WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[000063]

You're so certain! You must be a god!

Show me another steel framed building that had a fire in a relatively small section that collapsed straight down.

False premise. The fire was not in a "relatively small section", and the building did not collapse "straight down", as you have been informed and shown several times.

Buildings brought down by explosives have the key girders cut first so that they fall inward. Cut the girders on the outside first and the building should topple to the side where the girders have been cut (or have softened due to fire).

Assuming that's true, they also have internal walls knocked down and miles of wiring installed.

Firemen fight fire with fire. Firemen also fight fire with explosives (oil well fires).

You are trying really hard to look clever, and just end up looking dumb.

I might buy into the theory that WTC 7 was pulled

You keep using that word.

in order to prevent the building from toppling into other buildings. This would be a conspiracy of silence more than anything. It would not be a huge conspiracy, but a conspiracy none the less. Governments have secrets.

No, it would require firefighters to actively carry explosives and wiring into a burning building, and install them several dozen times faster than it would take for a smaller building. And if that was the plan, it didn't work, what with 7 hitting Fiterman Hall and the Verizon Building, among others.

If this were a trial:

1) We have the motivation.
2) We have a confession.
3) The suspect(s) are on the scene.
4) We have some forensic fact.
5) We have video.

However, only one jurist votes for guilt and ten vote for innocent. The guilty walk free as all eleven jurists have to vote guilty.

The only question for me is whether or not pulling WTC 7 was a crime or a proper sacrifice made in the interest of public safety. This is the judge's call, not the jury who have only to determine reasonable doubt.

My belief is that half of the people in prison were convicted with less.

So you are literally ignoring every single person who has provided evidence that your premises are incorrect, meaning your conclusions are invalid.

Are you mad? Are you literally a crazy person?

WTC 1 and WTC 2 had over half their supporting girders cut on two sides of the building. The girders were taken out asymmetrically too! The remainder had much of their fireproofing removed by the impact. The fire softened the remaining girders. I believe the reason that WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell is obvious.

I also believed that WTC 7 was obviously pulled with sufficient reason for a conviction - if all eleven twelve jurists agreed.

Well, that's an unusual CT. Still mad, though. You really think firefighters are trained CD experts? Because even the CD guys say 7 wasn't CD'd.

If the fire kept going for days, NYC would have been a ghost town for days. They would have had to keep people out of NYC.

That part of Manhattan would've been a ghost town for days anyway, barring ongoing rescue procedures. I challenge you to prove it is any kind of acceptable procedure to blow up a building to put out a fire.

I suppose the fire department can't pull a building in an emergency? ...

No. It is literally physically impossible, barring massive overuse of explosives, which fire departments don't generally use in the first place. I am talking carrying tons of boom-boom openly into WTC 7. The problem was, even if they had done it, it would look much different than WTC 7.

Where you thinking you would win the argument by calling me ignorant?

He was thinking he could get you to admit you were wrong by pointing out that you were wrong.

But that requires logic on the part of the person corrected.

 

[DGM]

Cut the girders on the outside first and the building should topple to the side where the girders have been cut (or have softened due to fire).

This would depend on if the remaining columns (not girders) are strong enough to support the entire weight of the building. There has to be a hinge so the buildings center of mass can shift outside of it's foot print. If this doesn't happen the building will fall straight down. Tall, steel framed building are not strong or rigid enough to "topple like a tree".

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And, as Beachnut has just shown, your knowledge is lacking.

Ahh, but he knows he lacks knowledge. You see, he's apparently basing his skepticism on his knowledge of his lack of knowledge. Ingenious!

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm a licensed structural engineer, on this forum I am GOD...[dws]

Again, for the record, the theory that WTC buildings where bought down by controlled demolition is probably one the dumbest ideas in the history of mankind.

You're not the only one, bub.

 

[tfk]

LR,

You're new here.
You're getting a lot of flak.
Allow me to explain why.

You might be honest & simply inexperienced or confused.
Or you might be a "full throttle truther" who is lying to us, pretending to be a neophyte, & going thru a charade.

