• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lets Talk About Fire

ergo said:
Actually we point it out to you all the time:

There was no airplane damage in WTC 7, and structural damage was minimal, unless NIST is willing to admit to and release evidence of a 20-storey gash in its south face. Apparently they didn't consider that significant enough.

Structural damage AND fire in every other WTC building, and in many surrounding buildings. No progressive collapse! Wow!
Click to expand...

Every other WTC building didn't have multiple floors bearing down on the fire weakened steel.
but look what happened inside WTC 5.



WOW!
 
sts60 said:
Oh, come on, are you saying you wouldn't be happy advancing a line into one of those big box stores where the bar joists overhead had been exposed to fire for half an hour? There's no chance they'd collapse on you; they're steel!
Click to expand...

Thats why in most cases the fire would be fought from outside using
aerial ladders known as "surround and drown"

In this part of the country (Northern NJ) have a problem in winter where
snow/ice buildup can overload the roof and cause it to collapse

Had this several years ago when part of supermarket came down from ice
on roof
 
triforcharity said:
^^ This. is why I am a professor, and not an engineer!

Yes, you're correct though. But, that sounds like building codes and engineering, and such that I have limited knowledge about. VERY informative though!

ETA: That **** is incredible! 3.5 hours average protection time!! That stuff is awesome! (New technology is ****** killer!!)

http://www.albi.com/cladtf.html
Click to expand...


I used it on the exposed large trusses in this building.



There is no way I could have gotten the clean look with spray on, and the trusses HAD to be protected
 
ergo said:
There was no airplane damage in WTC 7, and structural damage was minimal,
Click to expand...

Damage was minimal? This is contrary to just about every single observation made by people who were there. Can you tell us how you came to this conclusion? Did you just "look at some images" and decide you know better than the people who were there?
 
ergo said:
Actually we point it out to you all the time:

There was no airplane damage in WTC 7, and structural damage was minimal, unless NIST is willing to admit to and release evidence of a 20-storey gash in its south face. Apparently they didn't consider that significant enough.

Structural damage AND fire in every other WTC building, and in many surrounding buildings. No progressive collapse! Wow!
Click to expand...
Just so I'm clear, are you claiming that WTC 7 suffered no structural damage other than that caused by the fire? None whatsoever?

EDIT: Nope, I misread.
 
Last edited:
1 person & hundreds of dominoes! Inside job!



000063 said:
Just so I'm clear, are you claiming that WTC 7 suffered no structural damage other than that caused by the fire? None whatsoever?
Click to expand...

As we know with Ergo its not the reality of the situation, but the "truth" of it that matters. In another thread he was going on and on about the structural differences of Kader to claim it wasn't a steel framed highrise that collapsed due to fire, yet here he is talking about the other buildings of entirely different design from that of WTC 1, 2, & 7. Consistency is rather irrelevant when you're concerned with "truth".
 
Last edited:
Know what else was "never hit by a plane"? The Titanic.

In Twoofer world, apparently only plane-shaped objects can cause destruction.
 
alienentity said:
Nice! That's a biiiiiiig space.
Click to expand...

Thanks....one of the bigger projects I designed.

It was the cafeteria / group meeting area for a 250.000 sf office building I did a few years ago. The interior design work / furniture was done by the same company that did the WTC interiors.
 
cyclonic said:


WOW!
Click to expand...
Check that column at 0:10-0:15. That is what happens to columns that are heated in an ordinary office fire. Luckily, there were other columns nearby to take most of the load that it bore.

And heat should not have damaged the core columns in the towers after airplanes had chewed up the insulation and made a chimney of the elevator shafts? What are you twoofers smoking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom