Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[Brainster]

Or was it nano-thermite (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm) at work?

A toilet paper factory in Worcestershire has been severely damaged in a major fire.

About 50 firefighters tackled the blaze at the ESP plant in the Enigma Business Park, near Malvern, which started on Wednesday morning.

The roof collapsed inside the building and flames leapt 45ft (14m) into the sky in a strong wind, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service said.

A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles.

He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."

The timing on this is very suspicious. Just as Americans are finally waking up to the Troooth, a toilet paper factory burns down and proves Dylan Avery & his buddies wrong? And what could possibly burn hot enough in a toilet paper factory to melt the girders?

[uk_dave]

Toilet paper.

[uk_dave]

A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles.

I thought black smoke was supposed to be indicative of something, to someone....somewhere.

[Roger_Harris]

I thought black smoke was supposed to be indicative of something, to someone....somewhere.

Yes, it's proof the toilet paper factory was brought down with a Star Wars beam weapon.

[mortimer]

I thought black smoke was supposed to be indicative of something, to someone....somewhere.

They had it wrong... it was a toilet paper recycling factory.

[bob_kark]

They had it wrong... it was a toilet paper recycling factory.
No, black smoke, not brown.

[mortimer]

No, black smoke, not brown.

I know! Have you seen what those Brits eat?

[kookbreaker]

They had it wrong... it was a toilet paper recycling factory.

Ah. the headquarters of 'Louder Than Words' then?

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is a great example of what can happen to steel in a severe fire. Twisting, sagging. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the disintegration that took place on 9/11.

[Garb]

This is a great example of what can happen to steel in a severe fire. Twisting, sagging. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the disintegration that took place on 9/11.

Well the fact that the building was much smaller says a lot.

[Housefly]

This is a great example of what can happen to steel in a severe fire. Twisting, sagging. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the disintegration that took place on 9/11.As opposed to the tame, cool fires caused by exploding jet fuel?

[jhunter1163]

So I guess the answer to the question "paper or plastic?" will be "paper" in Worcestershire for a while...

[AK-Dave]

Yes, it's proof the toilet paper factory was brought down with a Star Wars beam weapon.

It was more likely a Star Trek beam weapon, employed by Klingons who were seeking revenge for all their comrades who were wiped out over the years by this company's products.

[Gravy]

This is a great example of what can happen to steel in a severe fire. Twisting, sagging. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the disintegration that took place on 9/11.Of course, because when heavy steel beams are heated to the point of twisting and sagging, they retain their normal load-bearing capacity.

Long may you shine, my ever fixéd beacon of troofer idiocy!

[defaultdotxbe]

It was more likely a Star Trek beam weapon, employed by Klingons who were seeking revenge for all their comrades who were wiped out over the years by this company's products.
klingon disruptors....fired while cloaked....anyone detect a neutron radiation spike? :eek:

[Oliver]

Well the fact that the building was much smaller says a lot.

And there was no pressure of thousands of tons above the fire...

But does erverybody in here consider that this could be
just another false-flag-paperbrand-fire to cover the truth? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451ef9fc0fca9.gif

[Gravy]

Ha! look at the first photo on that page. There's one roll of TP on the street in the foreground, watching in horror as its mates burn in a ring of fire!

[rwguinn]

This is a great example of what can happen to steel in a severe fire. Twisting, sagging. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the disintegration that took place on 9/11.

Gee-
Amazingly, the outer walls collapsed inward, like maybe the center of the building's roof fell first.
Yep, no resemblance whatsoever...

[stateofgrace]

Here's a clearer picture of the suspect toilet roll.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p178/stateofgrace_photos/_42264996_fireh.jpg

Very incriminating indeed.

[TellyKNeasuss]

How did that roll of toilet paper end up so far from the building? It must have been thrown from the building by an explosion! And the building collapsed in its own footprint! Obviously the building was destroyed by controlled demolition.

[Garb]

Guys, I see no macroscopic rubble in those photographs.


This is irrefutable proof that there was c4 involved in the destruction.

[Oliver]

It isn´t even scorched???

Who writes this stuff?? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[stateofgrace]

How did that roll of toilet paper end up so far from the building? It must have been thrown from the building by an explosion! And the building collapsed in its own footprint! Obviously the building was destroyed by controlled demolition.

Oh come, come, you can't be serious it was clearly planted there. There is no way it would have survived the explosion.

[crucial_fiction]

OMG in that pic...

That steel under the brick, the beam right in the center...

could it be....

THERMITE!!!!????:catfight:

Seriously, this is just the TP lobbyists way of globaly raising the price of TP and telling us our TP reserves are in trouble. We're all going to be paying through the nose now. These slippery punks almost pulled it off.

[Class]

Wake up, America! This is obviously a false flag operation to get the country motivated into going to war with bidet manufacturers.

[Housefly]

Look at the size of that toilet roll. Look at the size of the building it's supposed to have come from.

IS THAT BUILDING BIG ENOUGH TO CHURN OUT THOUSANDS OF TOILET ROLLS THAT SIZE EVERY DAY?

No.

It was never a toilet roll factory. You've all been suckered by disinfo agents.

[Gravy]

Seriously, this is just the TP lobbyists way of globaly raising the price of TP and telling us our TP reserves are in trouble. We're all going to be paying through the nose now. These slippery punks almost pulled it off.Peak P!

[Tbone]

:catfight:

I can't help but laugh everytime this emote is used. Back to lurking.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Has anybody checked to see how many put options were taken recently on the company that owned this factory?

[Horatius]

This is a great example of what can happen to steel in a severe fire. Twisting, sagging. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the disintegration that took place on 9/11.

So it really is true - no matter what happens, it all supports the CT. This is almost textbook......

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This is a great example of what can happen to steel in a severe fire. Twisting, sagging. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the disintegration that took place on 9/11.

TS, I say this in the most caring, nurturing way possible; you are a *********** moron.

[Class]

When did this event occur? November 1, 2006, or 1-11-06.

Flip that over and what do we get?

90-11-1

Take the 0 and place it in front of the last 1

9-11-01


Wake up.

[WildCat]

All CT aspects aside, I'm gathering together an aid package to help our brethren across the pond. If you care to help in the effort, contact me and I'll get you the address to send all your corn cobs. Enough corn cobs will get them through until a new toilet paper factory can be built, probably next spring.

[defaultdotxbe]

All CT aspects aside, I'm gathering together an aid package to help our brethren across the pond. If you care to help in the effort, contact me and I'll get you the address to send all your corn cobs. Enough corn cobs will get them through until a new toilet paper factory can be built, probably next spring.
i can send an old sears catalog :)

[WildCat]

i can send an old sears catalog :)
Excellent idea! Recycle all your junk mail. I'll have to check to see if glossy paper is OK, sounds painful but I hear that Brits can be real hard-assed.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Has anybody checked to see how many put options were taken recently on the company that owned this factory?

Better yet, check to see if the owner has a last name with "berg", "stein" and/or the name of a precious metal in it.

[PerryLogan]

Did I not predict this years ago?

I tried to warn you. You're all scum for laughing at me. Serves you right, all of you.

[DarkMagician]

Well, s[rule 8]

klingon disruptors....fired while cloaked....anyone detect a neutron radiation spike? :eek:

Quick, reverse the polarity!

[W6102LA]

Here's a clearer picture of the suspect toilet roll.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p178/stateofgrace_photos/_42264996_fireh.jpg

Very incriminating indeed.

This is like finding the hijackers passport

:p

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Can I nominate this as at least the best thread since I joined? Funniest?

:relieved:

[qarnos]

He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."

Wow! The girders buckled, yet they were only holding the roof?

Imagine how they would have faired with 20-odd floors of Twin Tower on top of them.

[steve s]

I'll soon be releasing a DVD revealing the consipacy behind the fire at this toilet paper factory. I'm calling it Loose Stool: The Final Wipe.

Steve S.

[qarnos]

I'll soon be releasing a DVD revealing the consipacy behind the fire at this toilet paper factory. I'm calling it Loose Stool: The Final Wipe.

Steve S.

Must you always be so anal? ;)

[einsteen]

TS is right, this is exactly the expected behaviour and is also consistent and similar with the fire in the Madrid tower and also all other fires in steel buildings. It slowly caves in and finds a new balance. Whether there is a block of 2 or 20 stories above it doesn't matter, that will also cave in and find a new balance. Of course more mass on top involved more forces, but the material that carries the block has a strength proportional with that mass, that's how it is built.

One should add a heavy weight on a similar building and raise a fire in the same way and check what happens.

[The_Fire]

TS is right, this is exactly the expected behaviour and is also consistent and similar with the fire in the Madrid tower and also all other fires in steel buildings. It slowly caves in and finds a new balance. Whether there is a block of 2 or 20 stories above it doesn't matter, that will also cave in and find a new balance. Of course more mass on top involved more forces, but the material that carries the block has a strength proportional with that mass, that's how it is built.

One should add a heavy weight on a similar building and raise a fire in the same way and check what happens.


*NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH*

Wrong answer. Neither madrid towers nor the structure mentioned in the OP had the same level of pre-collapse damage to the support structure as the Twin Towers. Or did you forget about those pesky aircrafts banging into the WTC?

Your conclusion is based on a comparison between an undamaged support structure, not the reality of the heavily damaged support of the WTC and therefor flawed.

[stateofgrace]

TS is right, this is exactly the expected behaviour and is also consistent and similar with the fire in the Madrid tower and also all other fires in steel buildings. It slowly caves in and finds a new balance. Whether there is a block of 2 or 20 stories above it doesn't matter, that will also cave in and find a new balance. Of course more mass on top involved more forces, but the material that carries the block has a strength proportional with that mass, that's how it is built.

One should add a heavy weight on a similar building and raise a fire in the same way and check what happens.

No TS is not right and neither are you.

The building that collapsed supported no weight above, unlike the Towers. You seem to be implying that the fires alone would have simply caused the static weight above the impact areas of the towers to sag and settle out in a new position. I do not see this.

The towers suffered massive and instant damage to its supports. The static weight above the supports has to redistribute to whatever remains. This is instant, it was not gradual and it almost certainly was not uniform. Weight is redistributed unevenly upon the remaining supports and will cause some to give. Combine this with the weakening from the raging fires, which in turn will accelerate the redistribution of the massive static weight above. The very fact it was uneven means that individual supports are subject to over stress which in turn will lead to failure. This further failure will result in further redistribution of the weight. It will continue until the remaining supports are physically unable to bear the load above. At this point what remains will simply give and the static weight above becomes dynamic.

The rest my friend is history.

[sleahead]

OMG!! The NWO has tried this before!

Giant toilet roll starts factory fire

Apr 18 2005

By Rhodri Phillips, The Journal


A roll of toilet paper the size of a car caught fire at a factory yesterday, in a blaze which took more than eight hours to put out.

More than 50 firefighters and 16 fire engines were called to the blaze at SCA Hygiene in Princess Way, Prudhoe, Northumberland.

The fire started in the factory's pulp yard, which contained dozens of giant rolls of toilet paper, just after 3pm on Saturday.

No-one was injured and production at the factory - at the centre of a controversial planning application - resumed on Saturday evening.

Hexham fire station officer John Arnold said the absorbency and size of the rolls of toilet paper had complicated the firefighting operation.

[einsteen]

allright then, but then you can also not use this building as a example for wtc.

I know the story of course, the combination of damage and fire. The damage makes it weak and finally fire brought it down an hour later after it was damaged. But why is there absolute silence for an hour and no between state, the stories don't make it plausible. This is something that maybe could be tested with a scale model. If something holds a massive block for an hour without any bending and then.... in the wtc1 movie there is a correlation with a camera shake 10 seconds before the collapse, someone said the core died probably first but that doesn't solve the matter it only places the same question 10 seconds earlier in time.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

allright then, but then you can also not use this building as a example for wtc.
...

Wrong. This building is a piece of positive evidence that fire can cause structural steel to fail.

Here is an analogy to show why it can be used in the manner we have presented it, but not in the manner you have:
A corpse is found with a small hole in one side of its head and a large hole in the other side.
Upon examining all available evidence we conclude that the person was shot in the head and that this was the cause of death, probably by a large caliber firearm.
You conclude something else (doesn't matter what) caused the hole and that it was not the cause of death (you think they died from a heart attack or something).
We provide a specific example of someone who has been shot in the head, but it is with a smaller caliber firearm and there is no exit wound. We state, "Here is an example of someone who died from a gunshot wound to the head."
You reply, "And this proves that the corpse we found didn't die from a gunshot wound to the head, because the example you showed me doesn't have an exit wound."

[qarnos]

allright then, but then you can also not use this building as a example for wtc.

NO BUILDING can be used as a parallel, positive or negative, to the Twin Towers. They were unique structures - it's apples and oranges.

However, this fire demonstrates that regular building fires can generate enough heat to significantly reduce the strength of steel.

We already knew that, though.

[The_Fire]

:hb:

[Oliver]

This is something that maybe could be tested with a scale model. If something holds a massive block for an hour without any bending and then....

There is no way to make a scale model with micro-bolts
and mini trusses. And i guess the bolts were a factor for
the collapse.

[einsteen]

Fire can damage steel, I knew that already and it's logical, I also don't say that that is not possible. An other thing to mention is that a large structure works as a giant heat sink avoiding a lot of damage.

[Horatius]

However, this fire demonstrates that regular building fires can generate enough heat to significantly reduce the strength of steel.

We already knew that, though.

Yeah, but we didn't have convienient digital pictures and video, so already knowing that doesn't count! Pixels rule, dood!!

[stateofgrace]

allright then, but then you can also not use this building as a example for wtc.

I know the story of course, the combination of damage and fire. The damage makes it weak and finally fire brought it down an hour later after it was damaged. But why is there absolute silence for an hour and no between state, the stories don't make it plausible. This is something that maybe could be tested with a scale model. If something holds a massive block for an hour without any bending and then.... in the wtc1 movie there is a correlation with a camera shake 10 seconds before the collapse, someone said the core died probably first but that doesn't solve the matter it only places the same question 10 seconds earlier in time.

Is there some part of uneven that you don't understand?

The planes took out supports in an uneven manner. (Some supports were simply destroyed, others were damaged, and some were unaffected)
The weight above was distributed unevenly.
The fires were uneven.
The fires subject the remaining supports to different levels of intensity.
Some supports were affected by the fires, some were not.
The buildings static weight continued to be distributed unevenly.
Some supports sagged, some failed, and some continued to hold.
Eventually the remaining damaged and undamaged supports were unable to physically hold the weight above.
They failed.
The weight became dynamic.

Please enlighten me as to how on earth you expect this to be simulated by putting a block on supports for an hour and setting fire to the supports. I am all ears.

[Oliver]

Fire can damage steel, I knew that already and it's logical, I also don't say that that is not possible. An other thing to mention is that a large structure works as a giant heat sink avoiding a lot of damage.

And what about the weakest parts of a construction - the Bolts and Joints?

[einsteen]

A scale model will be difficult but it would be nice to have at least a demonstration in which you create asymmetrical damage and fire and check the behavior. But if those towers were extremely unique then it will never be possible.

[WildCat]

But why is there absolute silence for an hour and no between state, the stories don't make it plausible.
Are you talking about William Rodriguez's basement bomb?

[WildCat]

A scale model will be difficult but it would be nice to have at least a demonstration in which you create asymmetrical damage and fire and check the behavior. But if those towers were extremely unique then it will never be possible.
It would also be nice to figure out how to avoid death and taxes.

