Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[alienentity]

I'm shaking my head that you guys are still playing with the BS ghost troll.
It's like arguing with a ghost that doesn't know it's dead.

ETA if you really want it to die then don't engage it. Take away the life support.

[Edx]

Bill seems to think there is an extinguisher behind every door of every office in Manhattan. That is not the case. I figure you have to break into 10 offices for each one found.

So it takes an hour to round up a significant (to you) number of extinguishers. This includes the time it takes to break into buildings and seach for them, take them back and then carry them up all the flights of stairs.

If the fire ever was controllable, it is no more after burning for an hour.

I've been in many offices in my life and can only remember seeing a few extinguishers at most in the entire building. It would take forever to round up as many as Bill talks about.

So long as someone like Tony doesnt suggest this, I dont care about Bills delusion.

[Mr. Skinny]

Bill seems to think there is an extinguisher behind every door of every office in Manhattan. That is not the case. I figure you have to break into 10 offices for each one found.

So it takes an hour to round up a significant (to you) number of extinguishers. This includes the time it takes to break into buildings and seach for them, take them back and then carry them up all the flights of stairs.

If the fire ever was controllable, it is no more after burning for an hour.

I've been in many offices in my life and can only remember seeing a few extinguishers at most in the entire building. It would take forever to round up as many as Bill talks about.

So long as someone like Tony doesnt suggest this, I dont care about Bills delusion.
Just FYI, here's the OSHA standard on fire extinguisher placement. It is based on employee travel distance:

1910.157(d)(2)
The employer shall distribute portable fire extinguishers for use by employees on Class A fires so that the travel distance for employees to any extinguisher is 75 feet (22.9 m) or less.

ETA: The travel distance for Class B extinguishers is 50 ft, so for ABC extinguishers I'd expect to find one at this 50 foot maximum.

[Edx]

And also a lot of the time these extinguishers were only small little things, not the large ones you may see in hallways or something.

[alienentity]

You're missing the point. The Irreducible Delusion does not lead to a complete shift in position. It's an explanation why some people refuse to abandon their original theory.

Now it just so happens that the debunkers have held on to their original theory of 9/11 for 8 years, while most truthers have evolved over the same period and come to a completely different conclusion.

That doesn't necessarily mean that all debunkers are suffering from the Irreducible Delusion, but it does mean that most truthers are not.

Were that last post supported by evidence, it might have some connection to reality.

But I have a question for you Bard: Did the WTC towers collapse into their own footprints? A simple yes or no will be sufficient.

Thanks in advance.

[TruthersLie]

Were that last post supported by evidence, it might have some connection to reality.

But I have a question for you Bard: Did the WTC towers collapse into their own footprints? A simple yes or no will be sufficient.

Thanks in advance.

AE...

can't leave out wtc7 (cuz twoofs like to quibble)

you should be asking
did the towers or wtc7 collapse into their own footprint?

We already know his answer (which is wrong) but hey... maybe he will have taken his meds and give a real (correct) answer... but I doubt it.

[alienentity]

AE...

can't leave out wtc7 (cuz twoofs like to quibble)

you should be asking
did the towers or wtc7 collapse into their own footprint?

We already know his answer (which is wrong) but hey... maybe he will have taken his meds and give a real (correct) answer... but I doubt it.

I'm only interested in the towers at the moment. The reason will become clear as soon as Bard answers.

cheers

[bill smith]

Here's your "small fire".

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

Pick the one labeled "unknown source Another view"

Hey Al how does your photo here match ip with this one ?

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg

[bill smith]

Wow this was a good one.. Look at the lines of windows from top to bottom and three deep on the etreme right of the near wall of WTC7. See ?....no fire. Now look at all that smoke being pumped out . Now what could be causing that smoke ?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos Clip 4

[bardamu]

Were that last post supported by evidence, it might have some connection to reality.

But I have a question for you Bard: Did the WTC towers collapse into their own footprints? A simple yes or no will be sufficient.

Thanks in advance.

They fell straight down, but the explosions blew debris well outside of the footprint.

[bill smith]

Were that last post supported by evidence, it might have some connection to reality.

But I have a question for you Bard: Did the WTC towers collapse into their own footprints? A simple yes or no will be sufficient.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry to steal your thunder bardamu....but yes Alien, in the case of WTC7 it definately did.

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-7.JPG Collapsed

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG collapsed 2

....and didn't they do it well ? I think a round of applause is in order for the demolition team.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg

[cyclonic]

Wow this was a good one.. Look at the lines of windows from top to bottom and three deep on the etreme right of the near wall of WTC7. See ?....no fire. Now look at all that smoke being pumped out . Now what could be causing that smoke ?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos Clip 4

Manwell from barcelona burning kippers on the stove again?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Sorry to steal your thunder bardamu....but yes Alien, in the case of WTC7 it definately did.

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-7.JPG Collapsed

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG collapsed 2

Bill can't explain how & why the Verizon Building got damaged.

[Mangoose]

http://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/136730/building-fire-heavy-smoke-snap-zoom-in.html

Here ya go, there's no fire here honest (obviously no fire since no flames are leaping out the windows), all safe for you Bill....go in and turn off the smoke generators, will ya?

[bill smith]

Bill can't explain how & why the Verizon Building got damaged.

We grownups tend to allow for a little collateral damage Chewy.

[Lak]

We grownups tend to allow for a little collateral damage Chewy.
Nice dodge... So, there was a little collateral :D damage, but the buildings fell straight down nontheless ?

Looks like in bill's world, an ajar door is in fact closed, except for a little collateral openness.:D

[BigAl]

Hey Al how does your photo here match ip with this one ?

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg


I gave you a video. Your comment tells me that your lazy twoofer a** didn't watch it.

Any idiot can find a picture that doesn't show something. You've accomplished that today.

[Furcifer]

Looks like in bill's world, an ajar door is in fact closed, except for a little collateral openness.:D

Welcome to the forum. Now get in line if you want to take a poke of the BS :D

[bill smith]

Manwell from barcelona burning kippers on the stove again?

Remember Basil saying 'put the butter on those trays Manuel ' nd Manuel replying ' no no senor....uno...dos...tres....' lol

[bill smith]

Welcome to the forum. Now get in line if you want to take a poke of the BS :D

Another christian for the lion. Grrr.

[Edx]

Sorry to steal your thunder bardamu....but yes Alien, in the case of WTC7 it definately did.

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-7.JPG Collapsed

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG collapsed 2

....and didn't they do it well ? I think a round of applause is in order for the demolition team.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg


So how did it manage to fall into 30 West Broadway, if it fell into its footprint?

[Edx]

They fell straight down, but the explosions blew debris well outside of the footprint.

The explosions no one can hear because they are "silent explosives" yes....

Why dont any of you truthers understand that it is physically impossible to make a silent bomb that can throw steel beams around while not make a loud bang?

Learn how sound works.

[cyclonic]

Remember Basil saying 'put the butter on those trays Manuel ' nd Manuel replying ' no no senor....uno...dos...tres....' lol

No i don't but i do remember mr fawlty locking manuel in the burning kitchen because it was only a drill,lol.

[A W Smith]

Another christian for the lion. Grrr.

please don't share your pillow biting grunts with us.

[bill smith]

So how did it manage to fall into 30 West Broadway, if it fell into its footprint?

Wouldn't you agree it replicated a very good demolton considering that the government say this steel building collapsed from some office fires only. Careful now. The Readers are getting to know you.

[Edx]

Wouldn't you agree it replicated a very good demolton considering that the government say this steel building collapsed from some office fires only.

Not really since it only superficially resembles a demoliton and not even that much. No demolition Ive ever seen doesnt have loud explosions sounds. So it doesnt actually replicate a demolition at all when you actually look at it properly.

Careful now. The Readers are getting to know you.

They are getting to know you too, boy you sure are delusional. But its okay, its funny.

[Toke]

There are silent "explosives", it is some liquid that hardends and then expand to burst stone.
I assume it can be usefull when "blasting" rock away for foundations in build up areas.

[ElMondoHummus]

There are silent "explosives", it is some liquid that hardends and then expand to burst stone.
I assume it can be usefull when "blasting" rock away for foundations in build up areas.

Heh. Yeah, "Crackamite (http://www.crackamite.com/)". Someone tried to propose this to us last year (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114751).

ETA: I stand corrected. There was mention earlier than 2008: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2870574#post2870574

[Toke]

Crackamite, ok.

I did not know the trade name.
Will BS propose it as a candidate??:D

[Mancman]

They fell straight down, but the explosions blew debris well outside of the footprint.

Absolutely no evidence for this, lots of evidence against it. Congrats on your hopeless argument.

[bill smith]

Crackamite, ok.

I did not know the trade name.
Will BS propose it as a candidate??:D
What about ' Mackeyite ' ? Although I generally use that title to describe a follower of the great Ryan Mackey just as I use ' Wiekling ' to describe a follower of the not-so-great Ron Wieke.

[Edx]

There are silent "explosives", it is some liquid that hardends and then expand to burst stone.
I assume it can be usefull when "blasting" rock away for foundations in build up areas.

Ive had a look at them but they arent actually explosives though.

[WildCat]

They fell straight down, but the explosions blew debris well outside of the footprint.
What sort of explosion can blow debris that far without making any noise?

[bill smith]

What sort of explosion can blow debris that far without making any noise?

Well some pieces weighing 4 tons or more were found about 600 feet away. That's two football fields end-to-end so we have to assume that something powered their flight there. Explosives seem to be the obvious candidate so now all we have to do is prove that the audio is doctored. I have to tell you that that will be less of a problem than you think.

It's best left for later though because that's the final trench that you debunkers are heading for.

[A W Smith]

Well some pieces weighing 4 tons or more were found about 600 feet away. That's two football fields end-to-end so we have to assume that something powered their flight there. Explosives seem to be the obvious candidate so now all we have to do is prove that the audio is doctored. I have to tell you that that will be less of a problem than you think.

It's best left for later though because that's the final trench that you debunkers are heading for.


when a giant radio tower falls, what force propels its top hundreds of feet from its footprint?

tww3jF2NcdE


http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/chandlersdots.jpg

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Well some pieces weighing 4 tons or more were found about 600 feet away. That's two football fields end-to-end so we have to assume that something powered their flight there. Explosives seem to be the obvious candidate so now all we have to do is prove that the audio is doctored. I have to tell you that that will be less of a problem than you think.

It's best left for later though because that's the final trench that you debunkers are heading for.

Bill,

If someone pushed you out of their way which way would you be going & how far would you go when you were pushed?

A: In the direction they pushed you & you'd be pushed back several feet.

Same thing when the Towers collapsed, the steel got pushed out of the way. No explosives needed!

Of course, in your La-La Land, physics doesn't exist.

[bill smith]

Bill,

If someone pushed you out of their way which way would you be going & how far would you go when you were pushed?

A: In the direction they pushed you & you'd be pushed back several feet.

Same thing when the Towers collapsed, the steel got pushed out of the way. No explosives needed!

Of course, in your La-La Land, physics doesn't exist.

If some big man pushed me off the roof of WTC1 I might travel outwards seven feet or so depending on how hard he pushed me. Then gravity would take over and I would fall staight down. No stopping at go, no 200 dollars. Straight down. The same with the building components. It was close to freefall remember and no jolt to throw anything to the side.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If some big man pushed me off the roof of WTC1 I might travel outwards seven feet or so depending on how hard he pushed me. Then gravity says I would fall staight down. No stopping at go, no 200 dollars. Straight down. The same with the building components. It was close to freefall remember and no jolt to throw anything to the side.

Billy,

You're forgetting the force that can affect a person falling, air resistence.

It wasn't close to free fall, unless you're suggesting that rockets were attached at some point when it was collasping.

No jolt? Explain the 110 floors that could cause the steel to push out & away Billy. You just admitted that the steel was pushed about 600 feet! So that means that WTC7 (which was only 400 feet away) was hit by WTC 2 collapsing.

[alienentity]

They fell straight down, but the explosions blew debris well outside of the footprint.

So did they fall into their own footprints? It is a simple, yes or no question,or do you disagree with truthers in that regard?

You seem to be indicating that the debris (building bits and pieces) were not inside the footprints, but you provide an excuse.

