PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
just one example of the total collapse of a steel framed, sky scraper due to fire.
That is what you are claiming isnt it?

You must have missed the bit where 2 aircraft hit the buildings, or WTC 7 was severely damaged by a falling building....

Youtube videos with vector overlays and comments very often are in fact evidence,

Yes, evidence that the people making them have not much knowledge of physics!

Originally posted by dereks
You must have missed the bit where 2 aircraft hit the buildings, or WTC 7 was severely damaged by a falling building....

You must have missed the fact that almost all reports state the buildings were not severaly damged by the plane impacts. Almost all reports state the fire was the main cause of the collapse even though it did not burn that hot or that long.

Also the fact that if building 7 collapsed on its own it would have fallen to the side that was damaged and not in its own footprint.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
just one example of the total collapse of a steel framed, sky scraper due to fire.
That is what you are claiming isnt it?

You must have missed the bit where 2 aircraft hit the buildings, or WTC 7 was severely damaged by a falling building....

Youtube videos with vector overlays and comments very often are in fact evidence,

Yes, evidence that the people making them have not much knowledge of physics!

Why are you quoting aircraft hitting buildings? this thread is about WTC 7. you are giving irrelevant info in this case, stay on topic. Your second statement re: evidence is kind of like something a child in a schoolyard would make.

Any video of the falling building is "evidence." It is a video account of what happened. What do you not understand about that?

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
Any video of the falling building is "evidence." It is a video account of what happened.

Who said it was not? People that do not understand physics making drawings on video's is not evidence....

Originally posted by dereks
People that do not understand physics making drawings on video's is not evidence....

Neither is computer simulated drawings.....uh, hum...NIST.

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
Not needed......
Perhaps you can surprise us all by providing one, just one example of the total collapse of a steel framed, sky scraper due to fire.
That is what you are claiming isnt it?

just a point of clarification,
Youtube videos with vector overlays and comments very often are in fact evidence,
This kind of evidence is called "circumstantial evidence"

Not only do you need to learn more about engineering, metallurgy and heat ("heat" being a specialist branch of physics).
You could also use some further education in LAW.

Why would you ask for just one example of the total collapse of a steel framed, sky scraper due to fire? Perhaps you are confused. You should have asked for "just one example of the total collapse of a steel framed, sky scraper due to fire and serious structral damage." Three examples would be WTC's 1, 2, and 7.

"Youtube videos with vector overlays and comments very often are in fact evidence?" Where are such videos "evidence?" This kind of evidence is called "imaginary evidence."

"Heat" is a specialist branch of physics? You are amusing. The term that eludes you is "thermodynamics." Look it up. Someday, when you go to college, you may be fortunate enough to take a course or two in thermodynamics. Then you will see how Jones completely botched his paper where he discovered paint in the dust from the collapse.

Law must be your strong point because science and engineering certainly aren't. Here is your chance to shine. "Perhaps you can surprise us all by providing one, just one example" where Youtube videos with vector overlays and comments have been used as evidence and reference the case where the judge allowed such evidence.

I await your reply.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Also the fact that if building 7 collapsed on its own it would have fallen to the side that was damaged and not in its own footprint.

How would you know this? Is this another gut feeling based on disaster movies or is this a version of common sense extrapolated from how trees fall down?

reply to post by Rigel Kent

Not needed......
Perhaps you can surprise us all by providing one, just one example of the total collapse of a steel framed, sky scraper due to fire.
That is what you are claiming isnt it?

Perhaps believe Society Of Fire Protection Engineers....

Did a study of building collapses do to fire

www.fpemag.com...

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-20021 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
Brick/Masonry: 5
Wood: 2
Unknown: 2

Three of the these events were from the 1970s, another three from the 1980s, four from the 1990s, and 12 in 2000 and beyond. This temporal distribution is skewed towards more recent occurrences, as expected, both due to the magnitude of the WTC (counted as four events) and Pentagon (one event) disasters of 9-11 and the news media searches.

Note: 6 steel framed building collapse from fire. Also note 4 of the six referenced were at WTC complex (WTC 1,2, 5, 7)

Also if steel buildings dont collapse from fire why do they spend so much
time and money FIREPROOFING THE STEEL!

reply to post by thedman


I guess you missed the part of his request that stated "total collapse"?