Unfortunately, the ratio of the former to the latter in our experience has been 1:20 or worse.
[Can anyone cite any examples of people who came here as honest fence-sitters & left with their questions answered & a "thank you"?]

Thus far, you have exhibited EVERY indication that you belong to the 2nd group. The most obvious indicator being "totally immune from learning anything".

People have provided you with one piece after another after another of information that accurately, directly refutes your assertions. I haven't seen any "elasticity" in your stance. Just stubborn intransigence.

No "oh, I hadn't thought of that". No "OK, that explains that observation. I can check that one off my list."

The above responses are exactly what one gets when one is introducing ideas (complex or simple) to an honest novice who really wants to learn about something. Not stubborn resistance to every statement.

Your responses make everyone suspicious.

… including me.

True, lack of knowledge isn't skepticism. We base our skepticism on what we know.

Wrong thing to do.
Worse, it's really, really dumb.

Supported by YOUR knowledge, what is the basis of your skepticism regarding brain surgery? Quantum Physics? Cosmology? Nucleosynthesis? etc., etc. etc.

I presume that you have little knowledge about these complex & arcane subjects. [BTW, please answer this question: What is "your field", & how much experience do you have in it?]

You haven't sufficient knowledge to properly carry out a skeptical review of any issue related to those subjects.

So, you're simply either a) flipping a coin, b) accepting the loudest voices, c) accepting the last voice, d) using some other irrelevant criteria, or e) guessing.

All crappy methodologies.

The method you should use, on every OBJECTIVE matter (i.e., only one right answer) outside of your own personal expertise, is "provisionally accept the opinions of the majority of experts".

[Note: on every subjective matter, you are the world's leading expert on your opinion. In fact, you are the world's ONLY expert on your opinion.

… until you get married. Then you will be informed of your opinion on most matters, regularly, by "a higher authority".

… ohhhhh, this could get ugly ...]

At least I know that I know not everything.

Understatement of the week…

You NEVER lied? You suggested that I was spreading lies.

Yes, you are spreading lies.
Sorry to inform you of that.

As someone else pointed out, nobody said that you "made up the lies". But you are spreading them.

It sounds like it might bother you do do that. That's a very good sign.

It SHOULD bother you.

That's a lie because it is never a lie to describe what what you or I have seen or heard. If I haven't heard of a steel structured building that fell only because of fire, then that's the truth. If I said I know of no steel structured building that fell only because of fire, then that's what I know and that is the truth.

You should go to extreme measures to make sure that the things that you say are truthful. Not "what I believe". Not "truthful to me". But "objectively, reality-based truthful".

Set yourself very high standards. Ridiculously high standards.

It'll do you a world of good throughout your life.

You gave some good pictures of buildings destroyed by fire, but were they all steel framed (I see some wood) and did they fall only because of fire?

1000s of steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire alone.

Kader toy factory.
Sight & Sound theater.
McCormick plaza.
Dresden fire bombings.
Tokyo fire bombings.

The truthers realized this, & moved the goal posts to "steel framed skyscrapers".

A totally specious, incorrect argument.

"Incorrect" for reasons that I'll provide to you after I've seen you make some effort to honestly respond to me and/or the others who have addressed your arguments here.

[BTW, you said lots of things that are simply wrong. One of them was "the buildings collapsed because the fires softened the steel." This is not specifically true. More accurately, the softening of the steel did not directly produce the collapse, but did so only indirectly thru a 2nd, more important mechanism.]

Show us what you're really made of, LR.


tom

 

[Redwood]

The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake

Nope. They can't rig a 47 story building to blow when 1-the fire is still burning and 2-because evacuations are relatively easy to do, and 3-Fire departments don't carry explosives.

I believe that the notion that firefighters will demolish a burning building for safety reasons comes from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Fires broke out all over the city (sometimes started by owners of damaged buildings - insurance policies didn't cover earthquake damage, but did cover fire) and desperate firefighters, having no water to fight the fires, dynamited earthquake-wrecked structures adjacent to burning buildings, attempting to create a fire break. Oftentimes, this did more harm than good, as the dynamited buildings often caught fire themselves.