[einsteen]

Are you talking about William Rodriguez's basement bomb?
I don't know what that is. In a movie you see a camera shake about 10 seconds before the collapse of wtc1, in eyewitness there are some huge thunder sounds. And I've seen other youtube material of explosion sounds.
Of course one should ensure they are related.

[WildCat]

I don't know what that is. In a movie you see a camera shake about 10 seconds before the collapse of wtc1, in eyewitness there are some huge thunder sounds. And I've seen other youtube material of explosion sounds.
Of course one should ensure they are related.
1. Someone bumping a camera causes a building to collapse?
2. The 9/11 Eyewitness "thunder sound" is wind noise on an improperly protected microphone.
3. You're losing IQ points every day, as this has been discussed here before ad nauseum.

[apathoid]

I don't know what that is. In a movie you see a camera shake about 10 seconds before the collapse of wtc1, in eyewitness there are some huge thunder sounds. And I've seen other youtube material of explosion sounds.
Of course one should ensure they are related.

If the ground was shaking, then the Lamont Doherty Seismographs wouldve recorded this movement, correct? Why didnt they?

[Lurker]

I'll soon be releasing a DVD revealing the consipacy behind the fire at this toilet paper factory. I'm calling it Loose Stool: The Final Wipe.

Steve S.

Don't forget to include the data on the pyroclastic cloud.

Lurker

[WildCat]

Don't forget to include the data on the pyroclastic cloud.

Lurker
Or my suspicion that a star-wars "brown noise" beam weapon was involved.

[Housefly]

A roll of toilet paper the size of a car caught fire at a factory yesterday, in a blaze which took more than eight hours to put out.
Now wait just a second! No fire has ever taken more than seven hours to put out! That's the whole reason that WTC7 was obviously asploded!

[einsteen]

Wind noise... in the same amplitude(time) as seismographical data ? Are we having another faked movie ? the movie that I first was referring to had no sound, here is it also

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

Is this faked seismic data? I'm a layman of course in these specific matter but the idea of amplitude(time) is not hard to swallow.

[WildCat]

I'm a layman of course in these specific matter but the idea of amplitude(time) is not hard to swallow.
I suspect that there isn't much for you that's hard to swallow when you want to believe it. P.T. Barnum had people like you in mind when he said "there's a sucker born every minute".

[apathoid]

Wind noise... in the same amplitude(time) as seismographical data ? Are we having another faked movie ? the movie that I first was referring to had no sound, here is it also

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

Is this faked seismic data? I'm a layman of course in these specific matter but the idea of amplitude(time) is not hard to swallow.

Are you aware of what LDEO had to say regarding those spikes?

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020527-secure.htm


http://911myths.com/html/seismic_record.html

[apathoid]

Wind noise... in the same amplitude(time) as seismographical data ? Are we having another faked movie ? the movie that I first was referring to had no sound, here is it also

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

Is this faked seismic data? I'm a layman of course in these specific matter but the idea of amplitude(time) is not hard to swallow.

Also, if a camcorder mic can record explosions from 2 miles away, why havent the 1,000,000 people or so who live within that same radius come forward hearing loud explosions just before the Towers fell? Use your imagination - if the explosions were that loud, they would've been reported all over the world as the happened by TV news crews, who would be describing loud bombs just before the collapses. Think about it..

The explosions that were heard weren't nearly as loud as demo devices and there werent hundreds of them in a short period of time.

[einsteen]

wow, thanks, a function f(t) with a peak at t=t1 has more detail if you replace t by at+b. Nice the amplitude is still higher and more energic than the rest. The debunk site gives no explanation about the amplitude, it just concludes there is nothing strange with it without a reason, the global collapse takes a longer period of time. As far as I remember Greening uses two seismic peaks in his story, one for the first stage of collapse (the block falling through the building) and the second stage of collapse (the block is now at the groud and will also collapse), although I respect the man there is no hair on my head that takes this seriously.

If Siegel's recordings are fake(d) then there are still a lot of testimonies, the sound was really incredible, before the collapse and during the collapse. I think testimonies should be taken seriously to a certain amount, in the same way as Gravy uses testimonies for his wtc7 paper.

[realitybites]

I'm going to have to wait for information regarding the thickness of the toilet paper before making any conclusions. 1-ply would burn to quickly. 2-ply... maybe. 3-ply would be too dense (would never be able to reach temperatures high enough to weaken steel).

I think it's telling that this information is being withheld from us.

Also, let's think who benefits from this calamity. Brits will have to start rationing TP. Blair will call for a UN peace-keeping force to be installed to deal with the unavoidable TP-Lines and rioting that will ensue. No one will volunteer except for the US. We occupy Britain, set up our Death Ray Command Post at Windsor Palace, and using the London Eye, focus the beam across the Channel to take out the Eiffel Tower. Blame Osama (it's worked so well in the past, I mean... if it ain't broke, don't fix it) and the slow but steady crawl towards world domination will continue.

I grow weary of always having to spell these things out for you folks....

[jhunter1163]

Was there wind noise before the TP factory went up? Was it a blue-flame situation? I knew a guy in college who burned himself pretty badly doing that activity. I also think that that kind of injury is seriously under-reported.

CONSPIRACY!!!!1!one!!11!!

[njslim]

Judging by the amount of fecal matter flying around this thread I say we are
all in deep Doo-doo. I am going to the "library" to do more research on this
matter.....

[beachnut]

Fire can damage steel, I knew that already and it's logical, I also don't say that that is not possible. An other thing to mention is that a large structure works as a giant heat sink avoiding a lot of damage.

yep a heat sink, lets see

the energy of the fuel is equal to how many joules of energy, I know it is 315 tons of TNT, like in heat!!!! the biggest out side source of energy that day was the FUEL. I do not care if it burned in 2 seconds, the fuel killed the building.

yep a heat sink, lets see

the energy of the fuel is equal to how many joules of energy, I know it is 315 tons of TNT, like in heat!!!! the biggest out side source of energy that day was the FUEL. I do not care if it burned in 2 seconds, the fuel killed the building.

The great heat sink, sure!!! YEP what do we know about this super heat sink.

The insulation was blown off the steel item in the impact affected areas.

The insulation was still on below and above. Heat sink gathers heat, and since the insulation is on, the heat stays in the steel for a long time.

Go get some spray on fire proofing and put it on your CPU heat sink, see if your chip runs hot. It will.

Sorry, who ever pushes this heat sink agenda is not a brain.

If there was this great heat sink protecting the WTC the NIST report would have it.

WHY, because real engineers and experts would not let it stand.

The heat sink is a CT dream, they even use the light weight concrete as a heat sink, but it is more like an insulator. The concrete floors protect the other floors from heat and fire. Too bad the aircraft breached a few floors.

A fire all by itself would have taken hours, like in WTC 7 to damage the steel if it had not been compromised.

Please prove your heat sink idea and cover your heat sink on our CPU with spray on fire proofing.

The other part of the heat sink is the radiation of the heat to the outside world. Where are you fins on the WTC???

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447454a0f364d82f.jpg

need a fan now

[Minadin]

In all seriousness, that TP roll may have been planted by the photographer to increase the quality of the photograph, it's a common enough practice in journalistic photography nowadays, to put something in the photo, that shows contrast, and gives the image scale. It certainly increases the amount of information in the photograph from "some building on fire" to "toilet paper warehouse/factory on fire", so if it was placed there for the purposes of photography it wouldn't be that bad of a move.

Or, it could have fallen off a TP truck or something.

[einsteen]

Even if all energy of the fuel was used for the first floor then it would only reach 255 degrees celsius, that's not much for only one floor

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Even if all energy of the fuel was used for the first floor then it would only reach 255 degrees celsius, that's not much for only one floor

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

That entire analysis assumes that nothing except jetfuel was burning. They are starting from a flawed premise.

[einsteen]

Then this is something that Dr Greening would call a first order approximation. What would you add to it ? A normal office fire ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Then this is something that Dr Greening would call a first order approximation. What would you add to it ? A normal office fire ?


2.2.1.2 Fire Development
It is estimated, based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained
about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings. A review of photographic and video records
show that the aircraft fully entered the buildings prior to any visual evidence of flames at the exteriors of the
buildings. This suggests that, as the aircraft crashed into and plowed across the buildings, they distributed
jet fuel throughout the impact area to form a flammable “cloud.” Ignition of this cloud resulted in a rapid
pressure rise, expelling a fuel rich mixture from the impact area into shafts and through other openings
caused by the crashes, resulting in dramatic fireballs.
Although only limited video footage is available that shows the crash of American Airlines Flight 11
into WTC 1 and the ensuing fireballs, extensive video records of the impact of United Airlines Flight 175
into WTC 2 are available. These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east,
and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the
fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when
the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture. Experimentally
based correlations for similar fireballs (Zalosh 1995) were used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed.
The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty
associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between
1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, it
is reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the
aircraft struck WTC 1.
Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or
detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not
the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs,
being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether
the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures
internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.
The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse
level. This breakage was most likely caused by overpressure in the elevator shafts. Damage to the walls of the
elevator shafts was also observed as low as the 23rd floor, presumably as a result of the overpressures developed
by the burning of the vapor cloud on the impact floors.
If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the
remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on
the impact floors. If half flowed away, then approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could
spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved. Fuel that fell to the floor and
did not flow out of the building would have burned as a pool or spill fire at the point where it came to rest.
The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes
that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that
would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was
available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been
transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed
in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire
floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact
floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.
As the jet fuel burned, the resulting heat ignited office contents throughout a major portion of several
of the impact floors, as well as combustible material within the aircraft itself.
A limited amount of physical evidence about the fires is available in the form of videos and still
photographs of the buildings and the smoke plume generated soon after the initial attack. Estimates of the
buoyant energy in the plume were obtained by plotting the rise of the smoke plume, which is governed by
buoyancy in the vertical direction and by the wind in the horizontal direction. Using the Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) fire model, Fire Dynamics Simulator Ver. 1 (FDS1), fire scientists at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (Rehm, et al. 2002) were able to mathematically approximate
the size of fires required to produce such a smoke plume. As input to this model, an estimate of the openings
available to provide ventilation for the fires was obtained from an examination of photographs taken of the
damaged tower. Meteorological data on wind velocity and atmospheric temperatures were provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on reports from the Aircraft
Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). The information used weather monitoring
instruments onboard three aircraft that departed from LaGuardia and Newark airports between 7:15 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001. The wind speed at heights equal to the upper stories of the towers
was in the range of 10–20 mph. The outside temperatures over the height of the building were 20–21 °C
(68–70 °F).
The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr,
around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed
out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented
energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from
each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The
modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus
or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in
these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the
aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100
°C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.
The viability of a 3–5 trillion Btu/hr (1–1.15 GW) fire depends on the fuel and air supply. The surface
area of office contents needed to support such a fire ranges from about 30,000–50,000 square feet, depending
on the composition and final arrangement of the contents and the fuel loading present. Given the typical
occupied area of a floor as approximately 30,000 square feet, it can be seen that simultaneous fire involvement
of an area equal to 1–2 entire floors can produce such a fire. Fuel loads are typically described in terms of the
equivalent weight of wood. Fuel loads in office-type occupancies typically range from about 4–12 psf, with
the mean slightly less than 8 psf (Culver 1977). File rooms, libraries, and similar concentrations of paper materials have significantly higher concentrations of fuel. At the burning rate necessary to yield these fires, a
fuel load of about 5 psf would be required to provide sufficient fuel to maintain the fire at full force for an
hour, and twice that quantity to maintain it for 2 hours. The air needed to support combustion would be on
the order of 600,000–1,000,000 cubic feet per minute.
Air supply to support the fires was primarily provided by openings in the exterior walls that were
created by the aircraft impacts and fireballs, as well as by additional window breakage from the ensuing heat
of the fires. Table 2.1 lists the estimated exterior wall openings used in these calculations. Although the table
shows the openings on a floor-by-floor basis, several of the openings, particularly in the area of impact,
actually spanned several floors (see Figure 2-17).
Sometimes, interior shafts in burning high-rise buildings also deliver significant quantities of air to a
fire, through a phenomenon known as “stack effect,” which is created when differences between the ambient
exterior air temperatures and the air temperatures inside the building result in differential air pressures,
drawing air up through the shafts to the fire area. Because outside and inside temperatures appear to have
been virtually the same on September 11, this stack effect was not expected to be strong in this case.
Based on photographic evidence, the fire burned as a distributed collection of large but separate fires
with significant temperature variations from space to space, depending on the type and arrangement of
combustible material present and the available air for combustion in each particular space. Consequently, the
temperature and related incident heat flux to the structural elements varied with both time and location.
This information is not currently available, but could be modeled with advanced CFD fire models.
Damage caused by the aircraft impacts is believed to have disrupted the sprinkler and fire standpipe
systems, preventing effective operation of either the manual or automatic suppression systems. Even if these
systems had not been compromised by the impacts, they would likely have been ineffective. It is believed
that the initial flash fires of jet fuel would have opened so many sprinkler heads that the systems would have
quickly depressurized and been unable to effectively deliver water to the large area of fire involvement.
Further, the initial spread of fires was so extensive as to make occupant use of small hose streams ineffective.
source (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf)

[Kent1]

Then this is something that Dr Greening would call a first order approximation. What would you add to it ? A normal office fire ?

Tests from NIST found that temps reached as high as 1100C.
We know many windows broke due to fire, there was stringy aluminum dripping from the side of the building. I think its save to say temps above 600C are a lock.
I should also add the steel beams max documented temp was 600C at which 80% of yield strength is lost.
Ordinary fuels with a little plastic can reach over 1300C.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[beachnut]

Even if all energy of the fuel was used for the first floor then it would only reach 255 degrees celsius, that's not much for only one floor

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

Calculations proved wrong just by observation. Got to love it.

Kind of sad, WTC was sagging, you know, it looks like something made the building sag. Was it the heat?

WTC failed, there were no explosives, did the steel mess up and not read your posted calculations?

My Doltish smart remarks aside, an observable failure due just to fire and building contents. No extra fuel, no extra impact energy.

The building in Madrid steel only sections could not of failed and since there was no fuel, the steel of the Madrid building is still standing? NOT

See how the steel is sagging and deforming just in a building fire. By the way the central portion of this building is with concrete, a good insulator, keeps heat away from steel for a long time.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12447454a26a22c0bf.jpg

Look closely, the steel only portions are gone, in just a few hours. Above steel sections are failing, and below they are fallen.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447454a26a3309fa.jpg

Just a note, the building is too weak to keep. Due to fire. Your post calculations are missing something. Bet some people here actually have the real models to help understand why fires can do this.
50 percent of the top section, the steel section is gone, the concrete is there. 3 little pigs will use concrete in their next building!!!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447454a26a355ab6.jpg

Even though proved wrong by events, the calculation did have the 315 tons of TNT as the energy in the 10,000 gallons of fuel (1,320,000,000,000 Joules). Neat when a CT source has good numbers. Bad when they have bad models.

What would your posted model say about the Madrid building with no extra fuel? Would it say the steel would not fail? Your post calculations would mean no building's steel would ever be comprimised.

Check out how many of the CT examples of fires in high rises are still standing? (3 out of 5)

Some good numbers, wrong model? Who calculated this stuff?

But since the building actually buckled and deformed, I think this guy is not a scientist. The NIST information is taken out of context.

[progressquest]

I am concerned that no one has mentioned the MOLTEN STEEL that you can see inside the building. Clearly the factory was brought down by thermite (mate?, mite? moot? I don't know...).

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I am concerned that no one has mentioned the MOLTEN STEEL that you can see inside the building. Clearly the factory was brought down by thermite (mate?, mite? moot? I don't know...).

