The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

Originally posted by SimonPeter

Sonny boy I am retired from working on those structures and have forgotten more than you think you know . Your smart attitude says much about you . I haven't set in an office somewhere or turned burgers for a living like some on here . I know about the structures and floor pans and composite construction and safety factors that are figured into these buildings .Steel structures don't just fall from sporadic fires spread from floor to floor . There isn't enough fuel in an office building to create that much heat .In an apartment building there is a lot more fuel such as clothes bedding and a higher concentration of furniture .

So do I, only I am not retired yet, as for office fires have a look at the "Cardington Fire Tests!!!! As for your comment re not enough heat thats ok when NO STRUCTURAL damage has been done and fires have been tackled in some way,remember at 600c steel has lost 50% of its strength NOW for some fire data.


www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

First column time in mins after fire started other 3 columns temp at different steel members.


21.5 78 365 628
22.0 80 386 654
22.5 83 404 676
23.0 86 420 697
23.5 88 435 716
24.0 90 450 734
24.5 91 466 746
25.0 93 481 764
25.5 95 494 778
26.0 99 505 788
26.5 104 515 795
27.0 108 523 798
27.5 113 529 798
28.0 119 534 798
28.5 124 537 796
29.0 129 542 796
29.5 133 547 796
30.0 138 550 793
30.5 142 553 792
31.0 148 555 789
31.5 153 557 786
32.0 158 558 781
32.5 163 558 775
33.0 168 557 769
33.5 172 556 764
34.0 177 555 758
34.5 181 554 753
35.0 185 552 749
35.5 189 551 744
36.0 192 549 740
36.5 196 548 737
37.0 199 547 734
37.5 202 546 731
38.0 205 545 728
38.5 207 545 726
39.0 209 544 724
39.5 211 544 723
40.0 214 544 721

Lets have a look at 798c what strength has the steel left



About 10%

So as YOU can see fire can be a real problem!!!!
Thats REAL DATA from a fire test oh it's an office fire test
Of course that office fire test had no structural damage by aicraft and NO fuel!

reply to post by wmd_2008


So you looked at the data .. What did it say exactly ? And exactly where were the fires located and where was the smoke ? Fire that burns intensely needs plenty of oxygen and could not have received a free flow of oxygen from a building with all of the glass still in it . The facade of the building mostly intact and air distribution to the complete building would be impaired by partitions . The oxygen within the building would not have been replenished to supported massive fires .Also safety factors built into the steel structure would allow for some loss of strength .

reply to post by SimonPeter


You are wrong (what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

You are wrong (what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

You don't need evidence for common sense.

reply to post by -PLB-


I know that it destroys your perception of your reality . But you should wake up . You've been lied to and misled by those you trust . You should read Agenda 21 and read into the progress of the New World Order . Your going to be surprised .

reply to post by SimonPeter


I am extremely easy to wake up. All you need to do is show evidence.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

You are wrong (what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

What are your qualifications in the matter ? Did you once melt a very thin beer can in the fire? Try it on a tin can .

reply to post by SimonPeter


Qualifications on what matter? You assert that there wasn't enough oxygen for the fires in WTC7 to get hot enough. Making assertions isn't hard. I can make a similar assertion: There was enough oxygen to reach the required temperatures to make the building collapse.

Then I can type some stuff about how you are fooled and lied to like a sheep by those conspiracy websites. Stuff like that. It does not make my assertion any more valid. I would still have to show evidence for it. Naturally, you will have to meet the same standard.

reply to post by -PLB-


I wouldn't want you to try it in a full sized room but how long do you think it would take for all of the Oxygen in a floor to be consumed by fire . Put a lit match in a glass jar with some paper put the lid on and see how long it burns. See if the paper burns up . See how hot the lid gets . The building was closed up with the windows still in it ..

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by waypastvne

 

From your posts your obliviously a disinfo agent (congratulations) None the less, trying to derail a thread by saying theres ufo's in the videos is working against you. You should try to talk about the subject at hand if you truly want to do your job.

But there is a UFO in the video. You got suckered in UFO and all (congratulations). The black spots that appear are just the windows breaking as the building deforms. There are no explosions.

edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

yes, congratulations indeed to all you OS'rs who intentionally distort truth casting doubts and muddying up the evidence water.. Clear cut agenda imo, do you condone such actions that you support here by being able to point out a fraud? Falsifying evidence is a crime as well in case you didn't know. Not merely in a court of law but in Heaven its called bearing false witness.

What is it with you guys anyway? I am beginning to think you are all under some kind of mind control like MKULTRA or something because you guys always deny the obvious regardless of how many times it is pointed out.

