'What about building 7'?

[cooperman]

So now that we agree it was an office fire, what are you trying to get at?

Simply that NIST concluded that 7 was brought down by an office fire, not be severe structural damage.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The biggest office fire in history, that is.

 

[TJM]

Simply that NIST concluded that 7 was brought down by an office fire, not be severe structural damage.

Titanic Explorer did not say "severe structural damage".

 

[cooperman]

Yes. It started the fires.

Agreed.

Once the fires were started, did the severe damage including the much vaunted 10 storey gash play any part in the collapse?

 

[cooperman]

Titanic Explorer did not say "severe structural damage".

No he didn't but several of his shining knights have in this thread. I notice the OP hasn't chipped in yet.

 

[BigAl]

Did the severe damage caused by the collapse of wtc1 contribute to the collapse of wtc7? You can cut the question out out of your qoutes but it isn't going away.

It does when the answer is reduced to the fundamentals:

Hours of fire and lack of water for firefighting caused the steel structure to fail.
​

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Now then, what were the end results of those fires? Were they fought? If not fought did the structures survive? Were they constructed of the same materials using similar methods as WTC 7?

Notwithstanding all of that, your images do show that what you call an "Ordinary office fire" is much different from what any fire department would consider "Ordinary" by any stretch of the imagination.

3: the regular or customary condition or course of things —usually used in the phrase out of the ordinary


What you posted is most certainly what any sane person would consider "Out of the ordinary". Maybe if TriForCharity posts on this he can provide stats on how many office fires are reported on average and what the size and FD response size and times were for those on average. Those numbers would help to define what "Ordinary" is in the proper context. I'm willing to place a blind bet that WTC 7 falls well outside the range of "Ordinary".

 

[T.A.M.]

Lets get a few things straight.

The fires were untreated for 7 hours. The sprinker system failed, and the fire was not fought by firefighters due to a lack of pressured water available.

The Diesel Fuel played no role.

The impact damage played little if any role (they do not actually say it played NO role, in the report, best I can find). It was the impact damage, however, that INITIATED the fires, so you cannot say it played NO role in the collapse.

NIST concluded that the collapse would have occurred, without the impact damage, provided the fires were the same.

It all boils down to Column 79. There is no sample or portion of column 79 available to examine, unfortunately, but the NIST models seem to support the theory.

I have seen NO ONE, not a single truther, prove that the column 79 theory is wrong. Given no other superior theory with proof to back it up has emerged, I am going with OCCAM. Design flaw trumps unsupported planting and detonating of silent flashless explosives in this regard.

TAM

TAM

 

[cooperman]

Now then, what were the end results of those fires? Were they fought? If not fought did the structures survive? Were they constructed of the same materials using similar methods as WTC 7?

Notwithstanding all of that, your images do show that what you call an "Ordinary office fire" is much different from what any fire department would consider "Ordinary" by any stretch of the imagination.

3: the regular or customary condition or course of things —usually used in the phrase out of the ordinary


What you posted is most certainly what any sane person would consider "Out of the ordinary". Maybe if TriForCharity posts on this he can provide stats on how many office fires are reported on average and what the size and FD response size and times were for those on average. Those numbers would help to define what "Ordinary" is in the proper context. I'm willing to place a blind bet that WTC 7 falls well outside the range of "Ordinary".

Take it up with NIST. It is their description, not mine.

 

[T.A.M.]

I must've missed the part where NIST called them ordinary office fires, because if they did, I'd have to disagree with them.

In terms of the contents that were burned, NIST did state in the report that,

WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings.

Above a quote from the NIST final report on WTC7 page 47.

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

NIST said that the structural damage wasn't the primary cause of the collapse. In other words if there were no fires subsequent to the collapse of the North Tower that struck WTC 7 then the building would've most likely remained standing.

No, the WTC 7 would still have collapsed because the fires were not a requirement for the success of the controlled demolition.

A steel framed building like WTC7 sustaining a total collapse due to fires was implausible and unprecedented.