Heh, thermoot. I like it.

[beachnut]

Fire can damage steel, I knew that already and it's logical, I also don't say that that is not possible. An other thing to mention is that a large structure works as a giant heat sink avoiding a lot of damage.

I told you to put some spray on fire proofing on your heat sink and see if it works as a heat sink.

you are messing up, yes objects assorb heat, but there is no heat sink in the WTC like your CPU heat sink

You never want any heat in the steel, no heat in the steel. This is why they protect the steel with concrete, spray on fire stuff, etc.

Heavy wood construction, I mean 3 or 5 foot wood supports, will do better than steel components not protected. Heat sink?

You do not want your steel structure to take any heat any where.

[Kent1]

Madrid had reports of explosions and molten metal also. LOL!

Here's a molten metal quote

Bright orange and red flames devoured the building, initially ravaging the upper floors before spreading downward, stripping away its metal and glass shell in twisted pieces to expose the smoldering concrete skeleton. Giant fireballs were seen rising into the night sky as parts of its sides collapsed, raining fire and molten metal onto the streets below.
(Links out of date, but the story can still be found)
http://www.iht.com/getina/files/225478.html
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=Giant+fireballs+were+seen+rising+into+the+ night+sky+as+parts+of+its+sides+collapsed%2C+raini ng+fire+and+molten+metal+onto+the+streets+below.&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.buzzlife.com/forums/printthread.php%3Ft%3D59667&w=giant+fireballs+were+seen+rising+night+sky+parts +sides+collapsed+raining+fire+molten+metal+onto+st reets+below&d=PEvuSZIFNnaR&icp=1&.intl=us

[beachnut]

I am concerned that no one has mentioned the MOLTEN STEEL that you can see inside the building. Clearly the factory was brought down by thermite (mate?, mite? moot? I don't know...).

It is thermitaid and thermataid, Dr Jones has found proof Kool-Aid burnt byproducts were at paper factory

[apathoid]

Madrid had reports of explosions and molten metal also. LOL!

Explosions and molten metal in a burning skyscaper, you say?
How is that possible if an office building fire can only reach 250 C?

[Kent1]

Explosions and molten metal in a burning skyscaper, you say?
How is that possible if an office building fire can only reach 250 C?

Did the author really think that one out. PAPER has an IGNITION temperature of approximately 232 degrees Celsius!

[apathoid]

Did the author really think that one out. PAPER has an IGNITION temperature of approximately 232 degrees Celsius!
Most of the paper found after the collapses wasnt burned at all, so the temp couldnt have reached 232C anywhere in the Towers. Fact.

Is that how CT logic works?

[Kent1]

Most of the paper found after the collapses wasnt burned at all, so the temp couldnt have reached 232C anywhere in the Towers. Fact.

Is that how CT logic works?
911 Mysterious actually has some sort of conspiracy about the blowing paper. Although I can't remember the details off hand.

They also make the absurd claim that open air fires can only reach 1200F!

[Bell]

911 Mysterious actually has some sort of conspiracy about the blowing paper. Although I can't remember the details off hand.

They also make the absurd claim that open air fires can only reach 1200F!

Not sure if this is the one you are refering to, but I saw a short clip (from a conspiraloon movie) on Google, where some nutter (with a very anoying voice, felt like shooting an arrow through my ears) who went on about all the pulverized concrete and such, but yet... the papers that were blown out of the WTC towers were all in one piece. "Dust and paper, think about it!" :confused: WEIRD!!1!!!eleven!!1!!!

[Gravy]

allright then, but then you can also not use this building as a example for wtc.

I know the story of course, the combination of damage and fire. The damage makes it weak and finally fire brought it down an hour later after it was damaged.You apparently don't know the story. Do you know the probable causes and specific mechanism that NIST gives for the tower collapses?

But why is there absolute silence for an hour and no between state, the stories don't make it plausible.Einsteen! We've been through this exact same crap before with you, debunking the exact same claims. If you're not going to pay attention, then why are you here?
What I don’t understand is that it is such a discontinuous process; the block doesn’t hang at a wire, 3.7m above the building, that breaks by a candle flame, but you see a lot of strong intact steel, people standing, steel not popping out one-by one during that hour, but absolute silence in the structure for an hour.No. Peopel did hear sounds. The building was observed to bow outward on the damaged areas. Sure, if you ignore all the evidence it looks like it happened all at once. But that makes you intellectually dishonest.This is something that maybe could be tested with a scale model. If something holds a massive block for an hour without any bending and then.... Sorry, I'm fresh out of chickenwire and kerosene. Feel free to design a valid model, and to be able to show why it's valid, and to compare it to the towers, which were collapsing from the moment they were struck by the aircraft.

in the wtc1 movie there is a correlation with a camera shake 10 seconds before the collapse,A correlation to what? The tripod shaking? And how do you know that someone didn't bump the tripod? You don't. You are unable to show any causal relationship between an event in the tower and the tripod shake.

someone said the core died probably first Who said that, why is their opinion valid, and how does it fit with the collapse models created by the investigators?

but that doesn't solve the matter it only places the same question 10 seconds earlier in time.In your confused mind only.

[defaultdotxbe]

Not sure if this is the one you are refering to, but I saw a short clip (from a conspiraloon movie) on Google, where some nutter (with a very anoying voice, felt like shooting an arrow through my ears) who went on about all the pulverized concrete and such, but yet... the papers that were blown out of the WTC towers were all in one piece. "Dust and paper, think about it!" :confused: WEIRD!!1!!!eleven!!1!!!
everyone knows if you drop a[peice of apper from a 110 story building it shatters into a million peices

[Bell]

everyone knows if you drop a[peice of apper from a 110 story building it shatters into a million peices

Yes, apper tends to do that :p

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, apper tends to do that :p
quiet sock puppet!

im trying to type coherently whilst eating lunch and its not working well

[Gravy]

If Siegel's recordings are fake(d) then there are still a lot of testimonies, the sound was really incredible, before the collapse and during the collapse. I think testimonies should be taken seriously to a certain amount, in the same way as Gravy uses testimonies for his wtc7 paper.Show me a single eyewitness or recording that corroborates Siegel's claim.

[Bell]

quiet sock puppet!

im trying to type coherently whilst eating lunch and its not working well

Ah yes, we men are still not quite capable of multitasking :D

[Gravy]

If the ground was shaking, then the Lamont Doherty Seismographs wouldve recorded this movement, correct? Why didnt they?Indeed. Nor was anything recorded by the seismographs that Protec had in the immediate area.

[rwguinn]

I told you to put some spray on fire proofing on your heat sink and see if it works as a heat sink.

you are messing up, yes objects assorb heat, but there is no heat sink in the WTC like your CPU heat sink

You never want any heat in the steel, no heat in the steel. This is why they protect the steel with concrete, spray on fire stuff, etc.

Heavy wood construction, I mean 3 or 5 foot wood supports, will do better than steel components not protected. Heat sink?

You do not want your steel structure to take any heat any where.



Go get a piece of steel, 2 feet long, 1" square. Put 1 end in a nice, hot, fire. It will soon glow orange on that end. Pick it up, by the other end, bare handed. Put the orange end on an anvil. Hit it with a hammer. Watch it spread out, easily. Let it cool. Hit it with a hammer. watch it do nothing. Learn the other reason why blacksmiths go to H3!! (the first is not charging enough).
put the beatten-upon end back in the fire. Lather, rinse, repeat.
This is called forging. Note that the cool end can be handled bare handed--yet it is steel, heated hotternheck at the other end. In fact, even after the glow is gone and it looks black, you can light a cigar on it.

[einsteen]

A correlation to what? The tripod shaking? And how do you know that someone didn't bump the tripod? You don't. You are unable to show any causal relationship between an event in the tower and the tripod shake.

Who said that, why is their opinion valid, and how does it fit with the collapse models created by the investigators?



It was one of the debunkers who said the core died first, I can't remember. You're right Gravy, I was also thinking about someone who shaked the tripod, we don't know where it is located then we need the source, but there is also a correlation with that shaking and a piece of debris falling from the right somewhere at the point of impact.

Of course it is not easy to match with the seismic data because the tripod and camera has its own resonance frequency, there might be a small time delay and er don't know how far the camera is and so on.

I just re-readed Greening's part and its very interesting, he says that the huge peaks is not the collapse but the debris falling on the ground and the intact block caving in. But if the tripod really shaked (that should be investigated) due to the events ongoing in the building then it has te be reviewed, the collapse itself doesn't let the camera shake but once the debris hits the ground is shakes again but with less amplitude. I think the peak is correlated with the camera shaking.

[rwguinn]

nip excuses....

Of course it is not easy to match with the seismic data because the tripod and camera has its own resonance frequency, there might be a small time delay and er don't know how far the camera is and so on.

I just re-readed Greening's part and its very interesting, he says that the huge peaks is not the collapse but the debris falling on the ground and the intact block caving in. But if the tripod really shaked (that should be investigated) due to the events ongoing in the building then it has te be reviewed, the collapse itself doesn't let the camera shake but once the debris hits the ground is shakes again but with less amplitude. I think the peak is correlated with the camera shaking.

you're talking about milliseconds diffe4rence on a seismograph?
Hoo, boy. I really need to know the name of that pawnbroker...

[einsteen]

yeah I had to be sure... the pawnshop is called "Sir DumpALot's Grab Bag"

[Moving On]

Once again I find JREFers engaged in mockery without research.

You jump to a conclusion that "a steel building collapses from fire" and try to link it to WTC 7.

There is NO similarity to the warehouse fire in Enigma Business Park and WTC 7 or the towers. NONE!

First of all take the time to watch the video of the fire below. Once open, it gives you the option to open in a player. Do that and enlarge it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/herefordandworcester/realmedia/fire?size=4x3&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1&checkedBandwidth=bb&checkedMedia=ram&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1

By the end of the video you will see 100% involvement of the entire structure. Please show me one photo of any open flame at WTC 7 even remotely equivocating this.

The fire penetrates the roof which is 100% different in its effects than a lateral floor fire such as in a high-rise. A fully ventilated "heat up" fire creates draft and centralizes heating.

Notice the odd color smoke at different phases as well. Yellow toward the beginning.

Warehouses and such are under 100% different flammability regulations than an occupied office structure. All materials in the U.S. from the structure itself to the office contents are highly regulated for life safety. There is no comparison.

Note in the video the massive series of explosions at the beginning of the fire and some throughout. Ask yourself when your toilet paper ever exploded even after bad Mexican or Thai food?

Observe the white hot nature of the fire in certain locations throughout the video. Point me to a similar phenomenon at WTC 7.

Notice that the columns showing in the photo that started this thread are on the windward side of the building. They were therefore exposed to the least amount of heat. They were pulled over and not melted. They did not buckle and come straight down.

The building came down non symmetrically. The wind may have actually played a factor.

Here is another photo gallery of the fire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/image_galleries/malvern_fire_gallery.shtml

Please study it and find ANY photo of WTC 7 that approximates it. For the purposes of this study we will only use WTC 7 as an example since it does not provide you the excuse of aircraft to magically explain it away.

As of now, over 5 years later the only official report we have on WTC 7 is that fire was the primary cause. Even the diesel fuel tanks there were given a "low probability" of being the source of the collapse.

Keep that in mind. It will apply to this fire and should generate a reasonable question for you to think about. If FEMA thought a diesel fuel tank at WTC 7 had a low probability of being the source of collapse, why is diesel fuel able to cause it 2 blocks away???

Now let's take a look at steel warehouse structures OK?

1) Standard Steel Buildings can be designed to look almost any way you can imagine, including stone, brick, slate and stucco.

2) Steel buildings as with most structures expand, and contract with temperature changes, causing a great deal of problems for most stucco products.

3) One of the great advantages of using steel warehouses is by using steel you can maintain a clear-span of up to 300 ft wide. Having a large space that is column-free you will gain the flexibility to satisfy even the most complex space design needs while still maintaining an obstacle free environment.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/building_frames.jpg

http://www.standardsteelbuildings.com/warehouse_buildings.html

Second opinion:
Rigid frame steel buildings are ideal for warehousing. Advantages include:

Clear span capabilities
Few if any interior columns
Thermally efficient
Durable
Predictable cost

http://www.steelbuildingsupplier.com/RapidsetBuildings/Warehouse.cfm

Please compare the above information to the following graphic of just one aspect of WTC 7. Also keep in mind the different grades of construction steel and thicknesses in a 47 story, occupied, high-rise office structure in downtown New York City and a two story pre-fabricated warehouse at a business park in the rural U.K..

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fig-5-8.gif


If any of you want to learn more about that, then read chapter 5 of the FEMA report below annotated by true skeptics.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Remember that chapter says in FEMA's own words, "The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially "peeled" outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion."

and.......

"Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Remember the warehouse had fire from the ground up. WTC 7 did not.

Now let's look at the actual company that was involved in the fire. ESP - Manufacturers of Soft Tissue Products.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/address.gif

WEBSITE: http://www.es-p.co.uk/index.htm

Go to the "About Us" page page and click continue 3x to see the predominantly column free environment and their manufacturing floor.

Here's a few quotes from their site if you don't have time to research:

1) "ESP trades from a 25,000 sq ft purpose built factory set on a 2 1/2 acre site on the prestigious Enigma Business Park."

2) "With over 30,000 cases in stock at any time....... With over 150 tonnes of Mother reels in stock......"

So we have 25,000 sq feet of space with primarily prefab thickness external steel columns stuffed full of heavy flammables.

What other products do they carry and/or manufacture?

1) Dispensers (plastic)
2) Hygiene
3) Roll-a-soap
4) Washroom
5) Wiping

Lets look at just one of those products.

"ESP is pleased to announce the launch of its new product range M-BOSS. This revolutionary new product is manufactured using tissue plies that are Glued, Embossed and Laminated together."

Who knows what other chemicals and in what quantities may have been stored there? Or what quantities of their plastic products. Depending on what phase of the paper processes they are involved in, many other chemicals could be present. Watch the video again and listen to the explosions and watch the white hot fires.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/herefordandworcester/realmedia/fire?size=4x3&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1&checkedBandwidth=bb&checkedMedia=ram&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1

So what we have is actually a manufacturing plant that is almost 2/3 of an acre stuffed with various flammables, chemicals and equipment. It is a 2 story pre-fabricated structure that has external columns as its primary support structure. The columns you do see are not melted but only pulled over from the weight of the collapse.

You have 100% total involvement of a top ventilated fire. You have no knowledge of the temperatures achieved by the potential chemicals and combinations thereof even if it can be demonstrated that steel melted.

You also have a building that is known to expand and contract significantly in reaction to heat and cold because of its nature.

That nature is radically different than a 47 story high-rise office building.
Do you still want to compare it to WTC 7 in proof that 9/11 is not a conspiracy????

JREF is about as "fair and balanced" as FOX News.

[Minadin]

Please. The Only parallels that people are drawing here are in response to the CT claim that "on Sept 11th, 2001, 3 steel buildings failed due to fire, they are the only steel buildings ever to fail from fire, before or since."

Steel buildings are very vulnerable to fires. They always have been. Not so much to burning as to failing structurally. This is something that a lot of CT'ers don't seem to be able to grasp. The folks here are just making a point. Steel buildings can and do fail because of fires. The specifics of the structure mean less than you apparently think - if a fire is hot enough, if the steel is compromised by being unprotected, or there are nearby members that fail, no structure is well-equipped to weather that.

[uk_dave]

Christ Russell, lighten up.

No one here suggested that a steel portal frame warehouse was comparable to the steel frame multistorey office building.