I will interpret your answer as 'no' unless you state otherwise.

[Lak]

So did they fall into their own footprints? It is a simple, yes or no question,or do you disagree with truthers in that regard?

You seem to be indicating that the debris (building bits and pieces) were not inside the footprints, but you provide an excuse.

I will interpret your answer as 'no' unless you state otherwise.
That's rather simple, actually : the buildings fell into their own footprints... well... For the part that did fall into the footprint, and at the same time they didn't, for the part that was blown away by the silent stealthy ninja explosives (or the normal explosives with a doctored soundtrack and noone in the vicinity permanently deafened by the massive explosion). So, they did, and they did not. Whatever works in a given context.

See, you can tell it was a controlled demolition with explosives because of the fallen-into-their-own-footprint nature of the collapse, except that the explosives used in this controlled demolition sent bits and pieces several hundred feet away, making the demolition not-so-controlled and leading to the destruction of all surrounding buildings.

Wait... What ?:boggled:

If some big man pushed me off the roof of WTC1 I might travel outwards seven feet or so depending on how hard he pushed me. Then gravity would take over and I would fall staight down. No stopping at go, no 200 dollars. Straight down.
I can't help but seeing this scene as an old cartoon. Bill E. Coyote pushed off a roof, staying in the air for a few seconds, and then falling straight down as soon as he realises he stands on nothing. :D

Welcome to the forum. Now get in line if you want to take a poke of the BS :D
Thank you. But it's so hard to resist.

[triforcharity]

It is tiresome to deal with somebody of such limited capacity. I have explained all this to you before several times.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393344&postcount=1622

Furthermore there were no fires the size of a city block . Zero. See attached ideo of zero fires in about 20 different perspectives of WTC7. You and the Readers will note that far from a city block-sized fire as you maintain, there are no visible fires at all.Lying will not help. And remember- this was at the time of the actual collapse when you would expect to see the most fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZsA3xb2kOA&feature=player_embedded Many views

And yet, I showed you a picture, two actually, taken about 30 minutes after the collapse, and there is already flames shooting out the windows.

And you wanna show me cherrypicked BS.

Get bent.

[triforcharity]

I'm not going to go around with you in this debunker two-step again.

I invite the Readers to note your logic. I would guess a few dozen fire extinguishers would have been enough to put out the dozen or so small fires that were observed soon after the collapse of the North Tower. Thousands could have been available at the drop of a hat with hundreds of men to man them.

Hundreds of men?? Did you bumb your head and forget we lost 343 by the time the second collapsed, and we were focused on SAVING LIVES?!?!! Damn son, you just cannot understand the fact that we will focus on saving LIVES every single time, before saving property.

Every single damn time, without any exceptions. PERIOD.

[triforcharity]

Wow this was a good one.. Look at the lines of windows from top to bottom and three deep on the etreme right of the near wall of WTC7. See ?....no fire. Now look at all that smoke being pumped out . Now what could be causing that smoke ?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos Clip 4

Fire.

Smoke travels. Fire does also.

Can you see inside where the fires are Billy? I can't.

[Macgyver1968]

Tri,

How effective would a dry chemical fire extinguisher be against an established fire?. It would take at least some time to gather the fire extinguishers..and walk them up 20 stories of steps. From what I understand they put out the fire by depriving it of oxygen...but it doesn't cool things off like water. Would you run into a burning building armed only with a fire extinguisher?

[triforcharity]

Mac,

Not typically. I would not go into a blaze with a fire extinguisher. Maybe to a small car fire, comprising of just the engine area, but not much more.

Dry fire extinguishers (ABC) With a size of (10 or 20) which is pretty standard for offices, are only good for 10 square feet or 20 sq. feet respectively.

They do work by smothering it. The particles get in the air, and on the fuel itself, and the fire starves. I have seen it where they start back up, even after its been deloused by 2 or 3 fire extinguishers. It is ONLY a means of stopping its progression. You will still need to soak the area with water.

ETA: Linkey

http://www.essortment.com/home/homesafetybuye_sywn.htm

[Bluesky]

If some big man pushed me off the roof of WTC1 I might travel outwards seven feet or so depending on how hard he pushed me. Then gravity would take over and I would fall staight down. No stopping at go, no 200 dollars. Straight down. The same with the building components. It was close to freefall remember and no jolt to throw anything to the side.

Te he he. Some new laws of physics: not Newtonian Physiscs but Newtruthian Physics

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I can't help but seeing this scene as an old cartoon. Bill E. Coyote pushed off a roof, staying in the air for a few seconds, and then falling straight down as soon as he realises he stands on nothing. :D

You mean like this:

[Bluesky]

If some big man pushed me off the roof of WTC1 I might travel outwards seven feet or so depending on how hard he pushed me. Then gravity would take over and I would fall staight down. No stopping at go, no 200 dollars. Straight down. The same with the building components. It was close to freefall remember and no jolt to throw anything to the side.

And its equally funny that Bill forgets about the air escaping from the building blowing the sides off, which was calculated at 200 to 600mph... I suppose that falling straight down and unpeeling like a banana are the same.

Bill can easily explain this by the First Law of Newtruthian Physics,
Truth = Mass x Aggravation

Ya got to laugh

[Furcifer]

Thank you. But it's so hard to resist.

Your welcome and I know. AAH, or "Abandon All Hope" is located in the member section. You can find it by clicking on the drop down menu at the bottom of the page. You don't know it yet, but you will thank me for this. :)

[Furcifer]

If some big man pushed me off the roof of WTC1 I might travel outwards seven feet or so depending on how hard he pushed me.

Oh really? Care to explain how you arrived at "seven feet or so"?. I bet you don't even have a clue. I bet you don't even know what you are talking about here. I bet you are a total ignoramus when it comes to physics. I bet even under controlled conditions, you need to eat with a spoon. cuz...

My dick is like supersize
Your dick look like two fries
My dick more mass than the Earth
Your dick half staff (it needs work)

Blame Mickey Avalon :D

[bill smith]

Oh really? Care to explain how you arrived at "seven feet or so"?. I bet you don't even have a clue. I bet you don't even know what you are talking about here. I bet you are a total ignoramus when it comes to physics. I bet even under controlled conditions, you need to eat with a spoon. cuz...

My dick is like supersize
Your dick look like two fries
My dick more mass than the Earth
Your dick half staff (it needs work)

Blame Mickey Avalon :D

Actually...

I eat peas with honey
I've done so all my life
I know it sounds quite funny
but it keeps them on the knife.

[BadBoy]

Here's your "small fire".

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

Pick the one labeled "unknown source Another view"
Ahh, Bill could handle that with his garden hose. Hell I recon Bill could put that fire out just by pissing on it while saving a lady in distress under one arm. Go bill go.

[bardamu]

Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion that a top-down gravitational collapse of the towers would be impossible is the fact that the columns tapered, and the steel supporting the structure and resisting the falling rubble would become thicker as the collapse progressed. The steel in some of the core columns was 5" thick near the bottom.

Let's suppose the towers had been 1010 floors high, so that after 110 floors had collapsed, about nine-tenths of the building remained standing below the collapse front and the steel in the columns was getting thicker and thicker. If the steel was 5" thick at the 900th floor, how thick would it be near the ground? Would the collapse still progress all the way down to the ground or would it be arrested at some point? Would the towers have collapsed even if they'd been 2 miles high? Has Dr. Greening done the maths?

[BadBoy]

What about ' Mackeyite ' ? Although I generally use that title to describe a follower of the great Ryan Mackey just as I use ' Wiekling ' to describe a follower of the not-so-great Ron Wieke.
Hi Bill,

I never noticed that you had hoards of followers yourself, infact I aint even seen another truther back you up. You are a total loon my man, several grapes short of a bunch.

You only need one picture, one piece of Video showing the huge fires to debunk the idea that they were only small and insignificant. I've seen plenty on this thread. How can you possibly see your argument as sustainable.

[BadBoy]

Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion that a top-down gravitational collapse of the towers would be impossible is the fact that the columns tapered, and the steel supporting the structure and resisting the falling rubble would become thicker as the collapse progressed. The steel in some of the core columns was 5" thick near the bottom.

Let's suppose the towers had been 1010 floors high, so that after 110 floors had collapsed, about nine-tenths of the building remained standing below the collapse front and the steel in the columns was getting thicker and thicker. If the steel was 5" thick at the 900th floor, how thick would it be near the ground? Would the collapse still progress all the way down to the ground or would it be arrested at some point? Would the towers have collapsed even if they'd been 2 miles high? Has Dr. Greening done the maths?
You have to remember that even if the columsn get thicker, you have the whole rest of the building falling down, every collapsed floor adds to the total mass crushing down on the floor below. Once that thing got going nothing could stop it.

[NutCracker]

Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion that a top-down gravitational collapse of the towers would be impossible is the fact that the columns tapered, and the steel supporting the structure and resisting the falling rubble would become thicker as the collapse progressed. The steel in some of the core columns was 5" thick near the bottom.

Let's suppose the towers had been 1010 floors high, so that after 110 floors had collapsed, about nine-tenths of the building remained standing below the collapse front and the steel in the columns was getting thicker and thicker. If the steel was 5" thick at the 900th floor, how thick would it be near the ground? Would the collapse still progress all the way down to the ground or would it be arrested at some point? Would the towers have collapsed even if they'd been 2 miles high? Has Dr. Greening done the maths?

Please work that out quantitatively. Equations please. The above analysis is qualitative and therefore pretty useless to support a conclusion that is quantitative.

Please take into account that the amount of kinetic energy available for collapse progression scales with the SQUARE of the distance d the collapse front progressed. As the amount of kinetic energy per unit of mass that is available is proportional to d AND the amount of falling mass is proportional to d.


You need to show that the steel becoming thicker with d outweighs Ekin = c * d2.


Good luck.

[sylvan8798]

Please work that out quantitatively. Equations please. The above analysis is qualitative and therefore pretty useless to support a conclusion that is quantitative.

Please take into account that the amount of kinetic energy available for collapse progression scales with the SQUARE of the distance d the collapse front progressed. As the amount of kinetic energy per unit of mass that is available is proportional to d AND the amount of falling mass is proportional to d.


You need to show that the steel becoming thicker with d outweighs Ekin = c * d2.


Good luck.

Since all or nearly all of his 1010 floors would still have been the SAME floor composition (4" slab on metal deck over long span joists) the floors would have collapsed just like WTC. And like WTC, some of the lower columns would have survived the initial collapse front to remain standing for at least a brief period. Some columns may have survived this secondary effect to higher levels, stripped of their floor slabs, simply because they had larger l/r ratios and didn't collapse under their own weight.

[bill smith]

You have to remember that even if the columsn get thicker, you have the whole rest of the building falling down, every collapsed floor adds to the total mass crushing down on the floor below. Once that thing got going nothing could stop it.

Sure there was almost no rubble in the footprint of WTC1. Didn't 15 people walk away in perfect safety from the middle of the footprint after the collapse ?

That makes it all the more interesting that we actually saw the Tower falling for the most part straight down. So where the heck did it all go ? Half a million tons....just gone ?

[ElMondoHummus]

Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion that a top-down gravitational collapse of the towers would be impossible is the fact that the columns tapered, and the steel supporting the structure and resisting the falling rubble would become thicker as the collapse progressed. The steel in some of the core columns was 5" thick near the bottom.

Let's suppose the towers had been 1010 floors high, so that after 110 floors had collapsed, about nine-tenths of the building remained standing below the collapse front and the steel in the columns was getting thicker and thicker. If the steel was 5" thick at the 900th floor, how thick would it be near the ground? Would the collapse still progress all the way down to the ground or would it be arrested at some point? Would the towers have collapsed even if they'd been 2 miles high? Has Dr. Greening done the maths?

The column strength does not matter. The weak points were the floor to column connections for the perimeter columns, and the column-to-column splices for the core ones. We've told you before: The failure modes in the main towers collapses involved the failure of the floors at their connections to the columns as well as the column connections to each other. We see this in the debris that was recovered. The splices between the floor trusses and the perimeter panels failed when the debris hit. This is demonstrated by the condition of the recovered truss seats:


The failure mode of spandrel connections on perimeter panels differed above and below the impact zone... Below the impact zone, it was more common for the spandrels to be ripped off from the panels. (This) may be due to shear failures as the weight of hte building during collapse came down on these lower panels.