I don't know of any instance where firefighters attempted to dynamite a building that was on fire, itself. That would be foolhardy in many different ways. Oh, and the dynamited buildings weren't skyscrapers. There were none in 1906 San Francisco.

 

[Redwood]

WTC 7 video.


Not exactly a source that most trust, but a video non-the-less and food for thought.

Very dishonest. The poster of that video claims that "WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds at 5:20pm on 9/11." Wrong and dishonest. About 6.5 seconds passed between the fall of the east mechanical penthouse and the fall of the central penthouse and the fall of the building's shell. So the mere external, visual evidence of the collapse takes about twice that long. Shouldn't the poster of that video (all compiled from internet sources) have begun with footage of the entire collapse sequence?

 

[Redwood]

The Crystal Palace

If I haven't heard of a steel structured building that fell only because of fire, then that's the truth. If I said I know of no steel structured building that fell only because of fire, then that's what I know and that is the truth.

Congratulations on being promoted to a LtCol.

You gave some good pictures of buildings destroyed by fire, but were they all steel framed (I see some wood) and did they fall only because of fire?

You're hearing about one now. The Crystal Palace in London was built in the 1850s and survived until it was destroyed by fire in the 1930s. It was built of cast iron, equivalent in fire resistance to steel (I'm only a dumb chemist - if I'm wrong, would some structural engineer correct me? )

The Crystal Palace was essentially a giant atrium, a structure with only a tiny static load except its own dead weight.

 

[LoneRanger]

This would depend on if the remaining columns (not girders) are strong enough to support the entire weight of the building. There has to be a hinge so the buildings center of mass can shift outside of it's foot print. If this doesn't happen the building will fall straight down. Tall, steel framed building are not strong or rigid enough to "topple like a tree".

Interesting point. However, the top of WTC 1 or WTC 2 more or less broke off and fell to the side. Furthermore, the building exploded and fell outside the footprint. A building with the interior girders cut implodes like WTC 7 and pulls the building inward.

I have cut down a few trees in my life and have had to pull a few of them over becaused they balanced on the stump while completely severed. I would guess that cutting a girder in a building isn't sufficient and that the cut girder also has to be blown to one side.

A team of Navy seals could get the job done fast if they were authorized to do so. My point is that sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

My point is that sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7.

Evidence?

 

[DGM]

Interesting point. However, the top of WTC 1 or WTC 2 more or less broke off and fell to the side.

No it didn't. Naturally, I invite you to prove me wrong.

Furthermore, the building exploded and fell outside the footprint.

Wrong again

A building with the interior girders cut implodes like WTC 7 and pulls the building inward.

Which "girders" are you talking about. Don't you mean columns?

I have cut down a few trees in my life and have had to pull a few of them over becaused they balanced on the stump while completely severed. I would guess that cutting a girder in a building isn't sufficient and that the cut girder also has to be blown to one side.

I bet you would. What is stronger, the tree or a building?

A team of Navy seals could get the job done fast if they were authorized to do so. My point is that sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7.

....And no one would notice them doing it?

 

[Gamolon]

A building with the interior girders cut implodes like WTC 7 and pulls the building inward.

You mean weakened columns/girders can NEVER reach a point of total failure due to those weakened columns/girders being over-stressed?

 

[Oystein]

Interesting point. However, the top of WTC 1 or WTC 2 more or less broke off and fell to the side.

Which side did the top of WTC1 fall to? Do you have any photo or video evidence to show that?
Which side did the top of WTC2 fall to? Do you have any photo or video evidence to show that?

Furthermore, the building exploded and fell outside the footprint.

Richard Gage, AIA, claims on the front page of his website AE911Truth, which 1700+ architects and engineers signed: "...all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: ... Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint". So these "experts" assert that "landing in its own footprint" is a characteristic of controlled demo. Now you imply that NOT landing in its footprint is a suspicious sign of demolition.

It seems that no matter where a tower falls, into its footprint or not, that's always evidence for demolition. Can you clarify this?