For one thing the loo paper warehouse hadn't had a huge tower collapse in close proximity to it!

(see what I'm getting at there?)

Oh and BTW, you might want to look into the UK building regulations if you want to make claims about fire proofing being '100%' different between these types of buildings.

You might also want to check some of the fire testing that has been carried out at the Cardington LBTF

[Moving On]

First, it should be acknowledged that the American population has been well served by the design and construction industry regarding fire safety in high-rise structural steel buildings exposed to historical threats. As was noted in the workshop and was highlighted in the Engineering News Record article that covered the workshop (February12, 2004, p. 15), in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.

During the past 75 years, these prescriptive approaches have been successful. In the NIST report, six occurrences of collapse in steel framed structures were cited. Four of these six were at the World Trade Center site. It would appear this performance has resulted from a balance of redundancy in structural design and the conservatism in the assessment of fire test data.

The huge risk associated with a singular event such as the collapse of the World Trade Center needs to be somehow combined with what may be a minimal risk based upon the historical record.

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf

[Moving On]

Christ Russell, lighten up.

No one here suggested that a steel portal frame warehouse was comparable to the steel frame multistorey office building.

For one thing the loo paper warehouse hadn't had a huge tower collapse in close proximity to it!

(see what I'm getting at there?)

Oh and BTW, you might want to look into the UK building regulations if you want to make claims about fire proofing being '100%' different between these types of buildings.

You might also want to check some of the fire testing that has been carried out at the Cardington LBTF

Dave,

Good point. I did not actually check regulations in the UK. I just looked at the grades and thicknesses of steel here.

I am emailing that fire department for info on the estimated temperatures and the chemicals involved.

Russell

[uk_dave]

Russell,

I hesitate to post this link because I know how easily a few of the comments therein can be taken out of context, but here goes...

They tested a steel frame structure at cardington to see the effects of a 'normal' office fire on protected and unprotected structural steel. The point open to misinterpretation (within the context of WTC7) is that the structural steel performed better than expected. However, it still suffered from massive deflection and distortion.

In the context of WTC7 one would need to add an element of structural damage, not caused by the fire itself.

You then have a stressed structure, which may be perfectly capable of standing long enough to enable repair, but once fire is added to the damage the remaining steel is going to be weakened beyond it's ability to withstand disproportionate collapse.

http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/SCI.htm

[uk_dave]

The point about my previous post is that you would have to compare historic examples of steel framed structures which suffered structural damage as well as fire.

Most examples of fires in multi storey steel structures are the result of mishaps and faults within the services, such as electrical or gas.

The effect of structural damage and fire is something we saw on 9/11

[Moving On]

The point about my previous post is that you would have to compare historic examples of steel framed structures which suffered structural damage as well as fire.

Most examples of fires in multi storey steel structures are the result of mishaps and faults within the services, such as electrical or gas.

The effect of structural damage and fire is something we saw on 9/11

.....in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf

[TruthSeeker1234]

Wrong. This building is a piece of positive evidence that fire can cause structural steel to fail.

Here is an analogy to show why it can be used in the manner we have presented it, but not in the manner you have:
A corpse is found with a small hole in one side of its head and a large hole in the other side.
Upon examining all available evidence we conclude that the person was shot in the head and that this was the cause of death, probably by a large caliber firearm.
You conclude something else (doesn't matter what) caused the hole and that it was not the cause of death (you think they died from a heart attack or something).
We provide a specific example of someone who has been shot in the head, but it is with a smaller caliber firearm and there is no exit wound. We state, "Here is an example of someone who died from a gunshot wound to the head."
You reply, "And this proves that the corpse we found didn't die from a gunshot wound to the head, because the example you showed me doesn't have an exit wound."

This would be a good analogy if the person, in addition to having the two holes in his head, had also mostly disintegrated. Suppose 99% of his non-bone mass was turned into dust, and a good 80% of his bone was as well. If you tried to blame this on a gun shot, I would tell you that you are divorced from reality. I would say this whether or not you could provide evidence of another person with a gunshot wound.

Yes, intense fires can soften steel. Gradually. Assymmetrically. If enough loss of strength occurs, some sort of structural failure can occur. It is debatable whether that happened on 9/11. It's mostly beside the point.
We did not observe "structural failures" or "collapses" on 9/11. We observed two 110 story skyscrapers being obliterated in seconds.

[Moving On]

This would be a good analogy if the person, in addition to having the two holes in his head, had also mostly disintegrated. Suppose 99% of his non-bone mass was turned into dust, and a good 80% of his bone was as well. If you tried to blame this on a gun shot, I would tell you that you are divorced from reality. I would say this whether or not you could provide evidence of another person with a gunshot wound.

Yes, intense fires can soften steel. Gradually. Assymmetrically. If enough loss of strength occurs, some sort of structural failure can occur. It is debatable whether that happened on 9/11. It's mostly beside the point.
We did not observe "structural failures" or "collapses" on 9/11. We observed two 110 story skyscrapers being obliterated in seconds.

It was 4 buildings.

Please read this.

.....in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.

During the past 75 years, these prescriptive approaches have been successful. In the NIST report, six occurrences of collapse in steel framed structures were cited. Four of these six were at the World Trade Center site.


http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf

[uk_dave]

It was 4 buildings.

Please read this.

.....in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.


http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf

Russell,

Look at it this way:

We can both agree that on 9/11 three steel frame structures collapsed.

The two towers suffered damage from being impacted by passenger jets.

WTC7 may have suffered massive damage, moderate damage or no damage at all, depending on the emphasis you place on various eyewitness accounts.

We KNOW that fire causes structural damage. The only question is, how much additional structural damage was caused to WTC7 by the collapse of the adjacent towers.

You believe it was very little, based upon the eyewitness accounts you accept.

I believe it was alot, based upon the fact that the building collapsed.

I would suggest that my evidence is stronger than yours.

The only way you can reconcile your belief that the fires alone could not have brought down WTC7 is to accept that some other mechanism was employed.

I believe that other mechanism was the collapse of a massive structure in close proximity to WTC7. Certainly the evidence of fire in WTC7 suggests that the collapse impacted upon that building.

For you to arrive at an alternative mechanism you have to believe in a conspiracy without means or motive.

Why is the simplest answer so unacceptable to you?

[uk_dave]

The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction

The building featured two heavily reinforced concrete transfer structures (technical floors) between the 2nd and 3rd Floors, and between the 16th and 17th Floors respectively. The original cladding system was fixed to the steel perimeter columns and the floor slabs. The perimeter columns were supported by the transfer structures at the 17th and 3rd Floor levels.

................................


The Damage

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. 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 (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished. The estimated property loss was €72m before the renovation.

Based on the footages of available media filming, Table 2 summarises the estimated time frame for the structural collapses of the Windsor Tower.

http://tinyurl.com/cmggl

Steel structure failed through fire alone, Russell.

Just FIRE

[Gravy]

Russell,

I hesitate to post this link because I know how easily a few of the comments therein can be taken out of context, but here goes...

They tested a steel frame structure at cardington to see the effects of a 'normal' office fire on protected and unprotected structural steel. The point open to misinterpretation (within the context of WTC7) is that the structural steel performed better than expected. However, it still suffered from massive deflection and distortion.

In the context of WTC7 one would need to add an element of structural damage, not caused by the fire itself.

You then have a stressed structure, which may be perfectly capable of standing long enough to enable repair, but once fire is added to the damage the remaining steel is going to be weakened beyond it's ability to withstand disproportionate collapse.

http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/SCI.htm

The point about my previous post is that you would have to compare historic examples of steel framed structures which suffered structural damage as well as fire.

Most examples of fires in multi storey steel structures are the result of mishaps and faults within the services, such as electrical or gas.

The effect of structural damage and fire is something we saw on 9/11Well said. Another JREF "Dave," Dave_46, is recently retired from a career in (I believe) the fire protection business, and was present at two of the Cardington tests mentioned above. His posts are always worthy of attention. An excerpt from one:

The construction of the building used for the Cardington experiments was more modern than the WTC towers. It was specifically built to test modern construction techniques. The horizontal beams in this building are more substantial than my understanding of the WTC floor supports. The reason that the Cardington building did not collapse was due to load sharing as the individual components weakened and distorted. The building suffered severe local damage, and access to parts of the building was restricted after the tests due to the damage. To state the obvious, the structural integrity of the building had not been compromised by a severe impact.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1541819&postcount=796

[Gravy]

We KNOW that fire causes structural damage. The only question is, how much additional structural damage was caused to WTC7 by the collapse of the adjacent towers. (snip)I don't know that that's the only question that needs to be answered, and I suspect that's one reason that NIST's investigation into WTC 7 is a very challenging one.

Would WTC 7 have stood if it it had not been as badly damaged but had burned uncontrolled? The building had structural idiosyncracies such as the transfer trusses over the ConEdison substation that, if not unique, were not common. In terms of high-rise fires, it is sui generis. AFAIK, the role that diesel fuel may have played in the fire remains unknown. (FEMA's relatively brief study assigned the diesel a "low probability" as a cause of collapse.) The severity of the fires will never be precisely known.

In an ideal world more steel from WTC 7 would have been preserved, and a multitude of experts would have unlimited time to try to separate the steel that was fire-damaged in the standing building from steel that was fire-damaged while in the pile, and to examine every element for damage. In the real world, there were much, much more pressing concerns and demands.

[Moving On]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind.jpg

Not to be rude, but do you guys have any other examples for me to compare?

[Moving On]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind2.jpg

Jump back and forth a couple of times.

Here is an article on the complicated process involved to actually bring the Windsor Tower to the ground.


"City authorities entrusted the construction company Construcciones Ortiz with the deconstruction of the tower, which was initially expected to take 11-12 months."

"Different demolition techniques were used at this stage".

http://www.pdworld.com/default_article.asp?categoryID=17&pageID=438

[uk_dave]

Reinforced concrete, russell

Reinforced concrete.

The steel structure failed within 90 minutes

[uk_dave]

In fact, in your post showing the fire in madrid, there seems to be quite alot of the structure already missing.

That fire burned for 18 to 20 hours, and yet the steel failed within 90 minutes.

Think about it.

As for Gravy's comment ragarding the WTC7 structure, I totally agree that the cantilevered design at the base of the building was going to be the most vulnerable. Cantilevers have much less scope for redundancy and (since they pivot around the point of support) provide a whole different set of stresses on the remaining structure than a conventional beam supported at either end.

[Gravy]

Russell, you say you've read the FDNY accounts that I compiled in my WTC 7 paper. Based on those accounts, how representative would you say your "WTC 7 north side" photo is of the fires that developed in that building?

[Moving On]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind3.jpg

To be fair, I did forget about the fires on the other side of WTC 7.

I am having a hard time making out the concrete between the steel columns here.

[Gravy]

Reinforced concrete, russell

Reinforced concrete.

The steel structure failed within 90 minutesArup Fire Safety Engineering says (http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150)The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.

[Gravy]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind3.jpg

To be fair, I did forget about the fires on the other side of WTC 7.

I am having a hard time making out the concrete between the steel columns here.You avoided my question, and instead showed a photo of WTC 7's east side. I'll ask one more time. If you don't want answer, please say so.

Russell, you say you've read the FDNY accounts that I compiled in my WTC 7 paper. Based on those accounts, how representative would you say your "WTC 7 north and east side" photos are of the fires that developed in that building?

[gumboot]

allright then, but then you can also not use this building as a example for wtc.

I know the story of course, the combination of damage and fire. The damage makes it weak and finally fire brought it down an hour later after it was damaged. But why is there absolute silence for an hour and no between state, the stories don't make it plausible.


And this is why it doesn't make sense to you, because you have a false understanding of what happened.

There was not silence for an hour. There are NUMEROUS reports of a progression of structural failure, from numerous sources.

The NYPD Aviation Unit.
The FDNY Chiefs in the building lobbies.
People trapped in the buildings above collapse.
Survivors, victims, and first responders who reported explosions and other loud noises in the buildings.

All of these sources provide evidence that the failure of the structure occured gradually over some time. However this "Creeping" failure is not going to happen perpetually. At some point a critical failure point is reached, at which time you get the initiation of a global collapse.

But to say that the structure's integrity remained unchanged after impact, and then abruptly failed some time later, is absolutely false.

-Gumboot

[Moving On]

Russell, you say you've read the FDNY accounts that I compiled in my WTC 7 paper. Based on those accounts, how representative would you say your "WTC 7 north side" photo is of the fires that developed in that building?

I am a visual person.

Did I miss a picture with more flame evident at WTC 7?

Please post it so I can see.

[uk_dave]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind3.jpg

To be fair, I did forget about the fires on the other side of WTC 7.

I am having a hard time making out the concrete between the steel columns here.

Yeah, it's particularily hard to see the concrete in that portion which has already collapsed. :cool:

[Gravy]

I am having a hard time making out the concrete between the steel columns here.You are? Allow me to help. The steel columns are the ones that are buckling. The concrete column at right is not buckling.

[Gravy]

I am a visual person.

Did I miss a picture with more flame evident at WTC 7?

Please post it so I can see.
So you refuse to consider the many accounts of the FDNY. The people who you say are the most knowledgeable about high-rise fires.

Wow.

I don't know why you do that, especially since you were a firefighter for years. I guess we all have our problems.

As you know, the south side of WTC 7 was largely obscured by the enormous volume of smoke emanating from it. Because of the enormous fires inside.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454afe1977e4e.jpg

[Moving On]

Table 1 Estimated time frame of fire development (NILIM 2005)


Fire started at the 21st Floor 23:00


After receiving a fire signal, the security guards went to the 21st floor and attempting to fight the fire before giving up 23:05 ~ 23:20


Fire brigade was called 23:21


Fire brigade arrived 23:25


Fire brigade started to fight the fire (news report) 23:30


All floors above the 21st floor were in fire (news report) 00:00


Fire brigade retreated and adopted a defensive position, preventing fire spread to adjacent buildings 02:00


Fire spread below the 17th floor 02:15


Chunks of facade started falling off (news report) 03:30


Fire spread below 16th floor, crossing over the upper technical floor 04:00


Floors at upper level collapsed (news report) 05:30

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


From this report I found it looked like it was actually 6 1/2 hours until a partial collapse?

[Gravy]

When will you be addressing the expert eyewitness accounts of the fires and damage in WTC 7, ex-firefighter Russell?

[Moving On]

So you refuse to consider the many accounts of the FDNY. The people who you say are the most knowledgeable about high-rise fires.

Wow.

I don't know why you do that, especially since you were a firefighter for years. I guess we all have our problems.

As you know, the south side of WTC 7 was largely obscured by the enormous volume of smoke emanating from it. Because of the enormous fires inside.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454afe1977e4e.jpg


ENORMOUS? Now your resorting to word misuse?

That is very indicative of a smothered fire.

I want to see flame.

Also, FEMA said the massive energy potential in the diesel at WTC 7 was only a low "probability" of fueling the fires enough to collapse the building.

How come the near equivelent of diesel worked so well only two blocks away?

[uk_dave]

My mistake, I was reading the time of collapse as time from start of fire reaching that part of structure, rather than actual time of day.

oooops! :duck:

[W6102LA]

Russell

Why don't you interview the people who were involved with WTC7 ?

[Moving On]

My mistake, I was reading the time of collapse as time from start of fire reaching that part of structure, rather than actual time of day.

oooops! :duck:

No problem. I make mistakes too.

Only Gravy doesn't I guess.

[Moving On]

Photos of fire at WTC 7 please.

Also, in the actual collapse photos and video where are all the sparks and fire getting blown all over?

[Kent1]

I am a visual person.