... In both towers, most of the perimeter panel floor truss connectors (perimeter truss seats) below the impact floors were either missing or bent downward...

... In the recovered floor trusses, a large majority of the electric resistance welds at the web-to-chord connections failed. Failure of the connection between the floor truss and perimeter panel floor truss connectors was typically a result of the tab plate weld and bolt failure.


This compromised the floors and pulled them downward, causing core columns to sever at their splice connections. At no time during the collapse were the columns able to resist in purely the vertical direction to begin with. Given the layout of the columns - arrayed around the perimeter, and forming an interior "tube" for the core - the majority of falling debris hit the floors themselves. They had to; they were not intact as a solid mass, and the majority of area available were the floors, not the cross sections of the columns. Once you overload the floors, you sever their connections to the perimeter columns and create an out-of-axis force on the core columns, pulling them inward and down and severing those where they connect to each other. At no time did the collective force of the upper sections spend itself on the columns alone, and at no time was this force on the columns purely vertical. On the contrary, most of it was well off the vertical axis. Because of this, it is moot to discuss the strength of the columns increasing as you get close to the ground. At no time were the collapse forces manifesting in a direction where the increasing colulmn cross sections mattered.

You need to study the collapse mechanisms and understand the failure modes. Your post once again betrays a complete lack of understanding about how the towers actually collapsed.

[TruthersLie]

They fell straight down, but the explosions blew debris well outside of the footprint.

Explosions. GREAT.

Please provide any video evidence of explosions. Any explosions capable of "blew"ing "debris well outside the footprint" would be EASILY observable, and clearly audible on ALL of the videos from ground zero. Please provide any.

Any explosion capable of "blew" ing debris "well outside the footprint" would have thrown shrapnel across manhattan. It would have killed anyone who wasn't killed in the collapse, and would have shattered ALL of the windows within several hundred feet.

It should be reallllllllly easy to prove. Provide me with the medical reports showing hundreds of people hit by shrapnel... or with ruptured eardrums.

[TruthersLie]

Another consideration that leads inevitably to the conclusion ... <snipped as this is a derail attempt>

No no no.

Bad truther. STay on topic. You were asked a simple question, and have tried to dodge around it. Stay on topic.

Did the towers (or wtc7 for that matter) fall into their own footprints.

It is an easy question, of which you tried to dodge by saying (paraphrasing)"they fell into their own footprint except for the stuff that was ejected by explosives ouside of their footprint."

that isn't answering the question. It is a dodge. Simple questions should have simple answers. Did they fall into their own footprints? Yes or no?

[NoZed Avenger]

Crackamite, ok.

I did not know the trade name.
Will BS propose it as a candidate??:D

It is actually Dolomite. A totally righteous explosive.

[ElMondoHummus]

Crackamite, ok.

I did not know the trade name.
Will BS propose it as a candidate??:D

Probably. Everything he's forwarded so far has been nothing more than a repeat. Hell, at least this'll give us time to whip out the old "crack" jokes for another go-around. :D

[Newtons Bit]

It is actually Dolomite. A totally righteous explosive.

I prefer limestone (http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Limestone) as my sedimentary layer.

[ElMondoHummus]

I prefer limestone (http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Limestone) as my sedimentary layer.

Yeah, but if you used Crackamite in your foundations, you can promise your clients all sorts of exciting and unexpected idiosyncracies in the final structure. :D

Granted, it might be a tad unstable :boggled:. But hey, what's excitement without a little risk?? ;)

[carlitos]

I prefer limestone (http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Limestone) as my sedimentary layer.

I could be wrong, but I think you may have missed the Dolemite reference... :)
(not at all safe for work - language etc. warning)
SIUEHsyt54I

[grandmastershek]

Ahh, Bill could handle that with his garden hose. Hell I recon Bill could put that fire out just by pissing on it while saving a lady in distress under one arm. Go bill go.

Bill is Paul Bunyon?

[Newtons Bit]

I could be wrong, but I think you may have missed the Dolemite reference... :)
(not at all safe for work - language etc. warning)
SIUEHsyt54I

No, I got it, I was just being equally off-topic :D

[Toke]

I missed it.
To me Dolomite is the stuff/calcium used to harden water in evaporation/desalination plants.:)

[twinstead]

Isn't Dolomite that odd-tasting stuff made of yeast extract they put on toast in Australia?

Oh wait. That's Vegemite. Never mind

[WildCat]

Isn't Dolomite that odd-tasting stuff made of yeast extract they put on toast in Australia?

Oh wait. That's Vegemite. Never mind
Dolomite tastes much better than Vegemite.

[twinstead]

Dolomite tastes much better than Vegemite.

Indeed

[bardamu]

The column strength does not matter. The weak points were the floor to column connections for the perimeter columns, and the column-to-column splices for the core ones. We've told you before: The failure modes in the main towers collapses involved the failure of the floors at their connections to the columns as well as the column connections to each other. We see this in the debris that was recovered. The splices between the floor trusses and the perimeter panels failed when the debris hit. This is demonstrated by the condition of the recovered truss seats:



This compromised the floors and pulled them downward, causing core columns to sever at their splice connections. At no time during the collapse were the columns able to resist in purely the vertical direction to begin with. Given the layout of the columns - arrayed around the perimeter, and forming an interior "tube" for the core - the majority of falling debris hit the floors themselves. They had to; they were not intact as a solid mass, and the majority of area available were the floors, not the cross sections of the columns. Once you overload the floors, you sever their connections to the perimeter columns and create an out-of-axis force on the core columns, pulling them inward and down and severing those where they connect to each other. At no time did the collective force of the upper sections spend itself on the columns alone, and at no time was this force on the columns purely vertical. On the contrary, most of it was well off the vertical axis. Because of this, it is moot to discuss the strength of the columns increasing as you get close to the ground. At no time were the collapse forces manifesting in a direction where the increasing colulmn cross sections mattered.

You need to study the collapse mechanisms and understand the failure modes. Your post once again betrays a complete lack of understanding about how the towers actually collapsed.

In other words, you're saying that the buildings would have totally collapsed no matter how tall they'd been and no matter how strong the core columns were. I can't accept that columns made of 5" thick steel would be just as easy to pull apart as columns made of 1" thick steel. Dr. Griffin's record player spindle makes far more sense.

[Bluesky]

Sure there was almost no rubble in the footprint of WTC1. Didn't 15 people walk away in perfect safety from the middle of the footprint after the collapse ?

That makes it all the more interesting that we actually saw the Tower falling for the most part straight down. So where the heck did it all go ? Half a million tons....just gone ?

According to ae911truth I think it was removed down the elevators during the 9 months before the attack. There is a truthful explanation for everything.

[DGM]

In other words, you're saying that the buildings would have totally collapsed no matter how tall they'd been and no matter how strong the core columns were. I can't accept that columns made of 5" thick steel would be just as easy to pull apart as columns made of 1" thick steel. Dr. Griffin's record player spindle makes far more sense.
Why don't you spend some time learning how they did collapsed instead of posting ridicules comments like this.

[ElMondoHummus]

In other words, you're saying that the buildings would have totally collapsed no matter how tall they'd been and no matter how strong the core columns were. I can't accept that columns made of 5" thick steel would be just as easy to pull apart as columns made of 1" thick steel. Dr. Griffin's record player spindle makes far more sense.

You continue to miss the point. The weakness was never in the columns. They were in the floor truss to column connections. I don't know how many times we have to explain this to you. The pattern of damage to the floor truss to column connections demonstrates how the collapse progressed.

I don't know how many times we're going to have to say this either, but you really, really need to study the collapse events. The more you argue about the columns, the more you miss the point. The important events were the severing of the floors from the columns below the collapse initiation zone. If you don't get this central aspect of the collapses of the Twin Towers, you don't get anything. Start here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267). Go look up Bazant and Zhou for the energetics argument. Look up other posts by Newton's Bit, as well as ones by Architect, R.Mackey, Dave Rogers, and others in this forum. The information is there, and you are completely ignorant of it. You need to familiarize yourself with the basics; otherwise, you're not even talking about the collapse with us.

Anyone else who wants to post links regarding the floor failures and other elements of the Twin Towers collapse, feel free. Bardamu here doesn't appear to have the simplest inkling of how the towers collapses progressed.

[Tony Szamboti]

You continue to miss the point. The weakness was never in the columns. They were in the floor truss to column connections. I don't know how many times we have to explain this to you. The pattern of damage to the floor truss to column connections demonstrates how the collapse progressed.

I don't know how many times we're going to have to say this either, but you really, really need to study the collapse events. The more you argue about the columns, the more you miss the point. The important events were the severing of the floors from the columns below the collapse initiation zone. If you don't get this central aspect of the collapses of the Twin Towers, you don't get anything. Start here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267). Go look up Bazant and Zhou for the energetics argument. Look up other posts by Newton's Bit, as well as ones by Architect, R.Mackey, Dave Rogers, and others in this forum. The information is there, and you are completely ignorant of it. You need to familiarize yourself with the basics; otherwise, you're not even talking about the collapse with us.

Anyone else who wants to post links regarding the floor failures and other elements of the Twin Towers collapse, feel free. Bardamu here doesn't appear to have the simplest inkling of how the towers collapses progressed.

He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.

[funk de fino]

He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.

Not everything fell on the floors. Enough fell on them to make the connections fail.

You have no credibility as you are a proven liar.

[Grizzly Bear]

He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.

This would be an interesting statement.... if it weren't clear that after repeated corrections you still do not seem to recognize what Bazant's paper was even about. I've seen you repeat this time and time again, and I seriously don't know what you expect to achieve by showing a distinct inability to rexognize when you're barking at a limiting case model, and not a less optimistic reality case.

And BTW... bardamu did miss the point. I've sat here reading the quotes that people keep responding to him with. The steel could be 10 feet thick; if you overload the connections then the strength of the columns is useless. bardamu clearly has no grasp of it, and I'm wondering if you do yourself.

[BasqueArch]

He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.

1. A static load is one which does not vary. A dynamic load is one which changes with time. The top assembly of the WTC1,2 was a dynamic load striking the lower structure and propagating a natural collapse. Bazant says so and is the core of his proof, NIST says so, the rational members of this board say so; why are you pommeling a straw man with this red herring when you claim that the rationals say a dynamic load was not necessary to propagate a natural collapse.

2. Bazant proved in one of his papers that a tilt of 2.8% or greater is sufficient to shear all columns, including the core columns. Both towers tilted greater than this therefore they sheared,therefore the top columns did not axially strike the lower columns therefore no jolt.

3. I'm sorry Tony, but at this point these facts have been repeatedly pointed out to you. The only remaining explanation is that you have a mental illness and have been prescribed medications.
I'm serious, if you can separate yourself from a psychiatric diagnosis - have you ever been diagnosed with psychiatric symptom(s) - have you ever been prescribed medications? - are you taking these medications as prescribed?. Can we trust that your responses to these questions are true. These answers would be helpful in understanding your intelligent yet baffling responses.

[ElMondoHummus]

He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.

He is indeed missing the point, and so are you. It may be forgivable for someone without any engineering experience or knowledge of the collapse mechanism to make the mistake he's making, but you have been told God knows how many times what the deal is, so there's no excuse for you to say this. The area availble for the debris to impact is greater on the floors than on the cross section of the columns arrangement, as anyone can see:

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=275&pictureid=2078
(source: http://www.john-knapton.com/wtc.htm (http://www.john-knapton.com/wtc.htm))

... and a simple look at a floor diagram or an image like the one above tells you this. So given how the columns are arranged, how could most - not all, and as an aside, quit building strawmen - of the falling debris miss the floors? Furthermore, how can you explain the state of the recovered perimeter panel floor truss connectors if the floors weren't impacted by debris? You should be the last person that needs to be told this, but the state of the debris shows that the floors were hit with falling debris and failed at the truss-to-column connections because of it.