That brings the 6 buildings down to 3....WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7



[edit on 24-2-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

MAJOR impact damage, from falling flaming debris from WTC Tower, and DIESEL fuel, under pressure, being sprayed around....gee....surprise!!!!

You are not new to this discussion so I find it hard to believe you didn't know that most of the diesel fuel was recovered, and FEMA ruled out the diesel fuel having any effect on the collapse?

And where do you get diesel fuel sprayed under pressure, another desperate assumption? You have no evidence of these claims.
Why do you OSers have to revert to assumptions all the time, oh I know cause that's what NIST did for their report?

Like another poster said you guys have a very convenient loss of memory when it suits your argument.

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

Based on the listings in Table 5.2, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons that were recovered were from the Silverstein Properties' emergency power system. The data obtained from Silverstein indicate that the pumping rate from their tanks was 4.4 gpm. If the Silverstein pump had started pumping at 10 a.m., when Con Ed shut down power to the building immediately following the collapse of WTC 2, and continued pumping until the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 p.m., less than 2,000 gallons would have been used. The residual 20,000 gallons found in the two 12,000-gallon tanks, therefore, can not be used as an indicator of whether or not the Silverstein generator sets were on line and running.

killtown.911review.org...

You are also under the illusion that diesel fuel would cause the fires to burn hotter, a common fallacy. Diesel burns at about 860C in open air.

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

8 hours to reach 1260C, and that is air temp, not the temp of the rooms walls etc. Air temps will always be way higher than objects in that air. And you all think 7 hours worth of fires on a few floors could cause a 48 story building to fail, let alone a 110 story tower in less than one?

So again you're claiming opinions as fact, just speculation that isn't even supported by anything, or anyone except those desperate to support the OS.

[edit on 2/24/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


So again you are citing an earlier report (FEMA) that was superceded by a later report (NIST).

Don't work that way.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

So again you are citing an earlier report (FEMA) that was superceded by a later report (NIST).

Don't work that way.

Der, der, der, der.

He's quoting the FEMA report about the fuel being recovered.

But, I guess according to you, that fact changed from FEMA's report to NIST's?

reply to post by pteridine


Back up your claims. You're a waste of time. It's boring.

reply to post by thedman


5 did not have a global collapse.

Originally posted by GenRadek
No you are incorrect. Apparently you are not from around here, Earth. You do not realize that newscaster CAN make mistakes, especially if the reports from which they are coming from MESS UP in the confusion. It happens. All the time, especially during a MAJOR breaking news story.

You remind me of my cat when he wants something on the other side of an open door. He just reaches under the door and swats at it for hours instead of just walking over to the toy and picking it up directly.

I acknowledged that mistakes happen and asked that someone please supply me with all the examples of this happening before.

Why is it that instead of examples, you just have your own whining argument to present still?

Gen, I am afraid I will have to put you on ignore soon if you cannot manage to actually read that content of my posts. You keep replying in ways that makes little sense to anyone that can read the words. Go back, re-read and try all over again. Good luck this time!

reply to post by K J Gunderson


It's getting pretty ridiculous. This isn't even a conversation anymore. This other side's retorts consist of well thought out arguments like: "you're wrong."

That's the only argument I've really heard from the OS side of things.

Anytime you guys want to have a discussion that consists of verified sources, I'm ready to do that, in fact that's what I thought we were doing.

My time here on this forum has only emboldened my resolve and made my opinions stronger.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by Alfie1
So, what is your explanation ? Was a foreign news outlet given a script and timetable of the days events to make sure they could follow along ?
Do you believe that ?!

It was obviously just a slip of the tongue that happens all of that time. That is why when I asked for an example of two different news organizations making this same type of error before you all were so quick to supply examples, right?



Still waiting.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

So again you are citing an earlier report (FEMA) that was superceded by a later report (NIST).

Don't work that way.

Der, der, der, der.

He's quoting the FEMA report about the fuel being recovered.

But, I guess according to you, that fact changed from FEMA's report to NIST's?

Check yourself. It did.

wtc.nist.gov...

And in your favor, per se. Even more was thought to have been recovered.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


I asked what you were referring to and you responded that I should "back up my claims." Perhaps when your attention span increases to minutes, you can properly respond.
I also note that you think "Cause" is a word and you use the gratuitious "like." I suspect that you are more worried about the prom than the events of 911.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


If all you've heard is "you're wrong" you haven't been paying attention.