Did I miss a picture with more flame evident at WTC 7?

Please post it so I can see.

Damn I just lost a large post.

However in short I agree with you regarding the false comparision at the beginning.

However the large fire photo (Windsor) is not needed as you only need a concentrated fire in a specific location. The 5th floor didn't have windows either.

Honestly I don't believe these "huge fires", large smoke posts that you see endlessly across forums are really crucial to debate.

Also I suggest you read up on why NIST believes the building fell. Sunder states the working hypothesis is that the pressurized fuel line was supplying fuel to the fire for a long period of time. The generators located on the fifth floor connected to fuel tanks in the basement.

I also suggest that you re-read that FEMA section you pointed out. There is some very good information under 5.6.2 paragraph 2-3

The structural elements most likely to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7,located on lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location. If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse may have then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building. The cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the beams and columns at the building perimeter may have become overloaded after the collapse of the transfer trusses and caused the interior collapse to propagate to the whole floor and to the exterior frame. The structural system between floors 5 and 7 appears to be critical to the structural performance of the entire building.

(Yes I note some buzz words and note the "limited debris field")


I also believe FEMA mentioned "TOTAL diesel fuel" under 5.7.
Clearly FEMA regards the further investigation of diesel important. See 5.8

[W6102LA]

Russell

Why don't you interview the people who were involved with WTC7 ?

Damn...i must be on Russell's ignore list :(

[Moving On]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/towers.jpg

I think somebody made a little error about where the towers and the other burning buildings were.

[Moving On]

Damn...i must be on Russell's ignore list :(

I can't do everything. I probably will eventually. I will wait for the final report to come out though.

[stateofgrace]

Am I missing something here?

Russell, you know full well the final report into the collapse of WTC 7 is not in the public domain , yet you are demanding that people here pre-empt it and answer your questions. Is that correct?

You are going off on one expecting people to produce photographs of fire, offer up theories in the hope you can question them and prove that WTC 7 was demolished? Yes.

If you are so certain why do you not get in touch with those that are investigating this and present your research, present your evidence. Because you know it will be dismissed, you know it wishful thinking.

You have openly accused people of mocking evidence. I personally do no such thing I mock the cters , I mock the mindset of individuals like yourself that are simply excuse machines for unworkable theories. You are right now trying to take the high ground and show how the collapse of a steel framed building in the UK is not representative of steel frame buildings.

I read many posts from learned people on this forum who have simply pulled apart everything you have said, you have not responded to these posts. You have right now an offer on the table from Lashl to publicly or privately submit your evidence you have not responded. Instead you simply offer up excuse after excuse as why your movement should be listened to. You excuse the likes of Kill towns, despipicable behaviour. You excuse the likes of PD who simply mock it all. As more and more evidence is made available that simply demolish you theories, your excuses get more and more absurd.

Over here in the UK we have a notoriously bad public transport system. Our train system is absolutely appalling; it is one long standing joke. British rail in their wisdom decided to address it by telling the public why individual trains were late. Excuse ranged form leafs on the track to the wrong type of snow on the tracks. It all backfired and rather than admit the entire train system was crap they made laughing stocks of themselves by making excuses.

This is you Russell, an excuse machine, dismissing all evidence to the contrary that your train system is crap, refusing to accept the mountain of evidence. Believing that leafs on the track or the wrong type of snow really is responsible the systems failings.

[Gravy]

ENORMOUS? Now your resorting to word misuse?So you couldn't be bothered to read the FDNY accounts after all. The only reason I can think of for that is that you're afraid of what the experts said. Remember, you said the FDNY was the best when it comes to high-rise fires. Well, here are some excerpts from their statements.

A note to onlookers: the following accounts are only a few of those that appear in my WTC 7 paper (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf).

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 LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

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. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.

At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

"And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

...And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

"There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable (just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.

...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.

...He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too. –Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF

I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations. –Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110167.PDF

There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110098.PDF

My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.htmlThat is very indicative of a smothered fire.Russell, you haven't been paying attention. We covered all of this a few days ago. I'm sure this will be familiar:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790453a2bd8d4151.jpg

In your expert opinion, are the fires above "almost smothered," ex-firefighter Pickering?



Does NIST know nothing about fires, Russell? You read this a few days ago. Remember?

Q: If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

A: Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions. I want to see flame.I know you want to see flame. But where will you turn to satisfy that urge? Honestly, Russell, where? Is it reasonable to want to see flame where flame is obscured by smoke in the few photos and videos we have of WTC 7? You also want to see a clear video of the Pentagon crash, remember?

So when we can't have what we want in these situations, should we consider the evidence gathered by experts, or should we rely on our imaginations? Please respond.

Also, FEMA said the massive energy potential in the diesel at WTC 7 was only a low "probability" of fueling the fires enough to collapse the building.Yes, as I pointed out above. When you do read, you don't read carefully, do you?

We've been through all this before, Russell. Is any of it sinking in yet, or should we expect continued deliberate ignorance and disrespect of firefighters from you?

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]

[Gravy]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/towers.jpg

I think somebody made a little error about where the towers and the other burning buildings were.No, Russell, you erred badly in your analysis. The photo of the smoke from WTC 7 was taken in the late afternoon, as the lighting clearly shows. If you had bothered to read my WTC 7 paper, you would have seen similar photos.

If you can't be bothered to look into these issues, why do you presume to opine on them?

[Moving On]

No, Russell, you erred badly in your analysis. The photo of the smoke from WTC 7 was taken in the late afternoon, as the lighting clearly shows. If you had bothered to read my WTC 7 paper, you would have seen similar photos.

If you can't be bothered to look into these issues, why do you presume to opine on them?

Great lengthy and distracting post.

MAY I PLEASE see photos or videos of those fires at WTC 7? You showed me fires at everything EXCEPT WTC 7. These techniques of yours don't work on me.

Also, will you be able to admit you placed the towers poorly in your photos? I mean it's photos against you. This part of it is not philosophy!!

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/towers.jpg

[Moving On]

Just in case people got lost in all the words I will remind you here of what we're talking about. Were waiting for Gravy to post a PHOTO of large fires in WTC 7.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind.jpg

[Moving On]

Fires that cause this.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind2.jpg

[stateofgrace]

And therein lays the difference between you and Gravy. The post above is FACT. It is based on evidence that is available. Not crap like “I’m a visual man". Not let’s dismiss it all.

This available evidence and FACTS are right now been integrated into NIST’s final report. The one you will dismiss. Like you dismiss the available evidence that totally blows away your theories already.

Nominated

[MalvernHills]

Hmmm... derailing the important stuff and going back to the Toilet Paper Fire CT I'd like to mention that no one has pointed out that there is a large "Quinetiq" establishment not 1 mile from where the building collapsed.

Interestingly, Quinetiq, formerly DERA (Defence Evaluation and Research Agency), have not commented on the building collapse!! Why?

Several senior employees of said establishment were seen in Waitrose buying toilet roll PRIOR to the fire!

Military aircraft, including dark helicopters, have been seen flying over the hills in the last few days!!

I think the answer's clear and eagerly await "Loose Stool" at cinemas so that the rest of the world will know the troof.

I'm off to get my recycled paper back in...I may need it.

[Gravy]

Great lengthy and distracting post.

MAY I PLEASE see photos or videos of those fires at WTC 7? You showed me fires at everything EXCEPT WTC 7. These techniques of yours don't work on me.

Also, will you be able to admit you placed the towers poorly in your photos? I mean it's photos against you. This part of it is not philosophy!!

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/towers.jpgRussell, you are digging deeper with each post. The photo from Jersey City that I posted is by Aman Zafar. See it in sequence here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm

Even if you didn't know that, anyone with any sense can place the sun in the southwest in that photo. But you can't be bothered with small details like the sun, can you?

You need to read my posts above about the smoke obscuring WTC 7. Anything unclear about that?

Is there anything unclear about the accounts of the FDNY eyewitnesses, Russell? You know, the people whose lives depend on judging the condition of buildings on fire?

Your apology is expected.

[Moving On]

Am I missing something here?

Russell, you know full well the final report into the collapse of WTC 7 is not in the public domain , yet you are demanding that people here pre-empt it and answer your questions. Is that correct?

You are going off on one expecting people to produce photographs of fire, offer up theories in the hope you can question them and prove that WTC 7 was demolished? Yes.

If you are so certain why do you not get in touch with those that are investigating this and present your research, present your evidence. Because you know it will be dismissed, you know it wishful thinking.

You have openly accused people of mocking evidence. I personally do no such thing I mock the cters , I mock the mindset of individuals like yourself that are simply excuse machines for unworkable theories. You are right now trying to take the high ground and show how the collapse of a steel framed building in the UK is not representative of steel frame buildings.

I read many posts from learned people on this forum who have simply pulled apart everything you have said, you have not responded to these posts. You have right now an offer on the table from Lashl to publicly or privately submit your evidence you have not responded. Instead you simply offer up excuse after excuse as why your movement should be listened to. You excuse the likes of Kill towns, despipicable behaviour. You excuse the likes of PD who simply mock it all. As more and more evidence is made available that simply demolish you theories, your excuses get more and more absurd.

Over here in the UK we have a notoriously bad public transport system. Our train system is absolutely appalling; it is one long standing joke. British rail in their wisdom decided to address it by telling the public why individual trains were late. Excuse ranged form leafs on the track to the wrong type of snow on the tracks. It all backfired and rather than admit the entire train system was crap they made laughing stocks of themselves by making excuses.

This is you Russell, an excuse machine, dismissing all evidence to the contrary that your train system is crap, refusing to accept the mountain of evidence. Believing that leafs on the track or the wrong type of snow really is responsible the systems failings.

PHOTOS please. The personal insinuations are tiresome but still a fascinating tactic combined with coordinated and relentless repetition.

Good job!

[Moving On]

Russell, you are digging deeper with each post. The photo from Jersey City that I posted is by Aman Zafar. See it in sequence here: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm

Even if you didn't know that, anyone with any sense can place the sun in the southwest in that photo. But you can't be bothered with small details like the sun, can you?

Your apology is expected.

Gravy,

NO APOLOGY!

You insinuated the towers and other burning buildings were in a different location than they were.

I am not one of your groupies and your demands and expectations are comical to me.

Russell

You were wrong.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/towers.jpg

[Gravy]

PHOTOS please.
Is there anything unclear about the accounts of the FDNY eyewitnesses, Russell? You know, the people whose lives depend on judging the condition of buildings on fire?

Should the FDNY have been off purchasing cameras to snap shots of WTC 7?

Hey, Russell: an airliner once crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of it crashing. How do we know it crashed?

I await your reply.

[Moving On]

Is there anything unclear about the accounts of the FDNY eyewitnesses, Russell? You know, the people whose lives depend on judging the condition of buildings on fire?

Hey, Russell: an airliner once crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of it crashing. How do we know it crashed?

I await your reply.


PLEASE show me ANY photo of a significant fire in WTC 7.

Explain to me where the flame and even a few sparks were when it collapsed?

I await your reply.

[Gravy]

Gravy,

NO APOLOGY!

You insinuated the towers and other burning buildings were in a different location than they were.

I am not one of your groupies and your demands and expectations are comical to me.

Russell

You were wrong.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/towers.jpgI insinuated no such thing, and you are dead wrong. I thought you were a researcher? Don't you know that the smoke from the towers was relatively minor on the afternoon of 9/11, and that the smoke from WTC 7 was massive? Do I really need to post more photos, Russell?

[Moving On]

Where are the "enormous" fires that burned "all day" that were supposed to be started by the physical damage to the building?

Looks like unrelated sporadic flires on different floors unconnected to the damage. I wonder what was on those floors?

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc7fire.jpg

[Larry Lovage]

In an ideal world more steel from WTC 7 would have been preserved, and a multitude of experts would have unlimited time to try to separate the steel that was fire-damaged in the standing building from steel that was fire-damaged while in the pile, and to examine every element for damage. In the real world, there were much, much more pressing concerns and demands.In an ideal world, WTC7 would not have been damaged and set on fire on a day when two of the world's biggest buildings had collapsed, taking unknown thousands of lives including who knows how many fellow firefighters. In an ideal world, there's no way that the firefighting effort would have been terminated so quickly (it's so hard to avoid using the loaded phrases "pulled" or "pulled out"), and the fire left to burn unhindered for over seven hours - certainly not in the heart of New York City. Russell even provided a timeline for Madrid which demonstrated how a building could fall after 5+ hours of burning even when it was being fought!

ENORMOUS? Now your resorting to word misuse?

That is very indicative of a smothered fire.Enormous. Let me see, in the photo you yourself made use of, the smoke cloud is emanating from the whole of one side of WTC7, and is of such magnitude that simple visual examination would lead you to conclude that the sheer volume of the smoke is already many, many times that of the skyscrapers it is drifting over. Then you provide a comparison photograph that demonstrates that the quantity of smoke from WTC7 was considerably greater than the smoke being generated by the fires in WTC1 and WTC2!

I would be hard put to it to describe any such smoke cloud as being the result of "smothering".

There's no smoke without fire, they say! The photos that you decry the lack of flame of are the strongest evidence for the fact that the WTC7 must have been burning considerably across a far greater cross sectional area than the Twin Towers fires, which were concentrated on the planestrike floors and above only; the strongest evidence that WTC7 must have been burning on most or all of its 47 floors.

[stateofgrace]

PHOTOS please. The personal insinuations are tiresome but still a fascinating tactic combined with coordinated and relentless repetition.

Good job!

Really?

I am happy to oblige.

Now Russell, you have all your evidence, so when are you going to get of your backside and do something? NIST are still working on their final report, why not submit your case?

Come on Russell, you are the darling of the truth movement, put up or shut up.

I defy you; I challenge you to put it to the authorities, stop posting on internet forums and do it. I look forward to the breaking story in the main stream media.

[Gravy]

PLEASE show me ANY photo of a significant fire in WTC 7.

Explain to me where the flame and even a few sparks were when it collapsed?

I await your reply.What was unclear about my statement in this post?

I know you want to see flame. But where will you turn to satisfy that urge? Honestly, Russell, where? Is it reasonable to want to see flame where flame is obscured by smoke in the few photos and videos we have of WTC 7? You also want to see a clear video of the Pentagon crash, remember?

So when we can't have what we want in these situations, should we consider the evidence gathered by experts, or should we rely on our imaginations? Please respond.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2065112&postcount=140

[Larry Lovage]

Ah - now I understand that Russell denies that the indicated building is WTC7. We surely don't need a photo comparison to determine the truth of that? Doesn't anybody have a map?

In any case, the fires are not from the Twin Towers, therefore they are from the other WTC buildings set on fire by the collapses. Contemporaneous (live) news reports indicated that the buildings on fire ("uncontrollably") were WTC 5, 6 and 7 - and that all three were expected to collapse. So that smoke comes from those buildings if it comes from anything! And it's fortunate that only one of them did collapse in the event.

[Gravy]

Where are the "enormous" fires that burned "all day" that were supposed to be started by the physical damage to the building?

Looks like unrelated sporadic flires on different floors unconnected to the damage. I wonder what was on those floors?

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc7fire.jpgWhy do you show another photo that does NOT show the south side of the building, Russell? Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge the accounts of the FDNY, ex-firefighter Pickering?

Your reply is expected.

[Larry Lovage]

Just another quick post to add, sorry to have only managed to contribute on the "serious" side, because page 1 of this thread included some of the funniest stuff I've seen all week. Of all the possible situations for an illustrative burning steel building, only we British could have made it a toilet paper factory - Comedy Gold!! :D

[W6102LA]

I can't do everything. I probably will eventually. I will wait for the final report to come out though.