Don't confuse the issue and don't try to baffle with bulls***. I may not have the knowledge that Ryan, Newton's Bit, Dave Rodgers, Architect, Myriad, or any of the other structural brains here has, but I know attempts to muddy an issue when I see it. And that's exactly what you're doing. You know damn well that Bazant's papers were limiting cases and not descriptions of the actual collapse itself, so quit trying to make it out to be otherwise. Grizzly's told you, Ryan's told everybody, and now I'm telling you. If I, someone who's supposed to be inferior to you where engineering knowledge is concerned, can't get this point across to you, then you truly are lost.

[R.Mackey]

I would be willing to bet that Dr. Bazant wouldn't dare write a paper espousing this claim you are putting forth here. I seriously doubt he could envision any situation with the design of those buildings where a dynamic load would not be necessary to propagate a natural collapse.

You'd be "willing to bet," huh.

Have you written to him?

Incidentally, Dr. Corotis -- chief editor of the journal in question, and a colleague of Dr. Bazant's -- viewed our Hardfire debate, and was rather astonished at the absurdity of your performance.

Is he part of the plot? ;)

[Algebra34]

Why is any of this important when at first the claim was that a steel structured high rise collapsed because of plane impacts, jet fuel, and building content fire? When people questioned this it was claimed that the towers were only designed to take an impact from a plane, lost in a fog, trying to land. Not a plane going 500 miles per hour.

Until WTC7. Now a steel structured high rise can collapse from building content fire alone. Because of thermal expansion.

It's all bull Mackey. It's all bull.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why is any of this important when at first the claim was that a steel structured high rise collapsed because of plane impacts, jet fuel, and building content fire? When people questioned this it was claimed that the towers were only designed to take an impact from a plane, lost in a fog, trying to land. Not a plane going 500 miles per hour.

Until WTC7. Now a steel structured high rise can collapse from building content fire alone. Because of thermal expansion.

It's all bull Mackey. It's all bull.


You're comparing the Twin Towers to WTC7 and suggesting that, because they didn't fail for the exact same reasons, "it's all bull"?

Hah.

[R.Mackey]

You're comparing the Twin Towers to WTC7 and suggesting that, because they didn't fail for the exact same reasons, "it's all bull"?

Hah.


... you fell for such an obvious troll? :rolleyes:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

... you fell for such an obvious troll? :rolleyes:


Well, not exactly "fell for". Although I admit that I wasn't following my own advice when I decided to submit that post...

[ElMondoHummus]

Ryan's right, people. Algebra's just trying to get us all to react. Just put him on ignore.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I used to think Szamboti was just a little misguided and overzealous. After he ran his mouth about FDNY, I put him in the same category as all the other frauds. One things for sure, I'll never send my kid to Villanova.

[bardamu]

You continue to miss the point. The weakness was never in the columns. They were in the floor truss to column connections. I don't know how many times we have to explain this to you. The pattern of damage to the floor truss to column connections demonstrates how the collapse progressed.

I don't know how many times we're going to have to say this either, but you really, really need to study the collapse events. The more you argue about the columns, the more you miss the point. The important events were the severing of the floors from the columns below the collapse initiation zone. If you don't get this central aspect of the collapses of the Twin Towers, you don't get anything. Start here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267). Go look up Bazant and Zhou for the energetics argument. Look up other posts by Newton's Bit, as well as ones by Architect, R.Mackey, Dave Rogers, and others in this forum. The information is there, and you are completely ignorant of it. You need to familiarize yourself with the basics; otherwise, you're not even talking about the collapse with us.

Anyone else who wants to post links regarding the floor failures and other elements of the Twin Towers collapse, feel free. Bardamu here doesn't appear to have the simplest inkling of how the towers collapses progressed.


And BTW... bardamu did miss the point. I've sat here reading the quotes that people keep responding to him with. The steel could be 10 feet thick; if you overload the connections then the strength of the columns is useless. bardamu clearly has no grasp of it, and I'm wondering if you do yourself.

I'm not disputing that the floor truss to column connections would have been the weakest link. In fact, that strengthens my case, since the collapsing floors would never be able to pull the cores apart. While I don't believe all the floors would have collapsed, let's suppose for the sake of argument they did. The core would remain standing. So the point is not how the floors collapsed, but how the core collapsed.

[GlennB]

I'm not disputing that the floor truss to column connections would have been the weakest link. In fact, that strengthens my case, since the collapsing floors would never be able to pull the cores apart. While I don't believe all the floors would have collapsed, let's suppose for the sake of argument they did. The core would remain standing. So the point is not how the floors collapsed, but how the core collapsed.

Having been stripped of lateral support, its geometry was changed from a physics point of view. Welds that were previously supported in the horizontal plane were no longer supported. Meanwhile it was receiving sideways blows from falling debris. It's very hard to see how this can be hard to understand, but if you cut the horizontal bars from between the legs of a kitchen chair and test it for wobbliness before and after you might get a clue.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Until WTC7. Now a steel structured high rise can collapse from building content fire alone. Because of thermal expansion.

Such an event has always been possible since the dawn of time. We just never had all the variables add up in the wrong way at the wrong time before.

It's a failure of intellect and imagination of you and your movement that you have become irrevocably stuck on the demonstrably false notion that "never before" = "physically impossible".

It's all bull Mackey. It's all bull.

Argument from incredulity.

[NutCracker]

In other words, you're saying that the buildings would have totally collapsed no matter how tall they'd been and no matter how strong the core columns were. I can't accept that columns made of 5" thick steel would be just as easy to pull apart as columns made of 1" thick steel. Dr. Griffin's record player spindle makes far more sense.

You have not presented your calculations yet showing how the supposed increase in energy needed to destroy a floor with d outweighs the c * d 2 kinetic energy available for collapse progression in the falling mass.

Argument that have its foundation in your personal ignorance of relevant matters do not quite qualify as such a calculation.

Hint: You are being told that to destroy a floor it is not needed to destroy the beams' steel. It is sufficient to destroy the connections. Thus the energy required to disintegrate a floor is independent of the beams' steel thickness, is a constant e.

Good luck in showing the a constant e outweighs Ekin = constant * d2.

You may need to invoke the inflation model by putting forward the delusion that the connections where made of super duper energy absorbing stuffy stuff. :D:D:D:D:D

[Tony Szamboti]

You'd be "willing to bet," huh.

Have you written to him?

Incidentally, Dr. Corotis -- chief editor of the journal in question, and a colleague of Dr. Bazant's -- viewed our Hardfire debate, and was rather astonished at the absurdity of your performance.

Is he part of the plot? ;)

Just incredible. It seems that since you have not been able to answer my points you have decided your only out is to appeal to authority in a veiled way. An authority that is vested in defending Dr. Bazant's work due to it having been published in his journal. I notice Dr. Corotis does not provide any details.

[TruthersLie]

I'm not disputing that the floor truss to column connections would have been the weakest link. In fact, that strengthens my case, since the collapsing floors would never be able to pull the cores apart. While I don't believe all the floors would have collapsed, let's suppose for the sake of argument they did. The core would remain standing. So the point is not how the floors collapsed, but how the core collapsed.

Ah... another case of the "I want my cake and want to eat it too."

You are the one who is saying it is CD with silent explosives...

do you know how you do CD?

(your ignorance is showing)

In CD you remove the core and the building collapses inwards (it implodes).

Since we can see that the core of both towers is still standing AFTER the collapse has progressed, it conclusively shows it was NOT CD.

Please provide a CD where they use silent explosives
please provide a CD where they use silent explosives which ignores the core.

[TruthersLie]

Just incredible. It seems that since you have not been able to answer my points you have decided your only out is to appeal to authority in a veiled way. An authority that is vested in defending Dr. Bazant's work due to it having been published in his journal. I notice Dr. Corotis does not provide any details.

Then you should EASILY be able to publish a rebuttal.

It should be simple. I eagerly await your upcoming publication in any peer reviewed engineering journal.

Just like I'm still waiting to see that list of papers which are in real peer reviewed publications which say that NIST is wrong. I'll take it in any language... please provide one.

why can't you do that?

[Newtons Bit]

Why is any of this important when at first the claim was that a steel structured high rise collapsed because of plane impacts, jet fuel, and building content fire? When people questioned this it was claimed that the towers were only designed to take an impact from a plane, lost in a fog, trying to land. Not a plane going 500 miles per hour.

The engineering analysis to accurately design a building for a plane impact did not exist in the 1960's.

Until WTC7. Now a steel structured high rise can collapse from building content fire alone. Because of thermal expansion.

It's all bull Mackey. It's all bull.

Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance. WTC7 would not have collapsed if there was a spontaneous fire and no damage from debris. The debris, though insignificant as far as structural damage is concerned, breached the fire-walls that separate each floor. Without this intact fire-wall, the fire was able to spread orders of magnitude faster than a "content fire alone". This is an exceptionally important facet of building fire safety that you "truthers" seem unwilling to accept.

[R.Mackey]

Just incredible. It seems that since you have not been able to answer my points you have decided your only out is to appeal to authority in a veiled way. An authority that is vested in defending Dr. Bazant's work due to it having been published in his journal. I notice Dr. Corotis does not provide any details.

I made no appeal to authority. Your presentation has been patiently, comprehensively refuted dozens of times. This is merely in response to your empty boast that Dr. Bazant would "never" do something he was never asked to do.

I doubt he even knows about your "work." Its significance is practically nil.

[carlitos]

I have asked Mr. Szamboti previously, but he has ignored me, so I'll try one more time since he is posting here.

Tony, can you please direct me to where I may read your work in a proper engineering journal? Any ASCE journal (http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/) at all will do - Journal of Structural Engineering (http://pubs.asce.org/journals/structural/default.htm), etc. Alternatively, could you explain why your work does not appear in these journals? This seems puzzling, if indeed your paper is significant in any way.

Also, if you have any affirmative theory that explains the events of 9/11/01, I would love to see it. Anywhere at all, even on the silly AE911truth site.

Thanks in advance :)

[Justin39640]

He isn't missing the point. It is those of you who are simply asserting that everything fell on the floors and not addressing the collapse of the central core without a jolt who are missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point.
.

There's a reason they didn't build the core all the way up first then install the floors....

I wonder why?

Who said everything just hit the floors?
Everything got hit including the floors. Maybe this is your mistake.

[Tony Szamboti]

I made no appeal to authority. Your presentation has been patiently, comprehensively refuted dozens of times. This is merely in response to your empty boast that Dr. Bazant would "never" do something he was never asked to do.

I doubt he even knows about your "work." Its significance is practically nil.

Dr. Bazant certainly does know about my work. When asked Dr. Frank Greening admitted he had discussed it with Dr. Bazant more than once.

My main point here is that the assertion that most of the upper block material falling on the floors ouside of the core to cause a collapse which only experiences 0.3g resistance is folly, as it does not account for the resistance of the central core in the initial stories of the collapse. There is also no peer reviewed paper or even a rational white paper written to support it. It is all unsupported assertion attempting to leverage off of Dr. Bazant's original paper in a ridiculously extreme and impossible way.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Dr. Bazant certainly does know about my work. Dr. Frank Greening has assured me that they discussed it a number of times.

My main point here is that the assertion that most of the upper block material falling on the floors ouside of the core to cause a collapse which only experiences 0.3g resistance is folly, as it does not account for the central core. There is also no peer reviewed paper or even a rational white paper written to support it. It is all unsupported assertion.

Tony,

Have you ever read "Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail" by Matthys Levy, Mario Salvadori, & Kevin Woest?

If you haven't I suggest you read it for your sake!

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Have you ever read "Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail" by Matthys Levy, Mario Salvadori, & Kevin Woest?

If you haven't I suggest you read it for your sake!

I purchased the book and read it. It is a very good book and several of the case studies are quite interesting. However, they do not get into detail about the WTC. They just use the NIST line of fire induced collapse. They wouldn't have known when they printed the book that there was no deceleration of the upper section of the building or that the resistance was only 0.3g at any point and what the ramifications of these things were.

[Furcifer]

They wouldn't have known when they printed the book that there was no deceleration of the upper section of the building or that the resistance was only 0.3g at any point and what the ramifications of these things were.

