office towers, you should have no difficulty providing a valid example.

Assuming structural and demolition engineers are smarter and have more resources than the average migrating office cubicle fire, they should be able to test the mechanism behind the NIST collapse hypothesis and prove it possible...or not.

I mean if a random fire can do it, it should be much easier using an engineered fire.

MM

<sigh> "first time" argument failure, and then on to simple ignorance.
The "mechanism" behind the NIST collapse, that of heat causing weakening of steel structures has been tested and tested and a known issue for 150 years. Time for troofers to get out of the 18th century.

 

[LSSBB]

But such engineering artistry from random fires migrating through office cubicles over a 7 hour period? A period in which a great deal of the heat they generated dissipated.

Supposedly, these random migrating fires, accomplished this amazing feat of demolition engineering, using a theoretical mechanism that is beyond human ability to prove physically.

Random things are random. The positions of clouds around the setting sun are random. Do you sometimes see a beautiful sunset, or a threatening looking one? That's not the clouds or the sun, that's how you see it. Random heat causes random beams and girders to expand and just so happen to knock loose a critical connection. Can that not happen? Your incredulity proves nothing. The fact that it can happen is sufficient to show it is a plausible occurrence. Since there is no other evidence of a competing theory, what we have is the fires caused expansion and a collapse.

No. The NIST in their report, mapped the location and progress of the fire activity throughout the afternoon.

What the NIST failed to do was present the case of extreme fire targeting column 79, particularly around the time of the building's total collapse.

No, they did present the case. Your failure to understand their presentation proves nothing but your failure to understand their presentation.

That's another reason why it wasn't the fires. They were not at the right place for five sequential floors, for a long enough time or at the right time.

They weren't hot enough and they could not sustain sufficient heat long enough.

The migrating office cubicle fires passed by column 79 and continued on a north westerly track until WTC7 suddenly collapsed.

Undamaged, fireproofed steel, rated for over 2 hours, at best exposed to maybe 30 minutes of flames, followed by ambient air temperatures varying as the migrating fires moved on.

You have no proof that this couldn't happen, only your personal conjecture. That is insufficient to convince me and in my opinion Hillary and Barack in your dream presentation, were you to go toe to toe with experts

As in steel office towers since WTC was a steel office tower. Here is an example of a 31 story concrete & steel office tower demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_anYswmGMeM&feature=related

I realize that 'collapse outline' aside, there is of course a big difference between an 18 and a 47 story steel office tower.

But are you honestly suggesting that office furnishing's fires were able to effectively make WTC7 implode and totally collapse?

That you believe buildings taller than 30 stories are more likely to implode than to topple?

That you believe that the visual collapse outline of a 47-story steel office tower is naturally more likely to resemble a controlled demolition?

That an off-balance topple, as gravity acts on WTC7's perceived point of structural failure, is not to be expected?

More incredulity and conjecture. Prove your case that a collapse from fire wouldn't look like what we saw. Show your work.

First of all, I would say that without reasonable proof to the contrary, the chance of WTC7 totally collapsing in the incredible manner which it did, as a result of office cubicle fires, is not something any competent engineer would have imagined possible.

And yet that is what degree-holding engineers with experience and much greater qualification than you have imagined possible. Maybe your imagination could use some tweaks, eh?

And I am not ignoring the independent fires migrating on the other floors.

The necessary technology could have been installed in the core via elevator access under cover of upgrading and/or servicing.

With radio-controlled activation, most if not all of the thermally protected devices would remain unaffected by roaming peripheral office cubicle fires. Unless the enclosed elevator shafts on those lower floors were breached, damage from the main fire activity was certainly not likely to have been much of a concern.

Reallly? Such a method under fire has never been done before. I thought if something never happened before that proves it couldn't happen? Isn't how this whole line of reasoning came to be?

No one, outside of a war zone, uses fire as a means for destroying a building's usefulness. Fire alone, cannot be sufficiently 'controlled' to make a steel office tower implode.

The high speed failure of steel office towers not intentionally demolished by a lower floor core removal, will inevitably perform an off balance topple.

If you are right that fire can collapse steel office towers, you should have no difficulty providing a valid example.

Assuming structural and demolition engineers are smarter and have more resources than the average migrating office cubicle fire, they should be able to test the mechanism behind the NIST collapse hypothesis and prove it possible...or not.

I mean if a random fire can do it, it should be much easier using an engineered fire.
MM

More non-proven conjecture.

 

[000063]

Unlikely events are called 'unlikely' for a reason.

They are not, however, to be conflated with "impossible".

But a plastic apple bears no resemblance to the demolition of WTC7.

As we know, through human skill and artistry, it is possible to fool the eye regarding a real apple vs. a plastic or wax one.

But such engineering artistry from random fires migrating through office cubicles over a 7 hour period? A period in which a great deal of the heat they generated dissipated.