A building with the interior girders cut implodes like WTC 7 and pulls the building inward.

If you cut the interior girders, what could then pull the building inward?

Also, large part of the northern facade, far from being pulled inward, fell outward, crossed the street and crashed on top of Fiterman Hall, damaging that building so badly that it had to be torn down later. On the western side of WTC7, large parts of the wall fell outward, crossed another street, and crashed into the wall of the Verizon Building.

It seems that some parts of WTC7 fell inward, others well outward. Wouldn't you agree?

I have cut down a few trees in my life and have had to pull a few of them over becaused they balanced on the stump while completely severed. I would guess that cutting a girder in a building isn't sufficient and that the cut girder also has to be blown to one side.

There is a big difference between a tree trunk and a steel-frame highrise office building: The latter consists of 95% by volume air and only 5% solids; the former is almost 100% solids, practically no air. Do you understand that this accounts for many of the differences in fall characteristics? Surely, if the twintowers had been massive blocks of steel, 63x63x415 meters, they migth well have remained standing, don't you think?

A team of Navy seals could get the job done fast if they were authorized to do so. My point is that sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7.

Do you just imagine that, or do you have a source on that?

How would the Navy Seals fare if the building they were to destroy had blazing fires on at keast 12 floors?

How would the explosives they plant if the building they were to destroy had blazing fires on at keast 12 floors?

You do realize that WTC7 had blazing fires on at least 12 floors, right?

 

[DGM]

A team of Navy seals could get the job done fast if they were authorized to do so. My point is that sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7.

Funny thing, I agree with you here.

If someone approached my company and gave me 8 hours to take down that building, I'd say no problem (the fires would be a concern but, not a show stopper).

The whole argument it would take weeks to "rig" is lame at best. The problem is, if I took it down, everyone in the world would know I did it. Lower Manhattan would be covered in glass and there would not be an intact window for a several blocks. BTW (any flavor) of "thermite" would be just as noticeable. You would need tractor trailer loads and a small army of worker to pull it off.

It's all about being "covert". That could never happen.

 

[Gamolon]

I've seen video of many buildings brought down by explosives. They fell in exactly the same way that WTC 7 did.

Can you please post ONE video you saw that looked exactly like WTC7 please.

Just one.

Also, which video are you looking at of WTC7 to make this comparison?

 

[twinstead]

It's not often that even a truther has the guts to suggest that a team of special ops dashed into the burning building and quickly--and secretly--rigged it for CD. I applaud it. I say if you're going to be crazy, at least be true to yourself and put it out there. So many truthers just avoid the issue.

 

[tfk]

I have cut down a few trees in my life and have had to pull a few of them over becaused they balanced on the stump while completely severed.

Has this ever happened to anyone else?

It has never happened for me, but that's not the source of my skepticism.

Clearly it doesn't happen using an axe. But I do not believe that one could do this with a chain saw or hand saw without getting the saw immovable clamped in the cut by the weight of the tree before the cut was finished.

 

[DGM]

Has this ever happened to anyone else?

It has never happened for me, but that's not the source of my skepticism.

Clearly it doesn't happen using an axe. But I do not believe that one could do this with a chain saw or hand saw without getting the saw immovable clamped in the cut by the weight of the tree before the cut was finished.

He forgot to tell you about the other tree it hung-up on. "Truthers" are not actually known for telling the whole story.

....and are incompetent in most things they do.

 

[Spanx]

Has this ever happened to anyone else?

It has never happened for me, but that's not the source of my skepticism.

Clearly it doesn't happen using an axe. But I do not believe that one could do this with a chain saw or hand saw without getting the saw immovable clamped in the cut by the weight of the tree before the cut was finished.

You should know that things like that only happen to truthers

Just like all the best top secret information is only available to truthers

 

[carlitos]

Has this ever happened to anyone else?

It has never happened for me, but that's not the source of my skepticism.

Clearly it doesn't happen using an axe. But I do not believe that one could do this with a chain saw or hand saw without getting the saw immovable clamped in the cut by the weight of the tree before the cut was finished.

Reads like fiction to me.