They certainly would have known the above statement is completely contradictory. It's either 1g and no "deceleration" or 0.7g with a 0.3g "deceleration".

and ffs, TRY USING VECTORS!!!!!!!!! Or try saying "deceleration" 50 times in a row. By the time you get to about 10 "decelerations" you should become aware it really has no meaning.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I purchased the book and read it. It is a very good book and several of the case studies are quite interesting. However, they do not get into detail about the WTC. They just use the NIST line of fire induced collapse. They wouldn't have known when they printed the book that there was no deceleration of the upper section of the building or that the resistance was only 0.3g at any point and what the ramifications of these things were.

Tony,

The idea of the book was to tell you how buildings collaspe. Either by fire or by some other means.

I've been a firefighter for 6 yrs. & I can tell you that the WTCs' were brought down by a combination of damage from the plane impacts, the resulting fires & gravity taking care of the rest.

[carlitos]

Tony, would you care to answer my post. This is a simple question, one which you have avoided several times now. Thanks!

Can you please direct me to where I may read your work in a proper engineering journal? Any ASCE journal at all will do - Journal of Structural Engineering, etc. Alternatively, could you explain why your work does not appear in these journals? This seems puzzling, if indeed your paper is significant in any way.

[dtugg]

Well, obviously the reason his work hasn't appeared in any legitimate journal is because they are all in on it.

[Grizzly Bear]

My main point here is that the assertion that most of the upper block material falling on the floors ouside of the core to cause a collapse which only experiences 0.3g resistance is folly, as it does not account for the resistance of the central core in the initial stories of the collapse.
I don't recall myself or anybody else making that sort of case. If anything I'd contend that the speed of the collapse was a combination of the overloading of the connections, the buckling of columns from all sorts of ***'ed up load angle, and having a huge section of the building do something that it was never designed to withstand in the first place (fall down onto the floors immediately below it). Perhaps people might make that case because they aren't reading a particular LIMITING CASE as if it was reality... and all...

The resistance in much of the central core that you're referring to would have been provided by the connections that secured the floors to them, and those failed long before they had any chance of transferring the loads to the ground.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Tony,

Think of dominos when you place them in a row, what happens when you push just 1 domino? It starts a chain reaction, right? Then all the dominos fall down.

The Towers were like dominos, the tops fell & started a chain reaction which lead to their destruction.

Domino Day 2008 - The New World Record (High Quality):
yeF7yLkEECs

[willhaven]

That makes it all the more interesting that we actually saw the Tower falling for the most part straight down. So where the heck did it all go ? Half a million tons....just gone ?
Gone? It took months to remove the debris. As for the size of the pile, the building was mostly empty space.

[TruthersLie]

Tony.

Why is it you dodge this every time? A detail rebuttal would be fantastic. Please explain to me why you cannot publish a rebuttal to NIST in any peer reviewed engineering journal, or supply me with some truther rebuttal.

Why can't you even admit you have nothing?

Then you should EASILY be able to publish a rebuttal.

It should be simple. I eagerly await your upcoming publication in any peer reviewed engineering journal.

Just like I'm still waiting to see that list of papers which are in real peer reviewed publications which say that NIST is wrong. I'll take it in any language... please provide one.

why can't you do that?

[BadBoy]

I purchased the book and read it. It is a very good book and several of the case studies are quite interesting. However, they do not get into detail about the WTC. They just use the NIST line of fire induced collapse. They wouldn't have known when they printed the book that there was no deceleration of the upper section of the building or that the resistance was only 0.3g at any point and what the ramifications of these things were.
deceleration of the upper section of the building

Do you mean deceleration as negative change in speed (ignoring changes in direction), I mean do you mean the collapse slowed down?

I thought what happened was that the collapse didnt accelerate at the same rate it would have if it just dropped in thin air. That it did accelerate and that the speed of collapse never decreased. The speed of collapse was always increasing was it not, just not at the same rate of increase as free fall?

[Tony Szamboti]

I used to think Szamboti was just a little misguided and overzealous. After he ran his mouth about FDNY, I put him in the same category as all the other frauds. One things for sure, I'll never send my kid to Villanova.

If you actually read what I have said here I do not place blame for anything on the FDNY.

I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.

Nowhere on this page or any others will you see me saying the FDNY was involved in anything nefarious.

What I have said is that the excuse profferred by the NIST concerning the water mains being destroyed by the towers does not show there was no way to fight the fires in WTC 7. There were fireboats in the river and lines could be run from them or distant hydrants with pumpers and used on the siamese fittings on the outside of the building to charge the sprinkler system.

[BigAl]

There were fireboats in the river and lines
could be run from them or distant hydrants with pumpers and used on the siamese fittings on the outside of the building to charge the sprinkler system.

I don't think you've responded to the couple people with firefighting experience that commented on the futility of such an attempt. One was Tri who was on-site that day.

My comment is that FDNY (or what was left of it) was fully deployed saving buildings that could be saved (for example, 90 West and 140 West, a very important building) and doing search and rescue on the pile. This sounds to me like 9/11 was a zero-sum day for FDNY.

You assume that the siamese risers and sprinklers survived and had the capacity to fight the fires as they were shortly after 10:20, the time WTC1 hit WTC7.

Maybe FDNY knew something you don't know.

[triforcharity]

If you actually read what I have said here I do not place blame for anything on the FDNY.

I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.

Nowhere on this page or any others will you see me saying the FDNY was involved in anything nefarious.

What I have said is that the excuse profferred by the NIST concerning the water mains being destroyed by the towers does not show there was no way to fight the fires in WTC 7. There were fireboats in the river and lines could be run from them or distant hydrants with pumpers and used on the siamese fittings on the outside of the building to charge the sprinkler system.

And I and others have explained why that was not possible. And yet, you ignore it.

Im a little lazy right now to look for it, I would be more than happy to explain it again to you. Only if you promise to learn, or at least try. I don't mind helping you understand. I do it for a living.

[Furcifer]

What I have said is that the excuse profferred by the NIST concerning the water mains being destroyed by the towers does not show there was no way to fight the fires in WTC 7. There were fireboats in the river and lines could be run from them or distant hydrants with pumpers and used on the siamese fittings on the outside of the building to charge the sprinkler system.

The insinuation is that the NYFD was negligent in how they handled the fire.It must be nice to sit back at your computer 8 years later and imply this.

Why not consider for a moment that the building was evacuated, there were a million known and unknown variables to fighting the fire, all evidence suggested it was doomed anyways, it was total chaos, and they did in fact "pull" all of the firefighters out and let it burn to the ground?

Instead of doing what you are, and trying to make it seem like the NYFD is a bunch of paid off putzes that stood around and lit cigars off the flames while people around them screamed "For the love of God why won't you do something?"

I really don't know what your intention is, but from where I'm sitting this is what I'm seeing. Just so you know.

[DGM]

The insinuation is that the NYFD was negligent in how they handled the fire.It must be nice to sit back at your computer 8 years later and imply this.

Why not consider for a moment that the building was evacuated, there were a million known and unknown variables to fighting the fire, all evidence suggested it was doomed anyways, it was total chaos, and they did in fact "pull" all of the firefighters out and let it burn to the ground?

Instead of doing what you are, and trying to make it seem like the NYFD is a bunch of paid off putzes that stood around and lit cigars off the flames while people around them screamed "For the love of God why won't you do something?"

I really don't know what your intention is, but from where I'm sitting this is what I'm seeing. Just so you know.
I think this all comes from an underlying need for WTC 7 to be important enough to be saved as opposed to what it really was, just another building. Without this the urgency for the FDNY to save it and ignore everything else they were dealing with would not be there.

[RedIbis]

I think this all comes from an underlying need for WTC 7 to be important enough to be saved as opposed to what it really was, just another building. Without this the urgency for the FDNY to save it and ignore everything else they were dealing with would not be there.

You think the largest Secret Service field office was just another bldg?

[BigAl]

You think the largest Secret Service field office was just another bldg?

Do you think it was predicted that the largest Secret Service field office was going to collapse and nothing could be done to prevent it?

Do you think that 140 West St was just another building?

[DGM]

You think the largest Secret Service field office was just another bldg?
Yes I do when you consider the risk to human life it would take to save it. What was gained?

[funk de fino]

You think the largest Secret Service field office was just another bldg?

Most people had not even heard of it prior to 911.

[carlitos]

If you actually read what I have said here I do not place blame for anything on the FDNY.

I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.
And here is a place where you can write the evidence that supports your belief that Rudy Giuliani et al "conned" the FDNY into thinking or doing anything. Just hit "quote" and type the evidence in this little box here. Thanks!

[BigAl]

I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.


Why was it a "con" if the people making the prediction were right?

[RedIbis]

Most people had not even heard of it prior to 911.

It is the Secret Service after all.

[carlitos]

(rimshot) - good one.

If anyone in NYC ever referred to this building (WTC7), it was called the Salomon brothers building "which is by the world trade center" or something.

[BigAl]

(rimshot) - good one.

If anyone in NYC ever referred to this building (WTC7), it was called the Salomon brothers building "which is by the world trade center" or something.

I knew the WTC towers and the plaza very well but prior to 9/11 I couldn't have identified WTC7/Salomon Brothers without a map.

[Justin39640]

(rimshot) - good one.

If anyone in NYC ever referred to this building (WTC7), it was called the Salomon brothers building "which is by the world trade center" or something.

Prior to 911 I only thought of it as that. Only after 911 did I ever refer to it as WTC7.

[Furcifer]

I think this all comes from an underlying need for WTC 7 to be important enough to be saved as opposed to what it really was, just another building. Without this the urgency for the FDNY to save it and ignore everything else they were dealing with would not be there.

One of the first videos I ever saw on this silly conspiracy was shot by a couple of guys off their balcony. The audio is fuzzy, but the two guys pan to WTC7 and say something to the effect of "Oh man, that things been burning and smoking for hours, it's going down".

Obviously shot by a couple of psychics. I need to track them down and get them to enter in the MDC. How could they possibly know? How?

[carlitos]

This may be worth repeating

Also, for those engaging bill smith about the "question" of why I didn't acknowledge something as fact that only happened in his imagination, this discussion belongs in a rubber room, not my thread. Any further postings or responses on that subject are off-topic and will be reported. This is your only warning. Don't feed obvious trolls.

[Gaspode]

Discussion on cross bracing split to here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162267) and molten steel to here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162268).

One derail at a time please. I'm getting too old for this. Thanks.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Discussion on cross bracing split to here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162267) and molten steel to here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162268).

One derail at a time please. I'm getting too old for this. Thanks.

I nominate that Mod Box for hilarity & logic.

We're all getting too old for everything! ;)

[ElMondoHummus]

Discussion on cross bracing split to here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162267) and molten steel to here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162268).

One derail at a time please. I'm getting too old for this. Thanks.

Did poor Gaspode gasplode over this? :D

[R.Mackey]

If I've counted correctly, that makes seven splits for this thread.

Why is it so hard to follow the rules? Or do the Truthers simply neglect to actually read it, including the title?

Anyway, I no longer care; I've given up keeping it on topic for weeks now. Reporting derails is sometimes an effective tactic for getting the more offensive trolls bounced, however, so do what you think is right.

[rwguinn]

And I and others have explained why that was not possible. And yet, you ignore it.

Im a little lazy right now to look for it, I would be more than happy to explain it again to you. Only if you promise to learn, or at least try. I don't mind helping you understand. I do it for a living.
Evidence suggests that the capability is non-existent...

[Seymour Butz]

I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.



IOW, you believe that all these highly educated guys, with fire science and engineering degrees, were duped.

That these guys, that know FAAAAR more than you in this area, since their lives depend on it, were duped.

That all these guys with prolly several hundred years worth of fighting actual fires, and what it takes to string lines from the river, were duped into thinking it would be impossible.

And continue to this day to remain duped.

So, you're saying they weren't in on it, just morons, right?

By making this statement, we all know now just exacly who the real moron in this thread is, Tony....

[twinstead]

From what truthers say, they must believe that everybody else on Earth except them is either incompetent, stupid, or 'in on it'--kind of like how some religious cults think everybody is going to Hell but them. All I can think is that it's some kind of woo woo circuit breaker to rationalize why so many people disagree with them.

[RedIbis]

I have said that I believe they were conned into thinking that WTC 7 was going to collapse and made what they thought was the only decision to make in not risking more lives fighting it's fires.

Nowhere on this page or any others will you see me saying the FDNY was involved in anything nefarious.