Not really. Truthers have asserted that it would've migrated. And stop assigning intent. You're saying that it resembled something intentional, therefore it must've been something intentional, therefore it couldn't've been random fires, therefore it must've been something intentional. You're affirming the consequent.

Who, exactly, is asserting the fire was directed anywhere?

Supposedly, these random migrating fires, accomplished this amazing feat of demolition engineering, using a theoretical mechanism that is beyond human ability to prove physically.

Nope. It's been proven my multiple papers, not just NIST, Truther incredulity notwithstanding.

You aren't making any sense.

You claimed the WTC collapse looked like collapses "previously identifiable only with steel towers felled by controlled demolition". You have not provided any such examples.

No. The NIST in their report, mapped the location and progress of the fire activity throughout the afternoon.

What the NIST failed to do was present the case of extreme fire targeting column 79, particularly around the time of the building's total collapse.

"Extreme" fire was not needed, which is, again, another pseudoscientific subjective term masquerading as the real thing. Unless you're talking about a wildfire.

That's another reason why it wasn't the fires. They were not at the right place for five sequential floors, for a long enough time or at the right time.

They weren't hot enough and they could not sustain sufficient heat long enough.

Incredulity, backed up by precisely nothing. And quit moving the goalposts. You said the fires performed a "high speed" collapse. Seven hours is not high-speed.

The migrating office cubicle fires passed by column 79 and continued on a north westerly track until WTC7 suddenly collapsed.

And...?

Undamaged, fireproofed steel, rated for over 2 hours, at best exposed to maybe 30 minutes of flames, followed by ambient air temperatures varying as the migrating fires moved on.

I'm noticing a complete lack of sources here.

As in steel office towers since WTC was a steel office tower. Here is an example of a 31 story concrete & steel office tower demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_anYswmGMeM&feature=related

You did notice the loud bangs audible from the cameras's position, right? And that the video depicts an unfinished concrete building, not a finished steel one?

I realize that 'collapse outline' aside, there is of course a big difference between an 18 and a 47 story steel office tower.

For one thing, there was no East Penthouse equivalent collapse in that video.

But are you honestly suggesting that office furnishing's fires were able to effectively make WTC7 implode and totally collapse?[/quote]No, because it didn't implode; parts of the building fell outward in several directions. I note your use of the "do you honestly..." rhetorical device in lieu of a statement.

That you believe buildings taller than 30 stories are more likely to implode than to topple?

Except that 7 didn't implode.

That you believe that the visual collapse outline of a 47-story steel office tower is naturally more likely to resemble a controlled demolition?

Why don't you just say what you believe in conversational English? "Natural" building collapses can resemble controlled demolition to laymen, yes.

That an off-balance topple, as gravity acts on WTC7's perceived point of structural failure, is not to be expected?

Do you have anything other than incredulity to back this up? Do you have videos of 47 story buildings toppling? Let's compare those "visual outlines".

First of all, I would say that without reasonable proof to the contrary, the chance of WTC7 totally collapsing in the incredible manner which it did, as a result of office cubicle fires, is not something any competent engineer would have imagined possible.

Unbacked assertion, incredulity. Also, Engies get stuff wrong all the time. They are not psychic. The question is what the evidence indicates happened.

And I am not ignoring the independent fires migrating on the other floors.

The necessary technology could have been installed in the core via elevator access under cover of upgrading and/or servicing.

Appeal to magic. Please provide evidence of such. Has any truther been able to find evidence of suspicuous maintenance from the hundreds of thousands of people who passed through worked in WTC7? You are aware that conventional demos on that scale would take months to set up, right? It's not something you can just sneak in one night and do.

With radio-controlled activation, most if not all of the thermally protected devices would remain unaffected by roaming peripheral office cubicle fires. Unless the enclosed elevator shafts on those lower floors were breached, damage from the main fire activity was certainly not likely to have been much of a concern.

More fantasy scenarios with no evidence. Also, radios in the core of a steel building are not reliable, especially with the dozens of other radios in the area, being used by firefighters and police. Please provide examples of any other CDs that took place in the core of a building while the building was on fire.

No one, outside of a war zone, uses fire as a means for destroying a building's usefulness. Fire alone, cannot be sufficiently 'controlled' to make a steel office tower implode.

The high speed failure of steel office towers not intentionally demolished by a lower floor core removal, will inevitably perform an off balance topple.

Prove it.

If you are right that fire can collapse steel office towers, you should have no difficulty providing a valid example.

World Trade Center 7, Sept. 11th, 2001, at 5-something PM, IIRC.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.​

Funny. You've just used "steel office towers on fire".

Assuming structural and demolition engineers are smarter and have more resources than the average migrating office cubicle fire, they should be able to test the mechanism behind the NIST collapse hypothesis and prove it possible...or not.

