WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

double post

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
reply to post by jprophet420

 

none of that is true other than the fact that i called you a "truther" and that i laughed at your illogical presentation of how support 79 would have collapsed.
[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Then some one is posting using your ID without your knowledge, I am sorry but is against the TOS for me to retroactively post entire posts. Anyone reading this thread understands, however.

Status of Initiating Event Analysis
NIST continues to evaluate the factors that could have caused column 79,
80, or 81 to fail
Possible contributing factors include:
Damage to components adjacent to truss #2 from debris impact
Damage to fireproofing from normal activities prior to event or debris
damage
Unusual fuel loads (fuel lines, high density of building contents)
Analysis to date indicates:
Massive size of columns 79, 80, and 81 appears to require severe
fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures

Notice the words 'possible' and 'could have'. also notice the last sentence, it would be the first time in history that a building fire reached that tepurature. Care to explain why? Care to post a source?

reply to post by jprophet420



given the events of that day, what is more logical to you, that those columns failed due to the damage that NIST contributed as possible or they fell due to somebody placing a non-explosive explosive charge on them (or some other way that you can come up with)? i would be willing to bet they have more evidence that it was one (or all) of their possible factors and not any vaporware you come up with.


and what temperature are you citing they are saying? i don't see it. and steel does not need to liquidize to fail. that is a fact. and don't forget the debris impact, the building has structural damage not just fires.

and i would also like to point out a myth that the truth movement cites, that SURPRISE you are citing as well. the whole, no steel building ever collapsed. try looking up the kader toy factory (may 10, 1993). steel structure, completely collapsed due to fire. so there you go, now that it has happened, your whole credibility issue just flew out the window.




[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

The factory was poorly designed and built. Fire exits on the plans were not put in place, and external doors were locked. Furthermore, the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed.

Source
Suprise.



[edit on 3-7-2008 by jprophet420]

reply to post by jprophet420



surprise you were wrong, a steel building collapsed due to fire.

AND

given the events of that day, what is more logical to you, that those columns failed due to the damage that NIST contributed as possible or they fell due to somebody placing a non-explosive explosive charge on them (or some other way that you can come up with)? i would be willing to bet they have more evidence that it was one (or all) of their possible factors and not any vaporware you come up with.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Originally posted by EvilAxis
First the topic title - MASSIVE fires. The fires don't get bigger by using capitals. Relative to many high rise fires they were both small and of short duration and were limited to the 11th and 12th floors.

Sometimes you just have to laugh - LOL Very OL

Great retort - BIG star for you

[edit on 3-7-2008 by KMFNWO]

reply to post by fastfingersfunk

Thats amazing. The source I quoted cited fire, poor design, and lack of insulation. Do you have evidence that WTC7 was poorly designed? Do you have anything other than the NIST working hypothesis indicating that WTC7 was not insulated?

Originally posted by jprophet420

Thats amazing. The source I quoted cited fire, poor design, and lack of insulation. Do you have evidence that WTC7 was poorly designed? Do you have anything other than the NIST working hypothesis indicating that WTC7 was not insulated?

poor design as to the location of exits, nothing to do with the collapse. lack of insultation, the building fell in 20 minutes. WTC7 took over 7 hours, do you have anything that shows these beams could hold up to fire for 7 hours with the insultation they had? and don't forget the structural damage.

just make sure you caveat that "no steel building has ever fallen due to fire" with "well except for one".

also, no other building built the same way has had the same damage as WT7, so that negates it all together.

and do you have any evidence that shows if something has never happened in the past (although in this case it did) that it never will?

AND

given the events of that day, what is more logical to you, that those columns failed due to the damage that NIST contributed as possible or they fell due to somebody placing a non-explosive explosive charge on them (or some other way that you can come up with)? i would be willing to bet they have more evidence that it was one (or all) of their possible factors and not any vaporware you come up with.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

reply to post by fastfingersfunk

Please cite a source that sats WTC was burning for 8 hours.

“Companies such as Kader Holdings need to move their operations rapidly to take advantage of the newest areas of low-cost labour. That it why the Kader factory outside Bangkok was never intended to be a permanent structure. Cheap shoddy buildings, which failed to meet even the minimal Thai construction requirements, were simply packed to overflowing with workers and machines. Elementary safety precautions were deemed to be unnecessary overheads.

Source

What I actually said...

Because in the hundred year history of skyscrapers it hasnt happened yet. They are designed to withstand fires and structural damage. There have been buildings that survived worse fire and worse structural damage.

You havent disproved that statement yet. You took a statement I made, replaced it with another 'truther' statement, and then used a non permenant structure catching fire and collapsing as a comparison to a skyscraper.





[edit on 3-7-2008 by jprophet420]

reply to post by jprophet420



way to keep ignoring me lol. btw, i don't need a source, fires started when the building was hit with WTC1 debris and they continued until it fell, which was about 7 hours later.