I don't think "conned" is the right word here. If you study the ff testimonies a significant amount said that they heard from others on the street that the bldg was going to come down. Some even expressed surprise.

The actual number of FDNY that said they personally thought the bldg would collapse is very small. In fact, you can trace who specifically received word from the OEM that WTC 7 was due to collapse, and that might very well be the origin of such an unprecedented diagnosis.

[johnny karate]

I don't think "conned" is the right word here. If you study the ff testimonies a significant amount said that they heard from others on the street that the bldg was going to come down. Some even expressed surprise.

The actual number of FDNY that said they personally thought the bldg would collapse is very small. In fact, you can trace who specifically received word from the OEM that WTC 7 was due to collapse, and that might very well be the origin of such an unprecedented diagnosis.

...none of which explains why not a single one of these same firefighters have expressed the slightest bit of suspicion about the "official explanation" for the collapse of WTC7 in the intervening 8+ years.

Got a theory for that, Red?

No?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[RedIbis]

...none of which explains why not a single one of these same firefighters have expressed the slightest bit of suspicion about the "official explanation" for the collapse of WTC7.


Is this really all you have left at this point? You realize that your post proves you implicitly agree with mine.

[triforcharity]

Red,

Me and a friend walked by 7WTC later in the afternoon 3-4 ish, looked at it, and said to each other that 7 would be next.

Do you realize that many firefighters that were there that day never even saw 7? Some, like myself, were working on the E side of West street, and never saw it.

[RedIbis]

Red,

Me and a friend walked by 7WTC later in the afternoon 3-4 ish, looked at it, and said to each other that 7 would be next.

Do you realize that many firefighters that were there that day never even saw 7? Some, like myself, were working on the E side of West street, and never saw it.

For some reason, some posters and the mods seem not to like it when I agressively question you on some of your claims.

This is strange on a skeptic's forum since it is a very unique thing to have a principal witness of the very event members have spent hundreds of thousands of posts in tens of thousands of threads on.

Otherwise, I would ask you a whole slew of questions to determine if what you claim is true or it's just another fabricated tale.

[funk de fino]

I don't think "conned" is the right word here. If you study the ff testimonies a significant amount said that they heard from others on the street that the bldg was going to come down. Some even expressed surprise.

The actual number of FDNY that said they personally thought the bldg would collapse is very small. In fact, you can trace who specifically received word from the OEM that WTC 7 was due to collapse, and that might very well be the origin of such an unprecedented diagnosis.

Mike Catalano (the building engineer) said it was going to collapse and said it would have done so without any damage, only the fire.

[funk de fino]

For some reason, some posters and the mods seem not to like it when I agressively question you on some of your claims.

This is strange on a skeptic's forum since it is a very unique thing to have a principal witness of the very event members have spent hundreds of thousands of posts in tens of thousands of threads on.

Otherwise, I would ask you a whole slew of questions to determine if what you claim is true or it's just another fabricated tale.


You have yet to prove that your lie, that he lied, was true.

[Justin39640]

.... and that might very well be the origin of such an unprecedented diagnosis.

Actually, the origin was probably the transit the FDNY was using to track the buildings movement.
You've been around long enough to know about that, stop being dishonest.

You have yet to prove that your lie, that he lied, was true.

Has Red proved anything ever? :D

ETA: darnit I forgot what thread this was...
I meant:
Great job on the show guys. :)

[johnny karate]

Is this really all you have left at this point?

That no firefighters who witnessed the collapse of WTC7 agree with you? No, it's not "all I have". But even if it was, it's still a pretty damn strong case for you being completely wrong.

You realize that your post proves you implicitly agree with mine.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of "granting the premise"? That you think I agree with you is particularly hilarious considering you're making this ludicrous assertion within the context of trying to pretend the FDNY agrees with you as well. It's like a delusion within a delusion.

Let me make this perfectly clear: Your hypothesis that the members of the FDNY who witnessed the collapse of WTC7 were "told" it was caused by fire and damage, when in reality it was a controlled demolition, is completely unsubtantiated and demeaning to the intelligence of professional firefighters.

But rather than challenge that claim directly and subject myself to an avalanche of cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes, I find it much simpler to point out you that not a single one of those firefighters have expressed the slightest doubts or suspicions about what they were supposedly "told", and ask you to offer an explanation.

Which you have consistently failed to do.

Gee, I wonder why.

[carlitos]

IOW, you believe that all these highly educated guys, with fire science and engineering degrees, were duped.

That these guys, that know FAAAAR more than you in this area, since their lives depend on it, were duped.

That all these guys with prolly several hundred years worth of fighting actual fires, and what it takes to string lines from the river, were duped into thinking it would be impossible.

And continue to this day to remain duped.

So, you're saying they weren't in on it, just morons, right?

By making this statement, we all know now just exacly who the real moron in this thread is, Tony....
Tony makes claims based on the fact that he's an engineer. He refuses to publish these claims in a peer-reviewed journal, so they are worthless.

Tony makes claims about political motives for 9/11 based on ignorance and fear. He refuses to publish the "evidence" for these claims anywhere at all, not even on this forum when asked repeatedly.

He's a crackpot, no more worth taking seriously than the truther trolls here. I hope Ryan doesn't waste time debating him again. It's pointless.

[A W Smith]

Otherwise, I would ask you a whole slew of questions to determine if what you claim is true or it's just another fabricated tale.

Is that all you got dirty lying bird? Witnesses that don't fit into your agenda driven conspiracy are all lying or making stuff up? Do you have that much contempt for the FDNY?

[alienentity]

The actual number of FDNY that said they personally thought the bldg would collapse is very small.

Oh really? Misleading much?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

Just a select sample of the 'few':
'They backed me off the rig because Seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because Seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down. –Firefighter Thomas Smith '

'We were very concerned with the collapse potential '

'We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing' Frank Fellini

'they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down'
Firefighter Edward Kennedy

'Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse.' Chief Frank Cruthers


etc etc etc.... yes, just a mere 'few' people, and a 'few' isolated pockets of fire in the towers which could be knocked down by a couple of hoses....:rolleyes:

If truthers could back up their theories without resorting to gross misrepresentation, distortions or outright false information, that would help the 9/11 truth cause. But they can't do that - Redibis can't, and neither can David Ray Griffin or Richard Gage.

It's a very obvious problem, for a very obvious reason: the evidence doesn't support the claims of 9/11 truth, so it has to be fabricated by those means.

[willhaven]

I don't think "conned" is the right word here. If you study the ff testimonies a significant amount said that they heard from others on the street that the bldg was going to come down. Some even expressed surprise.

The actual number of FDNY that said they personally thought the bldg would collapse is very small. In fact, you can trace who specifically received word from the OEM that WTC 7 was due to collapse, and that might very well be the origin of such an unprecedented diagnosis.Surely the building burning for twice as long as its fireproofing was rated to withstand couldn't have been a sign that there might be structural issues.

[twinstead]

Frankly, I think red is spinning the firefighter's testimony to support his position. It is IMPERATIVE, in his god of the gaps arguments, that he poke holes in the firefighter's accounts and try to portray them as incompetent because being that they were right there that day, in the trenches physically watching those buildings that red and others insist were rigged with explosives, their testimony is compelling as hell.

[carlitos]

Has he actually asserted any position, anywhere? I just see the whole 'answering a question with a question thing' going back for like 2 years.

[DavidJames]

Has he actually asserted any position, anywhere? I just see the whole 'answering a question with a question thing' going back for like 2 years.Red doesn't like answering questions, which considering his ignorance in the technical aspects of the subject matter, isn't surprising. So he mostly refrains from making any claims.

He has, on rare occasion, offered up an idea but each time his "facts" are badly beaten down so he's a bit shy anymore.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

For some reason, some posters and the mods seem not to like it when I agressively question you on some of your claims.

This is strange on a skeptic's forum since it is a very unique thing to have a principal witness of the very event members have spent hundreds of thousands of posts in tens of thousands of threads on.

Otherwise, I would ask you a whole slew of questions to determine if what you claim is true or it's just another fabricated tale.

So bascially you're gonna ask all of us "yes or no" questions. Then based on our findings you're going to deny everything we say.

Isn't that right Red?

[bill smith]

Red,

Me and a friend walked by 7WTC later in the afternoon 3-4 ish, looked at it, and said to each other that 7 would be next.

Do you realize that many firefighters that were there that day never even saw 7? Some, like myself, were working on the E side of West street, and never saw it.

Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

So I will put that one where I put your 15 years in the FDNY.

[alienentity]

Wow, now Tri is getting called out as a fake FDNY 15 year veteran. All because you were there on the day. That was your sin.

[HyJinX]

Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

I can't believe this argument is still used by the twoofies. Hilarious.

Poor bill...he needs to strap on those heels and prance around here just to get some attention. Different day...same ol' bill.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

So I will put that one where I put your 15 years in the FDNY.

American Civil War - 1st time armored ships & submarines used in combat.
(The Monitor vs Merrimac & C.S.S. Hunley)

Lincoln Assassination - 1st time a President of the U.S. was killed by an assassin.

The Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk - 1st time people flew an airplane.
(Also they made the 1st motorized bike)

Hitler uses the ME-262 near the end of WWII - 1st time jets were used in combat.

Space Shuttle Challenger - 1st time a shuttle exploded after takeoff.

9/11 - 1st time that buildings higher than 1,000 feet came down by fire.



You don't use logic or research Red. That's pretty damn sad!

[cyclonic]

Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

So I will put that one where I put your 15 years in the FDNY.

Never ever happened before?
You never ever get ANYTHING right bill.

KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE 1993.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

" constructed from un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes"

[DGM]

Never ever happened before?
You never ever get ANYTHING right bill.

KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE 1993.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

" constructed from un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes"
Tri was talking about WTC 7 so he had two examples to draw from that day!

[Grizzly Bear]

Never ever happened before?
You never ever get ANYTHING right bill.

KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE 1993.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

" constructed from un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes"

Their pet peeve is no prior global collapse and whenever they have to they'll add that it deals with tall buildings. They leave out important details that certain individuals call convoluted nonsense (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5394146&postcount=485). Whether it's the troll or your friendlier no-claimer, no-planer, or otherwise I think that statement summarizes more about the CT's mindset on the science of engineering than the poster of it realizes.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Has he actually asserted any position, anywhere? I just see the whole 'answering a question with a question thing' going back for like 2 years.


He believes MIHOP in general and that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon specifically.

[RedIbis]

Let me make this perfectly clear: Your hypothesis that the members of the FDNY who witnessed the collapse of WTC7 were "told" it was caused by fire and damage, when in reality it was a controlled demolition, is completely unsubtantiated and demeaning to the intelligence of professional firefighters.
.

Your posts tend to be longwinded and tedious so I'll just highlight this one point.

Firefighter testimonies do not describe what they were told after the collapse. Most of the testimonies report what they heard before the collapse, specifically, that the collapse was imminent.

This is different from believing it was imminent. I've made this point many times. Now, I just like to stop you in your tracks when you misrepresent what I've said. You know, you can always use the quote function.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Firefighter testimonies do not describe what they were told after the collapse. Most of the testimonies report what they heard before the collapse, specifically, that the collapse was imminent.

This is different from believing it was imminent.
Unless they said the building was going to come down before it came down

[triforcharity]

For some reason, some posters and the mods seem not to like it when I agressively question you on some of your claims.

This is strange on a skeptic's forum since it is a very unique thing to have a principal witness of the very event members have spent hundreds of thousands of posts in tens of thousands of threads on.

Otherwise, I would ask you a whole slew of questions to determine if what you claim is true or it's just another fabricated tale.

Feel free to PM me, I don't care, I promise not to report you.

[triforcharity]

Personally I find that very hard to believe. You had never seen a steel framed hi-rise building fall down from fire before and you had never even heard of a steel framed hi-rise building falling down from fire in your lives- either of you. Why not ?....because it had never ever happened before in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth.

So I will put that one where I put your 15 years in the FDNY.

No, we hadn't seen a high rise steel building collapse, you're right. Because we fight fire. We usually do not just let it burn for 3-4 times its fire rating. Which is the biggest reason you don't see any other highrise buildings that are steel framed fall. We fight fire. That is what we do. And we do it quite well.

Where did I say 15 years? Start another topic.