It is that denial that is keeping justice from being served and the criminals in control.

Congratulations indeed

I think i'm on page 2 and it is doubtful I will even look at page 3.

911 is the biggest crime humanity has ever seen imo because it still hasn't ended.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

You are wrong (what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

I think, therefore, I am.

Have a go at that turkey bone then.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

I never said thermite was placed on the roof. You just made that up.

5 and 6 had holes burned through them caused by the falling superheated debris.




I don't pretend to know the cause of such super heat. I do know that it wasn't jet fuel or office fires.

Right, so you are not saying that it was thermite, but it was definitely not jet fuel or office fires............... right. That like saying, "'m not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens." So, what? It was thermite falling from WTC1 and 2 that did it? Thats even better!

Well office fires can and DO get hot enough to cause serious damage. if they didnt, why do they bother with fire-proofing? Those holes were not burned through by the way. They were SMASHED through from WTC1 and 2 debris falling from 1000ft. You can even see exterior panels inside the holes.

Also, did you figure out what caused the floor collapses inside WTC5 in the areas not affected by the falling debris?

reply to post by GenRadek


The fire protection on the steel structure is for extra protection . Not mentioned are many times fire rated column casements that also enclose the column . Again the facade of the building was mostly intact . This would limit air flow to all of the floors . The fire would have burned the oxygen content ( Normally 20 to 21 % Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen which does not support combustion ) down to a level where the fuel in the building would have smoldered . The Temperature of smoldering office materials is not that hot . Smoldering is an exact description of the Video's showing the WTC7 before it fell .
Remember the match in the bottle trick . It applies to building 7 .

How different is this than building WTC7 ?

youtu.be...

reply to post by SimonPeter


The link is youtu.be...

reply to post by SimonPeter


The link does not work but the video is on You tube and is the Jon Stone Rose Tower Demolition .

reply to post by SimonPeter


For starters, I see a ton of bricks and concrete. I see no 47 stories. No ConEd substation at the base. No large transfer trusses that stretched over the ConEd substation. Do I need to go on?

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

So you looked at the data .. What did it say exactly ? And exactly where were the fires located and where was the smoke ? Fire that burns intensely needs plenty of oxygen and could not have received a free flow of oxygen from a building with all of the glass still in it . The facade of the building mostly intact and air distribution to the complete building would be impaired by partitions . The oxygen within the building would not have been replenished to supported massive fires .Also safety factors built into the steel structure would allow for some loss of strength .

Just F*&^%$G All three buildings had HUGE holes in them WTC 1 2 & 7 they will act like huge chimneys.

Gave you a link to the fire test why don't you wade through the data. Here is a QUOTE

The office fire demonstration was the largest British Steel compartment fire test incorporating a floor space 18m wide and up to 10m deep (135m2). It was conducted on the first floor in the North East corner and simulated a typical open plan office with real office equipment (and some wood cribs) providing a total fire load density of 46kg/m2. The area of ventilation was equal to 20% of the floor area. [197] The height of the compartment was 4.0m. In this test only the columns were protected. The unprotected beams achieved temperatures of up to 1150°C

1150°C and many on here say office fires dont get hot !!!!!!

Show me a safety factor for steel in a fire and 15 floors or 31 floors dropping on it like WTC 1/2

Here is the North Tower collapse video



Are you trying to say that fire is not fierce

WTC 7 VIDEO again look at the fires and damage !

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by -PLB-

 

I wouldn't want you to try it in a full sized room but how long do you think it would take for all of the Oxygen in a floor to be consumed by fire . Put a lit match in a glass jar with some paper put the lid on and see how long it burns. See if the paper burns up . See how hot the lid gets . The building was closed up with the windows still in it ..

Be sure to not experiment with this at home as your house will likely burn to the ground.

When I look at images of WTC7 the large amount of smoke tells me that the building wasn't even close to airtight. Add to that the images of flames coming out of the windows and I can only conclude your assertion is completely baseless. The only reason I can think of why you are asserting this is because you want it to be true as it fits your conspiracy fantasy.

reply to post by -PLB-


It would be interesting to know which floors were on fire in the first place. I am sure the info is out there but you guys must know... and who occupied the floors? The source of the fire locations could be revealing in itself.


The really sad thing is here we are, more than a decade later, millions of dead in wars against terror that has no defined enemy and no end to the prosecutable, and all we can do is keep chasing tales.

IMO, they beat us the minute we started relying upon them to have integrity.

... nobody trusts anybody anymore and the devil laughs at our confusion.