Yet, the NIST, having no politically acceptable recourse, and years overdue on their final report, went with a lame fire theory in order to avoid another Watergate...WTC7gate.

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

Agreed.

Once the fires were started, did the severe damage including the much vaunted 10 storey gash play any part in the collapse?

Not once the fires (which the damage caused) started.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

No, the WTC 7 would still have collapsed because the fires were not a requirement for the success of the controlled demolition.

A steel framed building like WTC7 sustaining a total collapse due to fires was implausible and unprecedented.

Yet, the NIST, having no politically acceptable recourse, and years overdue on their final report, went with a lame fire theory in order to avoid another Watergate...WTC7gate.

MM

Very succinct evidenceless, speculation filled theory MM.

You do your fellow truthers proud.

TAM

 

[cooperman]

Lets get a few things straight.

The fires were untreated for 7 hours. The sprinker system failed, and the fire was not fought by firefighters due to a lack of pressured water available.

The Diesel Fuel played no role.

The impact damage played little if any role (they do not actually say it played NO role, in the report, best I can find). It was the impact damage, however, that INITIATED the fires, so you cannot say it played NO role in the collapse.

NIST concluded that the collapse would have occurred, without the impact damage, provided the fires were the same.

It all boils down to Column 79. There is no sample or portion of column 79 available to examine, unfortunately, but the NIST models seem to support the theory.

I have seen NO ONE, not a single truther, prove that the column 79 theory is wrong. Given no other superior theory with proof to back it up has emerged, I am going with OCCAM. Design flaw trumps unsupported planting and detonating of silent flashless explosives in this regard.

TAM

TAM

The problem with the column 79 theory is this:

People expected 7 to collapse all day. People on the scene described the collapse as "imminent". One firefighter said "There is no way to stop it". Debunkers will tell us that every man and his dog knew that the collapse was imminent and it was no surprise. Well if that is the case, how did they all know on the afternoon of 9/11 that column 79 would fail? If it hadn't the building would have stood.

You describe it as a design flaw. Did the FDNY know about this design flaw? If not, how did they KNOW it would collapse?

 

[TJM]

In terms of the contents that were burned, NIST did state in the report that,TAM

Right, ordinary content, which our truthy friend can't seem to get his head around. NIST is saying the contents are ordinary. The events that created the fires are anything but ordinary.

 

[T.A.M.]

Cooperman:

I am talking about NIST. You have not proven them incorrect. You can dodge, and turn the argument to another (albeit related) topic all you want...

Show me a single paper from the truth movement that DISPROVES the column 79 theory.

Good Luck.

People expected WTC7 to collapse, because (A) they had just seen it was possible 2 previous occasions AND (B) because those trained, knew that the building was left to burn for hours with no firefighting.

Unless, of course, you feel all those who said such things were in on it.

TAM

 

[DGM]

Not accoring to NIST.

Why would you say that?

 

[T.A.M.]

Simply that NIST concluded that 7 was brought down by an office fire, not be severe structural damage.

Agreed, based on the final report of WTC7.

TAM

 

[Disbelief]

The problem with the column 79 theory is this:

People expected 7 to collapse all day. People on the scene described the collapse as "imminent". One firefighter said "There is no way to stop it". Debunkers will tell us that every man and his dog knew that the collapse was imminent and it was no surprise. Well if that is the case, how did they all know on the afternoon of 9/11 that column 79 would fail? If it hadn't the building would have stood.

You describe it as a design flaw. Did the FDNY know about this design flaw? If not, how did they KNOW it would collapse?

Bolding mine

Where did you get the idea that they knew column 79 would fail? They knew the building was going to fail based upon the fact that they are trained to ascertain building conditions in a fire.

 

[T.A.M.]

Bolding mine

Where did you get the idea that they knew column 79 would fail? They knew the building was going to fail based upon the fact that they are trained to ascertain building conditions in a fire.

You realize you are inviting the "No previous collapse" canard, right?

TAM