Why wait for reports ? The only thing that seems to have convinced you that a plane hit the Pentagon was talking to eyewitnesses, all the Pentagon reports just seemed to make you suspicious

[Gravy]

As though everyone doesn't know that Russell is deliberately ignoring the truth, here are some more photos of WTC 7 in the late afternoon, showing that the thick dark smoke from the site is coming from that building. I have many others. These photos are in my WTC 7 paper, which Russell said he'd read.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454b28ee32493.jpg


Looking northeast across the wreckage of WTC 1 (north tower) & 6 to building 7:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454b28ee0f23b.jpg


Was the smoke really that heavy? Don't take my word for it. Watch these videos, which I linked to twice in my WTC 7 paper, but which Russell Pickering doesn't think are worthy of consideration. In the first, notice how the smoke from the north tower is lower and lighter in the foreground.

http://tinyurl.com/zg4un


http://tinyurl.com/f3tvd

[Gravy]

Great lengthy and distracting post.
Russell, I am very, very sorry to have distracted you with the tedious words of the people whose job it was to assess the condition of the burning building 7 on 9/11. Will you ever forgive me for the affront of presenting the reports of the FDNY?

[Spins]

I am a visual person.

Did I miss a picture with more flame evident at WTC 7?

Please post it so I can see.
I see you have resorted to asking for pictures that you know very well probably don't exist, nice tactic!

Simple question, why is the smoke coming from every floor of WTC 7 in this photo posted by Gravy...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454b28ee0f23b.jpg

...doesn't it back up all the FDNY statements? You know all the fire-fighters that are stood there at the bottom of the picture in the rubble watching it burn while they continue with the rescue effort!

Don't you see how you are asking for the impossible, how on earth are we meant to show you pictures of flame when the whole side of that building was obscured by smoke?

If you think every floor wasn't on fire can you please explain why there is smoke coming from every floor in that picture above?

[chipmunk stew]

PHOTOS [of large flames engulfing WTC7] please.
Russell, you know as well as the rest of us that you can't hang your conclusions on the absence of a specific piece of evidence that may or may not have ever existed.

We draw conclusions based on extant evidence. In this case, we have photos and videos from late in the day showing smoke pouring from virtually every South side floor, and dozens of eyewitness firefighters testifying to the fact that the building was "fully involved".

[WildCat]

Where are the "enormous" fires that burned "all day" that were supposed to be started by the physical damage to the building?
Unbelievable Russell. More inconvenient evidence for you to ignore?

[Moving On]

In an ideal world, WTC7 would not have been damaged and set on fire on a day when two of the world's biggest buildings had collapsed, taking unknown thousands of lives including who knows how many fellow firefighters. In an ideal world, there's no way that the firefighting effort would have been terminated so quickly (it's so hard to avoid using the loaded phrases "pulled" or "pulled out"), and the fire left to burn unhindered for over seven hours - certainly not in the heart of New York City. Russell even provided a timeline for Madrid which demonstrated how a building could fall after 5+ hours of burning even when it was being fought!

Enormous. Let me see, in the photo you yourself made use of, the smoke cloud is emanating from the whole of one side of WTC7, and is of such magnitude that simple visual examination would lead you to conclude that the sheer volume of the smoke is already many, many times that of the skyscrapers it is drifting over. Then you provide a comparison photograph that demonstrates that the quantity of smoke from WTC7 was considerably greater than the smoke being generated by the fires in WTC1 and WTC2!

I would be hard put to it to describe any such smoke cloud as being the result of "smothering".

There's no smoke without fire, they say! The photos that you decry the lack of flame of are the strongest evidence for the fact that the WTC7 must have been burning considerably across a far greater cross sectional area than the Twin Towers fires, which were concentrated on the planestrike floors and above only; the strongest evidence that WTC7 must have been burning on most or all of its 47 floors.

Good spin!!!

[Moving On]

Really?

I am happy to oblige.

Now Russell, you have all your evidence, so when are you going to get of your backside and do something? NIST are still working on their final report, why not submit your case?

Come on Russell, you are the darling of the truth movement, put up or shut up.

I defy you; I challenge you to put it to the authorities, stop posting on internet forums and do it. I look forward to the breaking story in the main stream media.

Ultimatum distraction is one of my favorites!

[Moving On]

What was unclear about my statement in this post?

STILL waiting for photos or video.

[Moving On]

Ah - now I understand that Russell denies that the indicated building is WTC7. We surely don't need a photo comparison to determine the truth of that? Doesn't anybody have a map?

In any case, the fires are not from the Twin Towers, therefore they are from the other WTC buildings set on fire by the collapses. Contemporaneous (live) news reports indicated that the buildings on fire ("uncontrollably") were WTC 5, 6 and 7 - and that all three were expected to collapse. So that smoke comes from those buildings if it comes from anything! And it's fortunate that only one of them did collapse in the event.

100% inaccurate. I know that is the edge of WTC 7. It was the location of the towers that was misrepresented. Try again.

[Moving On]

Why do you show another photo that does NOT show the south side of the building, Russell? Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge the accounts of the FDNY, ex-firefighter Pickering?

Your reply is expected.

Your demands and expectations are certain to go unfulfilled with me.

Remember, I am not a Gravy Groupie.

I look into things for myself.

[Moving On]

Just another quick post to add, sorry to have only managed to contribute on the "serious" side, because page 1 of this thread included some of the funniest stuff I've seen all week. Of all the possible situations for an illustrative burning steel building, only we British could have made it a toilet paper factory - Comedy Gold!! :D

PLEASE READ

Once again I find JREFers engaged in mockery without research.

You jump to a conclusion that "a steel building collapses from fire" and try to link it to WTC 7.

There is NO similarity to the warehouse fire in Enigma Business Park and WTC 7 or the towers. NONE!

First of all take the time to watch the video of the fire below. Once open, it gives you the option to open in a player. Do that and enlarge it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/c...lready Seen=1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/herefordandworcester/realmedia/fire?size=4x3&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1&checkedBandwidth=bb&checkedMedia=ram&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1)

By the end of the video you will see 100% involvement of the entire structure. Please show me one photo of any open flame at WTC 7 even remotely equivocating this.

The fire penetrates the roof which is 100% different in its effects than a lateral floor fire such as in a high-rise. A fully ventilated "heat up" fire creates draft and centralizes heating.

Notice the odd color smoke at different phases as well. Yellow toward the beginning.

Warehouses and such are under 100% different flammability regulations than an occupied office structure. All materials in the U.S. from the structure itself to the office contents are highly regulated for life safety. There is no comparison.

Note in the video the massive series of explosions at the beginning of the fire and some throughout. Ask yourself when your toilet paper ever exploded even after bad Mexican or Thai food?

Observe the white hot nature of the fire in certain locations throughout the video. Point me to a similar phenomenon at WTC 7.

Notice that the columns showing in the photo that started this thread are on the windward side of the building. They were therefore exposed to the least amount of heat. They were pulled over and not melted. They did not buckle and come straight down.

The building came down non symmetrically. The wind may have actually played a factor.

Here is another photo gallery of the fire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworc..._gallery.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/image_galleries/malvern_fire_gallery.shtml)

Please study it and find ANY photo of WTC 7 that approximates it. For the purposes of this study we will only use WTC 7 as an example since it does not provide you the excuse of aircraft to magically explain it away.

As of now, over 5 years later the only official report we have on WTC 7 is that fire was the primary cause. Even the diesel fuel tanks there were given a "low probability" of being the source of the collapse.

Keep that in mind. It will apply to this fire and should generate a reasonable question for you to think about. If FEMA thought a diesel fuel tank at WTC 7 had a low probability of being the source of collapse, why is diesel fuel able to cause it 2 blocks away???

Now let's take a look at steel warehouse structures OK?

1) Standard Steel Buildings can be designed to look almost any way you can imagine, including stone, brick, slate and stucco.

2) Steel buildings as with most structures expand, and contract with temperature changes, causing a great deal of problems for most stucco products.

3) One of the great advantages of using steel warehouses is by using steel you can maintain a clear-span of up to 300 ft wide. Having a large space that is column-free you will gain the flexibility to satisfy even the most complex space design needs while still maintaining an obstacle free environment.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/building_frames.jpg

http://www.standardsteelbuildings.co...buildings.html (http://www.standardsteelbuildings.com/warehouse_buildings.html)

Second opinion:
Rigid frame steel buildings are ideal for warehousing. Advantages include:

Clear span capabilities
Few if any interior columns
Thermally efficient
Durable
Predictable cost

http://www.steelbuildingsupplier.com.../Warehouse.cfm (http://www.steelbuildingsupplier.com/RapidsetBuildings/Warehouse.cfm)

Please compare the above information to the following graphic of just one aspect of WTC 7. Also keep in mind the different grades of construction steel and thicknesses in a 47 story, occupied, high-rise office structure in downtown New York City and a two story pre-fabricated warehouse at a business park in the rural U.K..

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fig-5-8.gif


If any of you want to learn more about that, then read chapter 5 of the FEMA report below annotated by true skeptics.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Remember that chapter says in FEMA's own words, "The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially "peeled" outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion."

and.......

"Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Remember the warehouse had fire from the ground up. WTC 7 did not.

Now let's look at the actual company that was involved in the fire. ESP - Manufacturers of Soft Tissue Products.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/address.gif

WEBSITE: http://www.es-p.co.uk/index.htm

Go to the "About Us" page page and click continue 3x to see the predominantly column free environment and their manufacturing floor.

Here's a few quotes from their site if you don't have time to research:

1) "ESP trades from a 25,000 sq ft purpose built factory set on a 2 1/2 acre site on the prestigious Enigma Business Park."

2) "With over 30,000 cases in stock at any time....... With over 150 tonnes of Mother reels in stock......"

So we have 25,000 sq feet of space with primarily prefab thickness external steel columns stuffed full of heavy flammables.

What other products do they carry and/or manufacture?

1) Dispensers (plastic)
2) Hygiene
3) Roll-a-soap
4) Washroom
5) Wiping

Lets look at just one of those products.

"ESP is pleased to announce the launch of its new product range M-BOSS. This revolutionary new product is manufactured using tissue plies that are Glued, Embossed and Laminated together."

Who knows what other chemicals and in what quantities may have been stored there? Or what quantities of their plastic products. Depending on what phase of the paper processes they are involved in, many other chemicals could be present. Watch the video again and listen to the explosions and watch the white hot fires.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/c...lready Seen=1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/herefordandworcester/realmedia/fire?size=4x3&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1&checkedBandwidth=bb&checkedMedia=ram&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1)

So what we have is actually a manufacturing plant that is almost 2/3 of an acre stuffed with various flammables, chemicals and equipment. It is a 2 story pre-fabricated structure that has external columns as its primary support structure. The columns you do see are not melted but only pulled over from the weight of the collapse.

You have 100% total involvement of a top ventilated fire. You have no knowledge of the temperatures achieved by the potential chemicals and combinations thereof even if it can be demonstrated that steel melted.

You also have a building that is known to expand and contract significantly in reaction to heat and cold because of its nature.

That nature is radically different than a 47 story high-rise office building.
Do you still want to compare it to WTC 7 in proof that 9/11 is not a conspiracy????

JREF is about as "fair and balanced" as FOX News.

[Kent1]

STILL waiting for photos or video.
If you looking for open flame the best I can give you is that same area which you showed earlier. That area seemed to get worse
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire1.jpg


http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

[Moving On]

As though everyone doesn't know that Russell is deliberately ignoring the truth, here are some more photos of WTC 7 in the late afternoon, showing that the thick dark smoke from the site is coming from that building. I have many others. These photos are in my WTC 7 paper, which Russell said he'd read.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454b28ee32493.jpg


Looking northeast across the wreckage of WTC 1 (north tower) & 6 to building 7:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454b28ee0f23b.jpg


Was the smoke really that heavy? Don't take my word for it. Watch these videos, which I linked to twice in my WTC 7 paper, but which Russell Pickering doesn't think are worthy of consideration. In the first, notice how the smoke from the north tower is lower and lighter in the foreground.

http://tinyurl.com/zg4un



http://tinyurl.com/f3tvd









Bad links in that post.

Now you've successfully shown smoke.

So a smoky fire on one side of the building with no floors visibly involved in flame is what caused a non symmetrial collapse.

How?

[WildCat]

STILL waiting for photos or video.
Of course. Absence of photos or video constitute proof of a coverup in the CTist mind.

The direct implication of your refusal to acknowledge the testimony of those at the scene is that they are telling lies about the state of WTC 7, and are thus part of the conspiracy. So why not just come out and admit that is your position Russell? That the FDNY is involved in your conspiracy scenario, as is Chief Nigro.

[Moving On]

Russell, you know as well as the rest of us that you can't hang your conclusions on the absence of a specific piece of evidence that may or may not have ever existed.

We draw conclusions based on extant evidence. In this case, we have photos and videos from late in the day showing smoke pouring from virtually every South side floor, and dozens of eyewitness firefighters testifying to the fact that the building was "fully involved".

"Fully involved" is demonstarted on the left.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind.jpg

[WildCat]

"Fully involved" is demonstarted on the left.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind.jpg
You're a photographer Russell, what do you know about how a fire will show up in a pic taken at night vs. one taken on a bright sunny day?

And once again, you bring up the Madrid tower - the steel portions of which collapsed completely!

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
That nature is radically different than a 47 story high-rise office building.
Do you still want to compare it to WTC 7 in proof that 9/11 is not a conspiracy????

There must be a slight misunderstanding here. It is not up to us to disprove your theory. It is your duty to prove it.

And in this context, the warehouse is relevant, depite the multiple differences, because one argument used in order to support the conspiract theory is the claim that "a steel supported building has never collapsed from fire alone". So quite apart from the fact nobody claims any of the WTC failed from fire alone, this is an example of a building where a steel structure, even if it hardly had to support anything but its own weight, actually buckled and (partly) collapsed due to fire alone.

So, argument refuted. Please state your next piece of evidence for your theory.

Hans

[Moving On]

If you looking for open flame the best I can give you is that same area which you showed earlier. That area seemed to get worse
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire1.jpg


http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

On the bottom link - not so much as an orange glow on any floor.

[Moving On]

You're a photographer Russell, what do you know about how a fire will show up in a pic taken at night vs. one taken on a bright sunny day?

And once again, you bring up the Madrid tower - the steel portions of which collapsed completely!

Yes - it's a lens trick.

[Kent1]

On the bottom link - not so much as an orange glow on any floor.
If your refering to the video, the area of initation was on the far corner of the south side away from the video.

(Edit I should say closer to the far side, not "corner")

[Moving On]

There must be a slight misunderstanding here. It is not up to us to disprove your theory. It is your duty to prove it.

And in this context, the warehouse is relevant, depite the multiple differences, because one argument used in order to support the conspiract theory is the claim that "a steel supported building has never collapsed from fire alone". So quite apart from the fact nobody claims any of the WTC failed from fire alone, this is an example of a building where a steel structure, even if it hardly had to support anything but its own weight, actually buckled and (partly) collapsed due to fire alone.

So, argument refuted. Please state your next piece of evidence for your theory.

Hans

I love JREF!!!!!!

[Moving On]

If your refering to the video, the area of initation was on the far corner of the south side away from the video.

Is there a good working link to it?

[Spins]

Can you please explain why there is smoke coming from almost every floor on the South side of WTC 7 if it wasn't on fire?

[Gravy]

"Fully involved" is demonstarted on the left.

And obviously no one in their right mind could describe WTC 7 in that way, right, ex-firefighter Pickering?