No, they wouldn't, because fire, as we've established, is unreliable.

I mean if a random fire can do it, it should be much easier using an engineered fire.

MM

Which is kind of a contradiction in terms. I've already pointed out that it is, by definition, extremely difficult to induce random events. Quit trying to conflate the two.

 

[beachnut]

Supposedly, these random migrating fires, accomplished this amazing feat of demolition engineering, using a theoretical mechanism that is beyond human ability to prove physically.
...

I mean if a random fire can do it, it should be much easier using an engineered fire.

MM

Fire is not a feat of engineering. Better add WTC 5 to your fantasy, it was totaled by fire too. Darn, when 911 truth thinks they have the smoking gun, they only have smoking buildings destroyed by fire. Irony. http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTC5.jpg Terrorist did 911, 19 of them, where have you been?

Fire has destroyed many buildings. CD claims failed. Solid failure, no booms, no evidence of thermite, or explosives.

The fires systems in WTC 7 not working, no water, no fire personnel fighting the fire. Out of control fires destroyed WTC 7. It does not matter if it falls or not, totaled before it fell. End of story, save 911 truth who can't do engineering and fire science. Who destroyed WTC 7 in your fantasy? Got names yet?

You say no more fire departments, don't need them, fires can't destroy buildings. Big failure, One Meridian Plaza, totaled by fire, gone - Windsor building, gone, destroyed by fire. WTC 5, 6, gone, totaled by fire. 911 truth, is, was, will always be nonsense.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Missing stiffner plates would be one example of NISTs misrepresentation of the connection. As to the extent of their failure to release all the drawings that are relevant to this, time will tell as more details and drawings hopefully come to light, facilitating a more complete investigation of their hypothesis.

1) The stiffener plates are irrelevant. The "walk-off" does not involve a web or flange failure.

2) What evidence do you have of hidden drawings?

 

[Miragememories]

"...You say no more fire departments, don't need them, fires can't destroy buildings. Big failure, One Meridian Plaza, totaled by fire, gone - Windsor building, gone, destroyed by fire. WTC 5, 6, gone, totaled by fire. 911 truth, is, was, will always be nonsense."

The nonsense is yours.

A standing steel-framed office tower that is a write-off from fire and smoke damage, is not the same as a steel-framed building which has totally collapsed into a smoldering debris pile.

Meridian Plaza did not collapse.

The Windsor Building did not collapse.

WTC 5, 6 did not collapse.

MM

 

[DGM]

The nonsense is yours.

A standing steel-framed office tower that is a write-off from fire and smoke damage, is not the same as a steel-framed building which has totally collapsed into a smoldering debris pile.

Meridian Plaza did not collapse.

The Windsor Building did not collapse.

WTC 5, 6 did not collapse.

MM

And WTC7 Did. What's your point? You're not going with the stupid, "if it never happened before, it couldn't have happened" argument. That's like something grade school kids would do. Naturally you got something better. We'll wait.

 

[beachnut]

The nonsense is yours.

A standing steel-framed office tower that is a write-off from fire and smoke damage, is not the same as a steel-framed building which has totally collapsed into a smoldering debris pile.

Meridian Plaza did not collapse.

The Windsor Building did not collapse.

WTC 5, 6 did not collapse.

MM

Ironic, 5 and 6, fires fought. Oops.


5, 6, Meridian, and Windsor fires were fought - OOPS

fire did it
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3-1-1.jpg

You know the old grade school something is different game? For 911 truth lies and fantasy are your religion - try science next time. I suspect fires no fought will destroy a building, and when fires are fought... oops, Meridian, Windsor, buildings are gone due to fire. Gone and collapse are essentially the same bottom line, totaled. But go ahead, present your CD stuff?

Sorry, Windsor and Meridian were structurally unsound due to fire. Literally totaled, not insurance total, but real life unable to use total, gone. You don't do structural engineering and fire science and this lead to your fantasy of CD. Next time try engineering instead of what you make up.

Meridian, was totaled by fire.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
Wow, and the fire protection was not blown away by aircraft impacts equal in energy to big bombs, 1300 and 2000 pound bombs.
Why did fire personnel fear collapse in Meridian Plaza?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
Because fire can cause structural damage, and total a building and collapse.
Steel is weak in fire -
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg
If you could do material engineering you would not be pushing delusions of CD and the inside job nonsense pushed by paranoid conspiracy theorist.

You offer zero engineering to back up you failure to understand 911, WTC 1, 2, and 7 falling.


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1wtc7ashthermitelie.jpg
Little cubical fires, why is no one sitting in their cubical with the little fire which burns off your skin from across the room? Have you been in fire? Had you skin start to burn? Have you talked to people who have? Any experience at all in engineering and fire science?

Good luck, time for football, pretzels and beer. TIVO