[johnny karate]

Firefighter testimonies do not describe what they were told after the collapse. Most of the testimonies report what they heard before the collapse, specifically, that the collapse was imminent.

This is different from believing it was imminent. I've made this point many times. Now, I just like to stop you in your tracks when you misrepresent what I've said. You know, you can always use the quote function.

Whether any individual firefighter determined on their own or were informed by others of the imminent collapse of WTC7 is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether these fire and building safety professionals deemed the imminent collapse of WTC7 to be a plausible scenario. Almost a decade later, not a single one of them has suggested otherwise.

And dishonest quote-miners like yourself can offer no explanation for this that doesn't involve FDNY complicity and/or gross incompetence.

[BigAl]

Your posts tend to be longwinded and tedious so I'll just highlight this one point.

Firefighter testimonies do not describe what they were told after the collapse. Most of the testimonies report what they heard before the collapse, specifically, that the collapse was imminent.

This is different from believing it was imminent. I've made this point many times. Now, I just like to stop you in your tracks when you misrepresent what I've said. You know, you can always use the quote function.


Firemen are not random eyewitnesses. They have training. I know for a fact that the Lieutenant's test has requires specific knowledge of the characteristics of steel beams in building fires. How many of the quotes you have are by firemen of Lieutenant rank or higher?

I'm going to leap to the assumption that firemen of lesser rank get the basics about steel in fires and building collapse for their own safety.

Steel structures collapse when exposed to fire in excess of the fireproofing specifications. You don't seem to have accepted that fact.

In my experience, having been on the client end of architect's designs and construction work in Manhattan building projects, that is an hour or two.

[triforcharity]

Firemen are not random eyewitnesses. They have training. I know for a fact that the Lieutenant's test has requires specific knowledge of the characteristics of steel beams in building fires. How many of the quotes you have are by firemen of Lieutenant rank or higher?

I'm going to leap to the assumption that firemen of lesser rank get the basics about steel in fires and building collapse for their own safety.

Steel structures collapse when exposed to fire in excess of the fireproofing specifications. You don't seem to have accepted that fact.

In my experience, having been on the client end of architect's designs and construction work in Manhattan building projects, that is an hour or two.

This is ABSOLUTELY correct. Heck, even in Florida, I had to know stuff like that. Now, why would I need to know about steel properties and fire potential in Florida? Lots of warehouses. Everywhere.

I can point you to quite a few buildings that collapsed that were steel framed. Including a toilet paper factory.

One to two hours is typical, and pretty much the minumum for steel framed structures.
I refuse to go into a storage unit that is on fire. Why you ask? Most storage units are steel framed for the roof. The walls may be concrete, but I don't exactly want a roof collapsing on me while I am trying to save someones crap. I will spray water on it all day long from outside. No problem. Im safe there.

[BigAl]

I can point you to quite a few buildings that collapsed that were steel framed. Including a toilet paper factory.


The roofing in the average single-floor industrial building is a steel truss assembly that seems to be indistinguishable from the steel truss each floor in WTC was made of.

My bookmarks collection has this bit of information


http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/

(see table D-1 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/#ad )

NIOSH Publication No. 2005-132:
Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures


All-steel trusses present their own hazards when exposed to fire. The mass and surface area of steel truss components are factors that determine time to failure. A heavy, thick section of steel has greater resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length because of the increased mass. A large, solid steel truss can absorb heat and take longer to reach its failure temperature, whereas a lightweight steel truss such as an open-web bar joist will be heated to its failure temperature much faster.

Once the failure temperature is reached, heavy steel trusses and lightweight metal trusses will react to the fire and fail in a similar
manner. A steel member fails at the internal temperature of the steel and not at the ambient air temperature. This temperature is often referred to as the critical temperature of the steel member.

Findings reported by the National Engineered Lightweight construction Fire Research Project indicate that unprotected lightweight steel C-joists fail within 4 to 6 minutes of exposure to fire [Grundahl 1992]. Testing conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Standards (now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST) showed that unprotected steel open-web bar joists reached 1,200: F in 6 to 8 minutes [Brannigan 1999]. Table D-1 illustrates that steel retains only 25% of its original strength at 1,200: F and retains only half its original strength at approximately 900 :F. Building design calculations are based on original strength at normal temperatures. At elevated temperatures, steel may retain no excess strength.

...steel loses strength when exposed to temperatures commonly found in structural fires. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, which means it can transfer heat away from a localized source and act as a heat sink. As long as the flame impingement is localized, the steel can transfer heat to other regions of the member-and thus the time to reach the critical temperature is delayed. If an intense fire is evenly distributed along the steel member, the critical temperature may be reached very quickly. Steel also has a high coefficient of expansion that results in the expansion of steel members as they are heated. As an example, a 50-foot-long steel beam heated uniformly over its length from 720 to 9720 F will expand in length by 3.9 inches. The same beam uniformly heated to 8000 F would expand by 3.2 inches; if heated to 1,2000 F, the beam would expand by 4.9 inches [Grundahl 1991; Cotes 1997].

[thecritta]

Ryan, I would say you are the one who denies reality.

Your example in your paper on the amount of potential energy used in collapsing the building is ridiculous on it's face to anyone with a strong technical background. You show an example where the collapse acceleration would be 1.7 m/s/s and then go through the math to show that the difference between it and the rate of gravity (9.8 m/s/s) is the resistance of 8.1m/s/s and that it is equal to 81% of the building's potential energy, which would have been used in the destruction.

This little manipulation sounds impressive at first unless one is keen enough to realize that the building structure was designed to hold several times 100% of the potential energy.

The reality is that using the resistance to the continuous acceleration which occurred is not valid to use as a measure of the energy required, as it is not correlated to a calculated amount of energy which would be required to collapse the building. For instance, if demolition devices were used to remove resistance then the actual resistance to free fall acceleration experienced does not account for that.

There is only one way a lesser amount of energy could do the job and that is with concentrated periodic impacts/dynamic loads which require deceleration, which unfortunately for your story is not observed. Your own theory requires huge decelerations from jolts but you don't have any evidence of them, so you then spin a story that the columns weren't involved and the entire upper block fell on the floor slabs, or that there were lots of little jolts, without explaining that the aggregate of these little jolts would have to cause the same velocity loss as one large one due to the same energy dissipation.

These are just some of several misleading type of arguments that you make, and it is hard for me to imagine that you don't know better if you are actually a mechanical engineer.

I am wondering when the majority of honest posters here, who may not suspect the misleading nature of these arguments and/or just don't know better, are going to start figuring it out.

I would say that Tony is right and Mackey is wrong.

Come on just admit it Mackey there should have been a jolt.

[thecritta]

Unless they said the building was going to come down before it came down

Thats probably what they told them to hide the fact that there going
to drop the buildings and down they go.

Just to cover the fact that they where going to drop the buildings.

[DGM]

I would say that Tony is right and Mackey is wrong.

Come on just admit it Mackey there should have been a jolt.
Explain? Please use all the detail you can muster, we can take it.

[twinstead]

I would say that Tony is right and Mackey is wrong.

Come on just admit it Mackey there should have been a jolt.

Wow. Cool. Anybody can play that game:

I would say that macky is right and Tony is wrong.
Come on just admit it Tony there should NOT have been a jolt.

See. I win!

[Dave Rogers]

I would say that reality is right and Tony is wrong.

Dave

[grandmastershek]

its amazing. truthers beleive fireman can identify explosives by sound, yet can't evaluate the condition of building on fire. you don't get much more delusional.

[TruthersLie]

Thats probably what they told them to hide the fact that there going
to drop the buildings and down they go.

Just to cover the fact that they where going to drop the buildings.

GREAT!!!

Then you can show us HOW they did this. A conventional Cd would take two ten men crews about 4 months do.

Of course it would also be unmistakable. It would be noticable. It would be loud. It would cause a seismic wave.

So it obviously wasn't a conventional CD. Great.

Now provide a method for the building to be "drop"ped that has NO ONE NOTICING it being wired, that has NO explosive sounds, that has NO seismic report and that leaves NO noticable debris.

Were there 20,000 ninja's with explosives on their backs who ran into a burning creaking building to wire it up? (since no one noticed anything before 9/11)?

Provide any type of narrative which would allow that to happen.

[tsig]

GREAT!!!

Then you can show us HOW they did this. A conventional Cd would take two ten men crews about 4 months do.

Of course it would also be unmistakable. It would be noticable. It would be loud. It would cause a seismic wave.

So it obviously wasn't a conventional CD. Great.

Now provide a method for the building to be "drop"ped that has NO ONE NOTICING it being wired, that has NO explosive sounds, that has NO seismic report and that leaves NO noticable debris.

Were there 20,000 ninja's with explosives on their backs who ran into a burning creaking building to wire it up? (since no one noticed anything before 9/11)?

Provide any type of narrative which would allow that to happen.

I think the only evidence you will ever get are his/her posts* right here on JREF.


*maybe a link to CT sites

[R.Mackey]

Yes, folks, that really is the best the Truth Movement can do.

[Justin39640]

its amazing. truthers beleive fireman can identify explosives by sound, yet can't evaluate the condition of building on fire. you don't get much more delusional.

YES!!
Quote of the month!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You think the largest Secret Service field office was just another bldg?

To the largest office building fire in history? Yes.

The fire probably didn't care.

[RedIbis]

To the largest office building fire in history? Yes.

The fire probably didn't care.

You think the WTC 7 fire was the largest office building fire in history?

[BigAl]

You think the WTC 7 fire was the largest office building fire in history?

It is what it is. A honking-big fire.

This is a a meaningless distraction.

[dafydd]

You think the WTC 7 fire was the largest office building fire in history?

And?

[funk de fino]

You think the WTC 7 fire was the largest office building fire in history?

In Manhattan, probably.

What difference does it make?

[vinniem]

In Manhattan, probably.

What difference does it make?

Do you not think if somebody states as fact that wtc7 was the biggest office fire in history they should have to back that claim up?

Here, let me try:

The pentagon was the most secure building in the world.

Should I back that up or will you let it pass?

[BigAl]

Do you not think if somebody states as fact that wtc7 was the biggest office fire in history they should have to back that claim up?

Here, let me try:

The pentagon was the most secure building in the world.

Should I back that up or will you let it pass?

Back it up if you can.

This is a derail. Both assertions are irrelevant to the understanding of what happened on 9/11.

[vinniem]

Back it up if you can.

This is a derail. Both assertions are irrelevant to the understanding of what happened on 9/11.

No, the size of wtc7's fires are very relevant. Debunkers like to throw around claims that it was such a huge office fire to back up the NIST hypothesis.

The fires in wtc7 were not the biggest office fires in history. That is a lie.

[RedIbis]

Back it up if you can.

This is a derail. Both assertions are irrelevant to the understanding of what happened on 9/11.

So then why didn't you berate Sword when he quoted a post I made months ago?

[vinniem]

So then why didn't you berate Sword when he quoted a post I made months ago?

I see you have noticed that aswell. It is almost as if they only point out and report derails that "Twoofers" make.

[newton3376]

No, the size of wtc7's fires are very relevant. Debunkers like to throw around claims that it was such a huge office fire to back up the NIST hypothesis.

The fires in wtc7 were not the biggest office fires in history. That is a lie.

You are, not surprisingly, missing the point....

The fires in WTC7 don't have to be the "biggest office fire in history" they just have to be big enough to contribute to the structural failure that actually happened on 9/11.

One more thing.....what is it with this label "debunkers"?

There aren't two groups of people...."truthers" vs "debunkers" its more like "truthers" vs "normal people who aren't incompetent or insane"....

There aren't really two factions here as if there is some war going on...there isn't. There is nothing to fight....truthers are running around attacking windmills while everyone else either laughs or shakes their head and shrugs them off.

[RedIbis]

I see you have noticed that aswell. It is almost as if they only point out and report derails that "Twoofers" make.

Almost?

[DGM]

If someone else wants to look it up I believe the "largest fires" quote came from Chief Nigro (on hard fire I think).

[Justin39640]

No, the size of wtc7's fires are very relevant. Debunkers like to throw around claims that it was such a huge office fire to back up the NIST hypothesis.

The fires in wtc7 were not the biggest office fires in history. That is a lie.