[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

That is contradictory to the NIST report:

Debris Damage from WTC 2
After WTC 2 collapsed:
Some south face glass broken at lower floors
Dust covered lobby areas at floors 1 and 3
Power on in building, phones working
No fires observed

reply to post by jprophet420


more wrong info. WTC1 is what hit WTC7, which fell after WTC2. try again.



[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
surprise you were wrong, a steel building collapsed due to fire.

So, you are comparing a cheaply built building in Thailand that was used for slave labor with uninsulated steel to WTC 7?

Hmm. Kind of what I've been saying for quite some time now. Either WTC 7 was cheaply built or it was a CD. Take your pick. Personally I go with a combination of both.

BTW, FFF I also do believe that none of our own agents touched any part of this physically. Meaning, if it was an eloborate scheme, the easiest way to do it, and not have any evidence against you, would be to egg on some known extremists on your list. Or frame them if you were another country trying to get the US to fight your wars for you. "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."

www.commondreams.org...

given the events of that day, what is more logical to you, that those columns failed due to the damage that NIST contributed as possible

I hope you don't mean the gash? Or the far corner damage? What damage occurred to column 79? Even NIST shows column 79 undamaged in their little sketch of the assumed damage.



So, we can only be talking about fire damage then correct?

As far as Kader Toy factory. I have yet to see photos, so I can't comment yet. If you know of any, please post.

or they fell due to somebody placing a non-explosive explosive charge on them (or some other way that you can come up with)? i would be willing to bet they have more evidence that it was one (or all) of their possible factors and not any vaporware you come up with.

Funny you say "vaporware". Please tell us your theory of how the steel "vaporized" before the tower collapsed.

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

query.nytimes.com...


[edit on 7/3/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by jprophet420
Do you have anything other than the NIST working hypothesis indicating that WTC7 was not insulated?

Funny you should mention the insulation of WTC 7.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue.

query.nytimes.com...

That's some pretty intense fires to cause fireproofing to melt.

reply to post by Griff


i'm not comparing the buildings at all. i'm just saying the statement that "no steel structure ever fell due to fire" is wrong. WTC7 was on fire for about 7 hours, plenty of time to penetrate fireproofing.

show proof of a CD since that's your theory. out of all the people that witnessed it collapse, none of them have proven they were there and heard what amounts to CD explosions. you have yet to debunk that WTC7 could have fallen with the amount of damage it had.

and to me nobody is saying steel vaporized before it collapsed, you are stating that.

Originally posted by Griff


That's some pretty intense fires to cause fireproofing to melt.

do you have the data that shows what how hot and under what prolonged time it would take to melt fireproofing? or are you just kind of winging it again? because the NIST team that you are quoting seems to believe it could most certainly melt and that it doesn't mean foul play to them.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
do you have the data that shows what type of intensity and under what prolonged time it would take to melt fireproofing? or are you just kind of winging it again. the NIST team that you are quoting seems to believe it could most certainly melt and that it doesn't mean foul play to them.

I've been looking at data sheets about spray-on fireproofing and under melting point, they list "not-applicable".

Melting point or range. F° N/A

www.schundler.com...

That's your typical vermiculite, gypsum, cellulose combination.

Even modified fireproofing on the space shuttle is made from most of the same materials.

I'll turn this around. Why don't YOU prove that fireproofing melts in an office fire.

[edit on 7/3/2008 by Griff]

i'm not comparing the buildings at all. i'm just saying the statement that "no steel structure ever fell due to fire" is wrong. WTC7 was on fire for about 7 hours, plenty of time to penetrate fireproofing.

I did not make that statement, and I corrected you by quoting myself verbatim.

Again I ask for your source of information on the fires. NIST's account varies greatly from yours.

Observed Fire Locations (11:30-2:30 pm)
General
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire
observed on floor 23
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12;1 area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-121 moved to east face and progressed to the north

11:30-2:30

reply to post by Griff


then how can you say those supports in WTC7 could withstand fire without knowing all along if it's possible or not? i don't know the temp or duration it would take, i'm asking you, since i've never seen any "truther" debunk if it's possible to melt and the NIST engineers seem to think it can. in this case i will take the NIST word over yours unless you can show me otherwise.

also, in NIST's WTC7 collapse study they mention that previous to 2001 fireproofing was "observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor framing above the lobby." so this also makes the case that the fireproofing was flawed in the first place.



[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Again I ask for your source of information on the fires. NIST's account varies greatly from yours.

on page 22 of the NIST document you are getting that cut and paste from it says "Fires in WTC7 - which began soon after WTC1 collapsed- were observed on Floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle about half an hour before the collapse; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. Fires were also seen on Floors 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 at various times during the day."

there you go, there's my source. you should scan everything in your source before you use it, because i just debunked you from your own document (NIST's WTC 7 Collapse Final).

i hope, for your sake, you weren't reading that to be "fires started at 11:30 and ended at 2:30." although it seem you were.

also, if you weren't referring to a steel building falling due to fire then what are you implying when you say "it would be the first time in history that a building fire reached that tepurature."? to me you are specifically referring to a steel building falling to fire for the first time but i'll entertain your spin on it.



[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]