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 LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110081.PDF

...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110447.PDF

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. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../visconti.html

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports02.pdf page 48.

So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110413.PDF

Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

"There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.–Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110103.PDF

We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling. –Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110022.PDF

Right, ex-firefighter Pickering, who claims to respect the FDNY?

Right?

[Kent1]

Is there a good working link to it?
Offhand I don't think I have a good image of that area. I should also note (as I stated before) the 5th floor doesn't have windows. NIST also mentions this point within the Debunking 911 book. (pg 56)

Best Scott

[Larry Lovage]

[Russell doesn't think the smoke is coming from WTC7]100% inaccurate. I know that is the edge of WTC 7. It was the location of the towers that was misrepresented. Try again.
So since my second post was in error, I will return to my first post:Enormous. Let me see, in the photo you yourself made use of, the smoke cloud is emanating from the whole of one side of WTC7, and is of such magnitude that simple visual examination would lead you to conclude that the sheer volume of the smoke is already many, many times that of the skyscrapers it is drifting over. Then you provide a comparison photograph that demonstrates that the quantity of smoke from WTC7 was considerably greater than the smoke being generated by the fires in WTC1 and WTC2!

I would be hard put to it to describe any such smoke cloud as being the result of "smothering".

[chipmunk stew]

Ultimatum distraction is one of my favorites!
Clearly.

STILL waiting for photos or video.

[Gravy]

Bad links in that post.Wrong.

Now show us a building in a similar state to WTC 7 that has undergone controlled demolition, ex-firefighter Pickering.

Go ahead. Name the building.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Russell,

Please stop with the 'God of the Gaps' argument and address the evidence that is available for scrutiny.

Pic under section 2.3 and second pair of pics under section 2.5
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Pgs L-19 through L-26
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc7-fires-close.jpg

http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc2.html

[stateofgrace]

Ultimatum distraction is one of my favorites!

Oh dear, you just can not help yourself can you Russell? It has been pointed out to you already the pitfalls of hanging your hat on the lack of evidence, but have you taken any notice? Emm, apparently not.

See Russell wants to see a photograph or video of the raging fires inside WTC 7 because unless he does, it didn't happen. It is beyond the mindset to try and build a credible case on the evidence that is already available; therefore the only thing to do is try to put a spin on it by pointing out what is not there. Russell has summed up the mind set of the truth movement perfectly in this thread.

“I am visual guy, show me a photograph". But there are no photographs showing what he asks for, no visual record of the raging fire inside WTC 7. Well none that will satisfy him.

Conclusion..... There were no raging fires.

It's so simple and can be easily carried over onto other great conspiracy theories. “What no CCTV showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon"

Conclusion ....something else must have happened. And on and on...

Despite that sworn testimony from the firemen that were actually there. Despite the photographs that have been shown, despite the fact that right now NIST are applying their expertise to this matter. This can all be dismissed, because Russell and his merry men have not seen a photograph, oh almost forget it looked like a controlled Demolition.

It appears to me that the cters honestly believe that NIST are working on the final report into WTC 7 simply to debunk their nutty theories. I'm sure they are aware of these theories and occasionally have a giggle at them, but despite the truth movements feeling of self importance, this is far from the real reason to produce such a report. See here is something that has not happened before, it was unexpected, so it needs thoroughly investigating and recommendations need to be put in place to prevent it happening again. This takes time, it is done on the merry men’s behave; it is done to save life’s in the future. Of course they won't see it this way, it's all one big cover up and right now secret agents from NIST are infiltrating the LC board and no doubt monitoring this board and desperately amending their final report to take into account the truth seekers nutty theories.

It is so easy to turn their no evidence theories round if somebody was to apply the same thinking as them. So Russell.

Please provide photographs of people placing explosives inside WTC 1 and 2

Please provide photographs of people placing explosives inside WTC 7

What? You can’t, well then it never happened, so please stop saying it did.

[chipmunk stew]

Russell,

Please stop with the 'God of the Gaps' argument and address the evidence that is available for scrutiny.

Pic under section 2.3 and second pair of pics under section 2.5
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Pgs L-19 through L-26
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc7-fires-close.jpg

http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc2.html
And let's not leave out: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

[apathoid]

Russ, can you just humor us and give us your take on the FDNY quotes? Are they quoted out of context, cherry picked, made up out of thin air, do they not represent the views of the FDNY on the whole?

You've demanded a photo of the building being engulfed in flames and it's been explained by several posters that there are no such photos - so there is little point in asking again. However, the photos that were shown do exhibit smoke coming out of every floor. So I am forced to ask you, an ex-firefighter, how could that be in a building with only a few small isolated fires on only a few floors?

I think you need to approach WTC7 in the same manner that you researched the Pentagon. That is, get on the horn and start talking to people who were there. You can find dozens of people listed in Gravys WTC7 paper, that would be a start. You didnt investigoogle your way to becoming the Pentagon guru.

[Moving On]

And obviously no one in their right mind could describe WTC 7 in that way, right, ex-firefighter Pickering?

Right, ex-firefighter Pickering, who claims to respect the FDNY?

Right?



2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint."

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?


And nobody has a photo of this massive 40 floor, fully involved conflagration?

[aggle-rithm]

"Fully involved" is demonstarted on the left.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind.jpg

Do you really believe that you can represent a fire, as dynamic a process as there ever was, by a single snapshot? And that snapshot is an accurate representation of the fire from beginning to end?

What is to stop you from showing the most dramatic photo from the fire you wish to accentuate, and the most mild photo from the one you want to minimize?

[W6102LA]

And nobody has a photo of this massive 40 floor, fully involved conflagration?
Russell
Do you really want to find the truth about WTC7 ?

[Moving On]

It is so easy to turn their no evidence theories round if somebody was to apply the same thinking as them. So Russell.

Please provide photographs of people placing explosives inside WTC 1 and 2

Please provide photographs of people placing explosives inside WTC 7

What? You can’t, well then it never happened, so please stop saying it did.

I deleted the rest of the speculation. The above requests are just silly.

Do you have photos of the aircraft damage inside the towers before they collapsed?

Do you see?

A 40 story building fully involved in fire at the end of the day in a media dominated area should have at least one photo or video.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Who took pictures of the main elevator shaft where the Diesel fuel line was that feed the flames?
The shaft would have also been the best source of air, and also would have had the hottest part of the fires.
Like in the towers there was a structure that could have hidden a local highly intense jet burner effect one that could have produces significantly more heat than in the toilet paper factory. Plus there was a fuel source directly inside the Building similar to the towers one.
Can anyone tell me the melting point of steel, of the combustion point of steel? Intense fires in a Jet burner Chimney effect can be hidden from view by the Chimney itself.
Just because something is unseen by a camera does not mean that it was not witnessed, and did not happen.
The toilet paper factory is important because of one factor it was steel and the Cters stated one modern metal steel frame building that collapsed because of fire, and now we have two, the Madrid towers who's steel collapsed, and the toilet paper factory.
Plus add to that that conditions in the buildings at the world trade center were optimal for high temperature fires that can even burn steel, by exposing the heated steel to a jet of heated air, and you have the making of an extremely hot fire indeed, and since steel burn without smoke burring steel would for the most part go UN noticed.
PS. a chimney effect produces ultrasound and infra sound both of which make metals more likely to burn, by disrupting the oxide coatings that protect them.

[aggle-rithm]

And nobody has a photo of this massive 40 floor, fully involved conflagration?

Do you have a photo demonstrating an alternate mechanism for collapse?

[Hellbound]

And nobody has a photo of this massive 40 floor, fully involved conflagration?

There are more photos of this than there are photos of teams of demolitions experts planting explosives.

More photos of this than there are photos of explosives going off.

More witnesses reporting massive fires than reporting a series of demolition explosions.

More experts agreeing with impact and fire damage after looking into the evidence than suggesting demolition or some other factor.

Where's your photo, Russell? Or is there a seperate standard of evidence for tyhe version of truth you want to believe compared to anything else?

[stateofgrace]

I deleted the rest of the speculation. The above requests are just silly.

Do you have photos of the aircraft damage inside the towers before they collapsed?

Do you see?

A 40 story building fully involved in fire at the end of the day in a media dominated area should have at least one photo or video.

I have bolded the important part, please think about it.

( As silly as your request for non existent photographs to disprove your theories, in case you missed the point Russell)

[Gravy]

And nobody has a photo of this massive 40 floor, fully involved conflagration?There are many photos, and some videos, of the building when it's on fire. You've seen them, so don't act like an idiot.

Suppose there were none. Does that mean that the fire, as described by the FDNY, did not exist?

Should the FDNY, rather than attempting to rescue their fallen brothers, have been standing on the burning rubble and taking snapshots, Russell? Would that have been your priority as a firefighter?

[aggle-rithm]

I deleted the rest of the speculation. The above requests are just silly.

Do you have photos of the aircraft damage inside the towers before they collapsed?

Do you see?

A 40 story building fully involved in fire at the end of the day in a media dominated area should have at least one photo or video.

The media were moved away from the building like everyone else, to a safe distance.

That did not encompass a 360-degree area around the tower, because if one were facing the damage and moved back to a safe distance, one would be up to one's neck in the burning debris of WTC 1 and 2. One would therefore have to be to the left or right, or on the other side of the tower.

Maybe that's why there aren't any good shots.

[Roger_Harris]

As for Gravy's comment ragarding the WTC7 structure, I totally agree that the cantilevered design at the base of the building was going to be the most vulnerable. Cantilevers have much less scope for redundancy and (since they pivot around the point of support) provide a whole different set of stresses on the remaining structure than a conventional beam supported at either end.

Yup, and it's not just the cantilevers; any beam or slab design that depends on tension on the top side over columns and beams to partially counteract gravity loads in the spans is MUCH more prone to complete progressive failure when any part fails. Structural engineers have known that for a long time, but designing that way is simply cheaper, and that's what owners usually want.

My own hypothesis is that it's quite possible that the truss towers had either design or construction flaws, or both, which put them very near their limits before the fires started.

[rwguinn]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wind.jpg

Not to be rude, but do you guys have any other examples for me to compare?
One word, Stupid.
SCALE!
compare the actual sizes of the infernos.
The TP factor was 1 story, flames about 3-4 stories high.
WTC 11o stories, flames on at least 10.
Get it together, and don't confuse us for the idiots you usually deal with

[uruk]

I think it's interesting to note (Though I think everybody here can see it, including Russlle) how Russlle has backed himself in to a corner and is demanding evidence that he hopes does not exist so that he can save face and hold onto his belief. Evidence was presented of steel structures than have collapsed due to fire. Eyewitness testimonials with source links have been provided. Pictures of smoke pouring out of every floor has been presented. And Russels response is to dismiss all the testimony and demand pictures of fire on every floor the building before he will conceed. This is a dishonest tactic to preserve his belief. A case of "moving the goal posts". If by some off chance pictures do surface of fire on every single floor of WTC7 (which BTW the picture of smoke pouring from every floor suggests this, but Russell dismisses it anyway) Russell will no doubt move the goal post even further and demand something else.

Just my observation.

[stateofgrace]

A 40 story building fully involved in fire at the end of the day in a media dominated area should have at least one photo or video.

Indeed they were Russell and they all had video and audio recording devises, presumably high quality.

Care to produce an audio recording of the very distinctive noise of charges going off as WTC 7 was demolished?

Just another silly request.

[Moving On]

There are many photos, and some videos, of the building when it's on fire. You've seen them, so don't act like an idiot.

Suppose there were none. Does that mean that the fire, as described by the FDNY, did not exist?

Should the FDNY, rather than attempting to rescue their fallen brothers, have been standing on the burning rubble and taking snapshots, Russell? Would that have been your priority as a firefighter?

There were thousands of people all around the building for miles.

How many photos have we seen that day taken with telephoto lenses? There would be one of a fire of a 47 story building fully involved in flame. The CBS collapse video was trained on the building all afternoon. NO FIRE.

It is time for you to be honest. What you have is a smoky fuel fire, perhaps around floors 5-7 like FEMA suggested. That smoke drafted up the side of the building in the currents created by being on the leeward side of the building.


In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5674684&query_id=0


http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg

NO FLAME.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc72.jpg

Look through the smoke and try and tell me you have even one side of the building fully involved in fire. You can see the windows.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc73.jpg

3 sides of the building now with NO FLAME.

So lets say there was fire on one side of the building - what caused it to symmetrically collapse? The windows aren't even universally broken out to ventilate a fire.

[Moving On]

I think it's interesting to note (Though I think everybody here can see it, including Russlle) how Russlle has backed himself in to a corner and is demanding evidence that he hopes does not exist so that he can save face and hold onto his belief. Evidence was presented of steel structures than have collapsed due to fire. Eyewitness testimonials with source links have been provided. Pictures of smoke pouring out of every floor has been presented. And Russels response is to dismiss all the testimony and demand pictures of fire on every floor the building before he will conceed. This is a dishonest tactic to preserve his belief. A case of "moving the goal posts". If by some off chance pictures do surface of fire on every single floor of WTC7 (which BTW the picture of smoke pouring from every floor suggests this, but Russell dismisses it anyway) Russell will no doubt move the goal post even further and demand something else.

Just my observation.

PLEASE try something besides the dishonest thing OK? I have already had the whole gamut and every synonym of being a liar thrown at me.

ZERO effect.

This forum is truly one of the most dishonest places I have ever visited.

You guys need a new playbook.

[Moving On]

I have bolded the important part, please think about it.

( As silly as your request for non existent photographs to disprove your theories, in case you missed the point Russell)

It is not silly to expect to see a 47 story building fully engulfed in fire that is the entire focal point of a city and all of the media and photographers for miles. And a country watching all of the news cameras trained on the most significant event in recent history.

You didn't see it because it is not what happened.

[W6102LA]

PLEASE try something besides the dishonest thing OK? I have already had the whole gamut and every synonym of being a liar thrown at me.

ZERO effect.

This forum is truly one of the most dishonest places I have evr visited.

You guys need a new playbook.
Well instead of wasting time posting on the internet go and talk with the people who will more than likely be able to answer your questions, that's of course unless you are afraid of finding out the truth

[Moving On]

Indeed they were Russell and they all had video and audio recording devises, presumably high quality.

Care to produce an audio recording of the very distinctive noise of charges going off as WTC 7 was demolished?

Just another silly request.

Actually I have wondered why so many videos posted of the collapse do not have sound associated with them.

[apathoid]

It is not silly to expect to see a 47 story building fully engulfed in fire that is the entire focal point of a city and all of the media and photographers for miles. And a country watching all of the news cameras trained on the most significant event in recent history.

You didn't see it because it is not what happened.

Uhhh, first off - the freakin Twin Towers had just collpased - do you honestly think that anyone, gave a [rule8]about WTC7 enough to go out of their way to photograph it from the WTC Towers rubble? I am sitting here, baffled, that an ex-firefighter can look at smoke pouring out of a 50 story building and think it wasnt consumed by fire. I think you are in a little bit of denial, my friend.

Any why are you not answring inquiries about the FDNY's quotes on WTC7? Are you going to look into WTC7 yourself as you did with the Pentagon?

[stateofgrace]

Actually I have wondered why so many videos posted of the collapse do not have sound associated with them.

Just after this.


It is not silly to expect to see a 47 story building fully engulfed in fire that is the entire focal point of a city and all of the media and photographers for miles.And a country watching all of the news cameras trained on the most significant event in recent history.

You didn't see it because it is not what happened.


It was live Russell, how did they manage to remove the audio from the collpase of WTC 7?