Weren't they next door about an hour or so prior to 7 catching fire? (volume of fire vs time)

It was a fire
It was not fought
that makes things fall down.

The Madrid hotel took 24 hours to burn before partial collapse. That one started in one room. Not on four or more, one acre floors all at once. Also, another building didn't fall on it.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You think the WTC 7 fire was the largest office building fire in history?

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers


I reposted this again because it's easy, just copy and paste. But Redibis thinks that the firefighters were part of the conspiracy, he isn't going to pay any attention to what they say.

[Grizzly Bear]

No, the size of wtc7's fires are very relevant. Debunkers like to throw around claims that it was such a huge office fire to back up the NIST hypothesis.

Not just limited to you, but what would someone like yourself call a large fire? What criteria determines the classification of "large"?

Would one fully involved floor out of a 47 story building be considered "small" in your opinion? What about one out of 110 floors? How about a flash ignition of about 6 floors In a building with 50+ floors?

Where do you draw the line of "big"? Just curious... 'cause in a large office building with floor area almost equal to a foot ball field in size on fire along with a few floor above seems to me like a devilish take to fight on its own.

[RedIbis]

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers


I reposted this again because it's easy, just copy and paste. But Redibis thinks that the firefighters were part of the conspiracy, he isn't going to pay any attention to what they say.

Does NIST agree with Myers' statement that the bldg was "completely involved" or Larocco's description of "fire on nearly all floors"?

Do you agree with those statements? Or do you think it's possible that in the extreme drama and emotion of that moment, their memory might be exaggerating the details of what actually occurred?

[vinniem]

Not just limited to you, but what would someone like yourself call a large fire? What criteria determines the classification of "large"?

Would one fully involved floor out of a 47 story building be considered "small" in your opinion? What about one out of 110 floors? How about a flash ignition of about 6 floors In a building with 50+ floors?

Where do you draw the line of "big"? Just curious... 'cause in a large office building with floor area almost equal to a foot ball field in size on fire along with a few floor above seems to me like a devilish take to fight on its own.

Do you really need this explaining to you? I will do it in pictures to help you understand. Thie first one is a large fire:

[Edx]

Do you really need this explaining to you? I will do it in pictures to help you understand. Thie first one is a large fire:

1. How big is the Windsor tower?

2. Why do you only show that one picture of WTC7 when that's deceptive since that's surely early on in the day and on the north side? WTC7 took up the size of a city block, so when you see flames on the north side that's actually means fires have moved across a whole block!

[Sam.I.Am]

The steel portion of the Windsor fire collapsed pretty early on.

[BigAl]

Do you really need this explaining to you? I will do it in pictures to help you understand. Thie first one is a large fire:

Any idiot can pick a picture that doesn't show something. You picked an unrepresentative picture of WTC7. Besides, a video does a much better job of showing how big a fire is. Here are several;

9/11/01 LIVE! News/Amateur Video World Trade Center Part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q
WTC7 on fire at 0:44 1:10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

[Edx]

9/11/01 LIVE! News/Amateur Video World Trade Center Part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q
WTC7 on fire at 0:44 1:10


I also notice straight after 1:10 clip of 7 on fire the firefighter telling another that "WHEN" 7 goes its going to create a large dust cloud and they wont be able to breath... I guess vinniem thinks him and all the other firefighters that thought it was coming down are in on the coverup.

[vinniem]

I also notice straight after 1:10 clip of 7 on fire the firefighter telling another that "WHEN" 7 goes its going to create a large dust cloud and they wont be able to breath... I guess vinniem thinks him and all the other firefighters that thought it was coming down are in on the coverup.

It isn't the truth movement that calls firefighters liars.

Tell me, how do you feel about John Schroder and the firefighter who claims he found the black boxes?

[vinniem]

That video shows wtc6 fully involved, but only a few flames in wtc7, yet 7 collapses.

[Edx]

It isn't the truth movement that calls firefighters liars.

Tell me, how do you feel about John Schroder and the firefighter who claims he found the black boxes?

Oh look you didn't answer any of my questions and you ignored what people have said about John Schroder earlier.

How predictable.

[Sam.I.Am]

It isn't the truth movement that calls firefighters liars.

Stundied.

[triforcharity]

DAMN YOU SAM.I.AM!!! You seem to beat me EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!

It must be that damn submarine you got's yourself.

[Sam.I.Am]

You won't know I'm there until it's too late to do anything about it.

[beachnut]

Do you really need this explaining to you? I will do it in pictures to help you understand. Thie first one is a large fire:
911 truth always posts the night fires; wowzer

Off topic as is me, you are not too good at this truth stuff, so far all you can do is barely repeat old lies, but mostly talk about nothing.

[tfk]

The steel portion of the Windsor fire collapsed pretty early on.

The Windsor is a superb example of what happens to steel in a fire.

Actually, only some of the steel collapsed. Some survived. When the fire happened, they were in the midst of performing some upgrades, including adding insulation to the external steel columns. The core steel columns were already insulated by virtue of being embedded in concrete.

Since they were only partially finished the job, some of the external steel columns were insulated, and some were not.

In the very same fire:

ALL of the floors collapsed had uninsulated steel.
ALL of the floors that did not collapse had insulated steel.

A perfect experiment. A perfect demonstration.
[The Structural Fire Engineering program at UManchester is one of the finest in the world. They offer their considered opinions on both the Windsor Towers & WTC fires.]

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm


The building was subjected to a three year refurbishment programme of works when the fire broke out. The major works included the installations of:


Fire protection to the perimeter steel columns using a boarding system
Fire protection to the internal steel beams using a spray protection
A sprinkler system
A new aluminium cladding system

The refurbishment was carried out floor-by-floor from the lower floors upwards. By the time the fire broke out, the fire protection for all steelwork below the 17th floor had been completed except a proportion of the 9th and 15th floors.
...
A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed
...
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.


See the pattern?
Insulated steel survives.
Uninsulated steel collapses.
In the very same fire.

It always amuses me when truthers quote the Windsor Towers as evidence of some giant mystery compared to the WTC. When it really proves the exact opposite.


Tom

Lest anyone have any doubt as to these experts' opinions about the WTC, they also have an analysis of that event.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm

[BigAl]

It isn't the truth movement that calls firefighters liars.

Tell me, how do you feel about John Schroder and the firefighter who claims he found the black boxes?

What are you insinuating about Schroder?

http://911stories.googlepages.com/anopenletter

[Grizzly Bear]

Do you really need this explaining to you? I will do it in pictures to help you understand.
Doesn't really work if you're selectively excluding images which provide a better measure. Tell me, how big of an interior fire is required to to give off a large volume of smoke; say... several floors?

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=340&stc=1&d=1258063359


This first one is a large fire:
So if Madrid was a large fire, and WTC 5 was a large fire can you tell me how you made the call that WTC 7 and this fire in the WTC are "small" (preferably being more truthful).

Here's a comparison for you:

WTC5: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/wtc5_fire_floors.jpg

6 or seven floors, let's not forget that firefighters had easier access to this one since it wasn't more than 800 ft in the air inside a skyscraper.

WTC 1 soon before collapse: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SDTMGkt1P5I/AAAAAAAABh4/HlT2FZTlEKQ/s400/NorthTowerFireGJS-WTC27cropped.jpg

How many floors do you see on fire there? At an acre per floor would that count as small too?

[carlitos]

bump for pwnage from vinnem

[vinniem]

bump for pwnage from vinnem

What kind of pwnage would you like? Should I post the wtc7 "inferno" again and ask you to point out the inferno?

[carlitos]

No, you could just answer the 2 or 3 simple questions in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5559393#post5559393).

[Edx]

What kind of pwnage would you like? Should I post the wtc7 "inferno" again and ask you to point out the inferno?

Why dont you ask those lying firefighters?

[vinniem]

Why dont you ask those lying firefighters?

Why are you calling the 911 heroes liars?

[carlitos]

Why are you avoiding the simple questions posed to you in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5559393#post5559393)?

[Edx]

Why are you calling the 911 heroes liars?

Funny, that's the exact question I have for you.

[carlitos]

Don't let him change the subject and run away from questions ... again.

[Thunder]

Why are you calling the 911 heroes liars?

why are you calling the FDNY and NYPD, "9-11 co-conspirators"?

[aggle-rithm]

Or do you think it's possible that in the extreme drama and emotion of that moment, their memory might be exaggerating the details of what actually occurred?

If they were ordinary civilians, then I would say yes. However, since they fought fires for a living, and it's their business to evaluate the size and potential dangers of a fire, I would have to say no.

[vinniem]

why are you calling the FDNY and NYPD, "9-11 co-conspirators"?

Parky, I have been quite patient with you up to now, I understand your problems and I have made allowances for them, but you are clearly just trolling me for the sake of it.

Last chance for you now, quote me where I said the FDNY and the NYPD were "co-conspirators" or retract that claim. If you don't do either then I have no option but to put you on ignore. Hope you understand.:)

[Toke]

How was it somebody put it, "Banning yourself one poster at a time". :D

[vinniem]

If they were ordinary civilians, then I would say yes. However, since they fought fires for a living, and it's their business to evaluate the size and potential dangers of a fire, I would have to say no.

How rational do you think it is to hold 2 contradictory beliefs?

The firefighters, some of them anyway, describe a building with every floor on fire. The NIST report says that 15 floors were on fire and not all at once.

Do you understandf that these 2 things cannot both be true???

Either NIST are lying, for some reason I can't fathom, or the firefighters were exagerating. Which is it?

[BigAl]

How rational do you think it is to hold 2 contradictory beliefs?

The firefighters, some of them anyway, describe a building with every floor on fire. The NIST report says that 15 floors were on fire and not all at once.

Do you understandf that these 2 things cannot both be true???

Either NIST are lying, for some reason I can't fathom, or the firefighters were exagerating. Which is it?

Ever hear of hyperbole?

Either way, so what? Fire and the lack of water for fire fighting caused the structure to collapse.

[Edx]

How rational do you think it is to hold 2 contradictory beliefs?

The firefighters, some of them anyway, describe a building with every floor on fire. The NIST report says that 15 floors were on fire and not all at once.

Does NIST say there was ONLY fires on 15 floors?

Do you understandf that these 2 things cannot both be true???

Either NIST are lying, for some reason I can't fathom, or the firefighters were exagerating. Which is it?

Oh wow how hilarious.

Earlier you were telling me how to exaggerate meant lying.

You are so funny!!!

[Grizzly Bear]

So... liek... how big does a fire have to be in order to be considered... well... big?
I guessed at one point you conspiracy guys measured it by how many floors were burning compared to the total number floors. Does that correctly sum up the basis? Or am I missing something?

[carlitos]

vinniem is posting in this thread and acts like he doesn't see this post.
1. How big is the Windsor tower?

2. Why do you only show that one picture of WTC7 when that's deceptive since that's surely early on in the day and on the north side? WTC7 took up the size of a city block, so when you see flames on the north side that's actually means fires have moved across a whole block!


Or this post.
Doesn't really work if you're selectively excluding images which provide a better measure. Tell me, how big of an interior fire is required to to give off a large volume of smoke; say... several floors?

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=340&stc=1&d=1258063359



So if Madrid was a large fire, and WTC 5 was a large fire can you tell me how you made the call that WTC 7 and this fire in the WTC are "small" (preferably being more truthful).

Here's a comparison for you:

WTC5: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/wtc5_fire_floors.jpg

6 or seven floors, let's not forget that firefighters had easier access to this one since it wasn't more than 800 ft in the air inside a skyscraper.

WTC 1 soon before collapse: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SDTMGkt1P5I/AAAAAAAABh4/HlT2FZTlEKQ/s400/NorthTowerFireGJS-WTC27cropped.jpg

How many floors do you see on fire there? At an acre per floor would that count as small too?

Cowboy up, vinnie. Answer a question. Don't run away again.

[A W Smith]

vinniem is posting in this thread and acts like he doesn't see this post.



Or this post.


Cowboy up, vinnie. Answer a question. Don't run away again.

Don't bother, he's gone
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166067

[carlitos]

Ah. That explains a lot. That poster wasn't adding much to the discussion. Whenever someone talks about 'pwnage' they aren't being serious.