[Moving On]

Well instead of wasting time posting on the internet go and talk with the people who will more than likely be able to answer your questions, that's of course unless you are afraid of finding out the truth

Is this a recording track or a live person?

".....which through the force of repetition often turn the truth into lies, and lies into truth."

[Moving On]

Uhhh, first off - the freakin Twin Towers had just collpased - do you honestly think that anyone, gave a [rule8]about WTC7 enough to go out of their way to photograph it from the WTC Towers rubble? I am sitting here, baffled, that an ex-firefighter can look at smoke pouring out of a 50 story building and think it wasnt consumed by fire. I think you are in a little bit of denial, my friend.

Any why are you not answring inquiries about the FDNY's quotes on WTC7? Are you going to look into WTC7 yourself as you did with the Pentagon?

Just collapsed?

7 hours.

[Moving On]

Just after this.



It was live Russell, how did they manage to remove the audio from the collpase of WTC 7?

I mean the ones posted now.

[Stellafane]

...This forum is truly one of the most dishonest places I have evr visited...

And you, sir, are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever encountered.

You've been provided with a preponderance of evidence that WTC7 was on fire. Photos and videos. Expert testimony by on-site eyewitnesses. Everything a reasonable, rational person would need to accept the fact.

But for whatever reason, you don't want to accept it. You want to believe in some other shadowy, ill-defined reality, because apparently it fulfills some need in your life. So you ignore all the facts in front of you. I can't imagine the mental gymnastics you must need to perform to be made aware of these facts, but still somehow cling to your beliefs.

It wouldn't really matter if someone did produce an up-close photo of WTC7 totally engulfed in great leaping flames, would it? Because you'd just dismiss it as a fake. The flames don't look right. They're the wrong color, size, shape, whatever. They were obviously PhotoShopped -- something, anything to keep your cherished little delusion alive.

In short, you have closed your mind and refuse to consider anything that might imperil your ability to continue to believe what you want to believe. In this way you're no different from any extremist who ever blindly followed any lost cause throughout history. So please don't talk of dishonesty; you're frankly in no position to do so.

[Moving On]

In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...684&query_id=0 (http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5674684&query_id=0)


http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg

NO FLAME.

[Moving On]

And you, sir, are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have ever encountered.

You've been provided with a preponderance of evidence that WTC7 was on fire. Photos and videos. Expert testimony by on-site eyewitnessess. Everything a reasonable, rational person would need to accept the fact.

But for whatever reason, you don't want to accept it. You want to believe in some other shadowy, ill-defined reality, because apparently it fulfills some need in your life. So you ignore all the facts in front of you. I can't imagine the mental gymnastics you must need to perform to be made aware of these facts, but still somehow cling to your beliefs.

It wouldn't really matter if someone did produce an up-close photo of WTC7 totally engulfed in great leaping flames, would it? Because you'd just dismiss it as a fake. The flames don't look right. They're the wrong color, size, shape, whatever. They were obviously PhotoShopped -- something, anything to keep your cherished little delusion alive.

In short, you have closed your mind and refuse to consider anything that might imperil your ability to continue to believe what you want to believe. In this way you're no different from any extremist who ever blindly followed any lost cause throughout history. So please don't talk of dishonesty; you're frankly in no position to do so.

I guess this strategy is just all that is left.

I don't claim anything is fake.

Show me the photos.

[Stellafane]

I guess this strategy is just all that is left...

What strategy is that, Russell? Reason and logic? Why not give it a whirl sometime?

[stateofgrace]

I mean the ones posted now.

Russell the collapse of WTC 7 was broadcast live across the world you just said. I saw it live,so did millions of others.

So where were the distinctive sounds of explosives devices going off as it was demolished?

[chipmunk stew]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg

NO [visible] FLAME.
Clearly the building was on fire. You're not denying that, are you?

So you don't accept that "fully involved" is a fair description. So what? How does merely being "somewhat involved" for several hours contradict the big picture?:

The building was burning uncontrollably; it had suffered some degree of structural damage; the people on the ground noticed signs of impending collapse and were clearly concerned about it; and few who had been following its progress were surprised when it finally did.

[Roger_Harris]

But for whatever reason, you don't want to accept it.


It appears that Russell understands that the one and only way to make the controlled demolition hypothesis more plausible than the fire hypothesis is to insist that the fire hypothesis is impossible. What that says about the plausibility of the CD hypothesis is obvious.

[Spins]

I guess this strategy is just all that is left.

I don't claim anything is fake.

Show me the photos.
Can you please explain why there is smoke coming from almost every floor on the South side of WTC 7 if it wasn't, in your opinion, on fire?

[apathoid]

Can you please explain why there is smoke coming from almost every floor on the South side of WTC 7 if it wasn't, in your opinion, on fire?

Smoke generators??

[Crungy]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg

NO FLAME.


Maybe, due to the stress of the days events, all of the WTC7 employees were simultaneously engaging in smoke break?

[Moving On]

Clearly the building was on fire. You're not denying that, are you?

So you don't accept that "fully involved" is a fair description. So what? How does merely being "somewhat involved" for several hours contradict the big picture?:

The building was burning uncontrollably; it had suffered some degree of structural damage; the people on the ground noticed signs of impending collapse and were clearly concerned about it; and few who had been following its progress were surprised when it finally did.

I can't possibly answer what FEMA and NIST have not in over 5 years.

[Moving On]

Smoke generators??

Possible smoky fuel fires on floors 5-7 according to FEMA.

The smoke was drafting up the side of the building.

Quote:
In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...684&query_id=0 (http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5674684&query_id=0)

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg

NO FLAME.

[uruk]

PLEASE try something besides the dishonest thing OK? I have already had the whole gamut and every synonym of being a liar thrown at me.

ZERO effect.

This forum is truly one of the most dishonest places I have ever visited.

You guys need a new playbook.

I was just making an observation.

CT'rs seem to be really good at "connecting the dots" and "reading between the lines". You know, extracting and exposing a conspiracy plot from the barest of clues and testimony.
YET, you seem to be demanding very specific and most obvious of evidence when all the clues and testimony are there. For instance, other examples of steel structures collapsing from fire. Eyewitness testimony from the firefighters that were there. Pictures of smoke pouring out of every floor of WTC7. Come now Mr. Pickering, Connect those dots. What does that evidence tell you?

[chipmunk stew]

But for whatever reason, you don't want to accept it.
It's simple. He doesn't want to cause another delay in the release of LCFC. They already had to revamp the Pentagon stuff. To make any changes to WTC7 would affect the lead time by a couple months, at least. They're in the middle of negotiating their nationwide theatrical distribution. Any time delays would kill their release plans. Dylan wouldn't risk it merely for the sake of the truth.

[R.Mackey]

There were thousands of people all around the building for miles.

How many photos have we seen that day taken with telephoto lenses? There would be one of a fire of a 47 story building fully involved in flame. The CBS collapse video was trained on the building all afternoon. NO FIRE.

It is time for you to be honest. What you have is a smoky fuel fire, perhaps around floors 5-7 like FEMA suggested. That smoke drafted up the side of the building in the currents created by being on the leeward side of the building.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg

NO FLAME.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc72.jpg

Look through the smoke and try and tell me you have even one side of the building fully involved in fire. You can see the windows.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc73.jpg

3 sides of the building now with NO FLAME.

So lets say there was fire on one side of the building - what caused it to symmetrically collapse? The windows aren't even universally broken out to ventilate a fire.

Russell, even though in your discussion of the Pentagon you've retreated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2064828#post2064828), and your responses there are now indistinguishable (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2064921#post2064921) from Christopera's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2064931#post2064931), I hold out hope that you can be reasonable.

If your theory on WTC 7 holds any water, then you must be able to answer a simple question -- one you've been dodging (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2046671#post2046671) for some time, now:

If WTC 7 wasn't destroyed by impact damage and fire, how did the FDNY know it was going to collapse?

Explain. And don't give me any crap about "twisting," because I'm just asking you a simple, unambiguous question.

[chipmunk stew]

1) Clearly the building was on fire. You're not denying that, are you?

2) So you don't accept that "fully involved" is a fair description. So what? How does merely being "somewhat involved" for several hours contradict the big picture?:

3) The building was burning uncontrollably; it had suffered some degree of structural damage; the people on the ground noticed signs of impending collapse and were clearly concerned about it; and few who had been following its progress were surprised when it finally did.
I can't possibly answer what FEMA and NIST have not in over 5 years.
I didn't ask you to.

(1) is a yes or no question about your current state of belief.
(2) is asking you how a downgrade in the description of the fire contradicts:
(3) which is a statement of fact.

[TruthSeeker1234]

If WTC 7 wasn't destroyed by impact damage and fire, how did the FDNY know it was going to collapse?



An excellent question. It appears a collapse zone was set up hours in advance. How did they know?

[uruk]

Possible smoky fuel fires on floors 5-7 according to FEMA.

The smoke was drafting up the side of the building.

Quote:
In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...684&query_id=0 (http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5674684&query_id=0)

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg

NO FLAME.

The only problem with this argument is the vorticies will roll the smoke up the side of the building. Look closer at the pictures. The smoke is EMINATING from the windows not ROLLING up the side.

Notice in the segment you posted where it said "Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building".

[Skibum]

If WTC 7 wasn't destroyed by impact damage and fire, how did the FDNY know it was going to collapse?



I really wish you would drop the rhetoric and stop the obfuscating tactics and get back to the issue at hand.

[R.Mackey]

An excellent question. It appears a collapse zone was set up hours in advance. How did they know?

Hey, we finally agree on something! Cheers, mate. :c2:

[Minadin]

Wow, I've been kind of playing catch-up on this thread, but I just want to respond to something you asserted a lot earlier, Russell -


First, it should be acknowledged that the American population has been well served by the design and construction industry regarding fire safety in high-rise structural steel buildings exposed to historical threats. As was noted in the workshop and was highlighted in the Engineering News Record article that covered the workshop (February12, 2004, p. 15), in recorded history only seventeen buildings of four stories or taller have suffered structural damage from fire. And of these only two had structural steel frames.


During the past 75 years, these prescriptive approaches have been successful. In the NIST report, six occurrences of collapse in steel framed structures were cited. Four of these six were at the World Trade Center site. It would appear this performance has resulted from a balance of redundancy in structural design and the conservatism in the assessment of fire test data.


(emphasis yours)

First of all, you are wrong in regards to the numbers of buildings suffering structural damage due to fire. According to the NIST report on trends in firefighter fatalities due to structural collapse - ( http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire03/PDF/f03024.pdf ) - page 24 of that report, which is page 33 of the PDF file, you will see graphs that show that 24 - 32% of deaths caused by structural collapse occur in office / retail building use types, which are typically steel framed. Furthermore, accoring to the same graphs, 8 - 13% occured in manufacturing type buildings, also normally using steel frames.

In the NIST article you use as reference, it is true that 4 of the 6 buildings that they cite were part of the World Trade Center. That doesn't mean that the list is completely comprehensive or include any and every building collapse ever. It means they only cited 6.

In another article, Fire Protection Engineering Magazine lists 22 (not 17) multi-storey collapses due to fire ( http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153 ) over a 30-year span, "all of recorded history". They likely don't look farther back because they don't care about the ages where there was no fire protection. Now, of the buildings they list, they break them down by structural types and find:

Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
Brick/Masonry: 5
Wood: 2
Unknown: 2

So, there have been at least 2 other, large, multisorey, steel structured buildings, wherein fire was the primary culprit, that have collapsed, since 1970. And those 2 probably didn't have giant jetliners slam into them, or get pummeled by falling and burning debris. By the way, this list is by no means comprehensive, either; it just includes a larger sample than the report you chose to use.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Possible smoky fuel fires on floors 5-7 according to FEMA.

The smoke was drafting up the side of the building.

Quote:
In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...684&query_id=0 (http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5674684&query_id=0)


NO FLAME.

Why do you continue to disregard the interim NIST report and reference the FEMA report, which was only a preliminary assessment?

[CurtC]

Quote:
In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^
But you can see in that photo you posted that the smoke is coming out of the windows of WTC7, not "building up" from a lower source. You can see this even better in the videos that those stills are from. Another weakness in your argument is that your quote talks about how the smoke is periodically swept away, but we don't see that with WTC7.

You do have a good point about the flames not being visible from photos of its North side. Maybe the windows were coated with soot, maybe the air in the building was too opaque to let the light through, maybe the fires were actually contained to the lower floors and the smoke filled the building, coming out all the South windows broken by the North Tower collapse. Even that last explanation, which I think you may agree with, is perfectly consistent with the standard model of WTC7's collapse.

[Spins]

Smoke generators??
I think the reason he didn't answer my question (I asked the same question in 3 different posts on this thread) is because he has me on his ignore list, as soon as you quoted me he replied.

[Kent1]

There were thousands of people all around the building for miles.


So lets say there was fire on one side of the building - what caused it to symmetrically collapse? The windows aren't even universally broken out to ventilate a fire.

Its important to note that you had a vertical progressive collapse under the east penthouse. The collapse of the east caused 40 STORY DEBRIS to massively damage the interior of the building causing a horizonal SECONDARY collapse inside the building.
I believe the hole on the other end of the south face certainly didn't help, as we also know from pictures that exterior columns were holed and in fact sticking outward.
Much attention is on the Spak (corner hole as some state) photo however I believe this should also be noted.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_0.html Again note column sticking outward.

Figure L-31 in the NIST report is also VERY important

The 5 to 6 sec. delay between the failure of the east penthouse and the failure of the screenwall and west penthouse approximates the time it would take for the debris pile from the vertical failure progression on the east side of the building to reach floors 5 to 7 and damage the transfer trusses and girders in the area.
PLEASE see L-31-33

I would also suggest L-50-51

And the Working hypothesis:
• An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse bringing down the interior structure under the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire
structure.

Also from photos it seems clear there were fires on various floors, not just in the 5-7 floor area. NIST also has more info on this. L 2.2

Also see http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2065078&postcount=137

[uruk]

An excellent question. It appears a collapse zone was set up hours in advance. How did they know?

I dunno. Training, experiance, knowledge, observation, Uri Geller, a fourtune cookie.

[Gravy]

The smoke was drafting up the side of the building.False. Are you actually afraid to watch the videos? Here they are again. They're short. Climb out of your crib and deal with reality. You can handle this.

http://tinyurl.com/zg4un

http://tinyurl.com/f3tvd

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790454b904a16ca2.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045095ccfd1d8d.jpg

[apathoid]

False. Are you actually afraid to watch the videos? Here they are again. They're short. Climb out of your crib and deal with reality. You can handle this.

http://tinyurl.com/zg4un

http://tinyurl.com/f3tvd


In the middle of the second clip, one of the firefighters can be heard saying ..."thats why he's pulling everybody out of there"

I guess this was after the order to "pull it" ?

[Gravy]

I dunno. Training, experiance, knowledge, observation, Uri Geller, a fourtune cookie....and the fact that two of the largest office buildings in the world had collapsed due to damage and fire that morning, across the street.

[Housefly]

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.How is this relevant to Gravy posting statements by members of the FDNY who described the building as "completely involved in fire"?

Are you saying all those firemen are delusional, or lying? Or did Gravy make them up? Pay some actors to stand around WTC7 and lie about the condition of the building afterwards?
Of course, if there never were any firefighters that suggests that a fire could burn long enough to bring down a 47-storey building.

[uk_dave]

I think the problem is that if the skeptic accepts the proposition that there is a conspiracy, then we have a crime on our hands.

Whereas if the CT accepts the boring truth of the official version, they have time on their hands.

[Gravy]

Oh, crap. Now Russell and TS1234 are working feverishly on the "no firefighters" hypothesis.