WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[Gamolon]

Again eots, why didn't the steel plates of this column, which you guys say was cut by thermite, show any signs of warping or bending?

because it is too short

 

[Gamolon]

Bullony! Heat energy is constantly moving in any steel-framed network and NEVER remains stationary.

Can you tell me why I can heat up my STEEL kettle over a gas flame and then grab the STEEL handle that is attached to the STEEL kettle by STEEL bolts?

What a jackass.

 

[cbi0090]

Are you really that stupid? Let me help you figure this out. I'll even bold and enlarge the important words for you.



Thermite doesn't bend or warp steel? Do you get it yet? It burns/melts through it. Thermite produces temps of 2500C or 4500F. Are you telling me that they used thermite to bend and warp/bend the steel to collapse the towers?

what happens to the temperature of a piece of metal over-all if you apply temperatures of 4500degrees to a portion of that metal...moron

IT MELTS IT ASSHOLE!!!

Jesus H Christ.

Explain this photo then.

Where are the damn bends and warps in this column like you say should be there due to the "thermite cuts" Terral says were made?

When was this photo taken? Before rescue crews could work safely there was a lot of cutting on overhead steel, etc. You could not have gotten this photo immediately after the collapse, it just wouldn't have been accessible.
I can't believe this conversation continues. To those of us in the legitmate engineering community I can tell you it's a closed arguement and now well understood and will change our philosophy to the constuction of tall structures. All structures, even your homes, are built based on probabilities and economics. A 2 x 4 is used in certain applications, instead of something else, for reason and that reason is based on some estimate of its function within papameters that are considered reasonable, not every possiblility. Wind speeds, snow loads, etc. If you built structures to withstand every possible load we'd all be living in tents or pyramids. WTC was not built to withstand a fire of that magnitude at that location because the probability of it occurring was just too small to justify designing it that way. Steel, with some protection, will withstand heat for some time, but not forever, and it is well known that if it goes beyond a point it fails suddenly. The building did take the plane collision but it was the extended fire that did it in and the lack of redundance within the structure itself.

 

[Terral]

Hi CBI:

I can't believe this conversation continues. To those of us in the legitmate engineering community I can tell you it's a closed arguement and now well understood and will change our philosophy to the constuction of tall structures.

CBI confused cannot even spell legitimate, argument nor construction, AND the notion that WTC-7 collapsed from building fires is a Govt Cover-Story Fantasy. Period. There is 'no precedent' for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing CD-style from building fires and CBI very well knows it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Death By Fire, OR Controlled Demolition? You Decide . . .[/ame]

What I want to see from this guy is a USMB Topic making the case that "WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires" with a thesis statement, claims, evidentiary support and conclusions. About one thousand professional architects and engineers have concluded that the WTC Skyscrapers collapsed from "Controlled Demolition" (AE911Truth.org). Tons of scholars agree with these architects and engineers 100 percent (ScholarsForTruth.org)!! People with real demolition experience (#3) agree that the WTC Skyscrapers collapsed from Controlled Demolition 'and' this CBI character is completely out to lunch in supporting the Official Cover Story LIE. Period.

All structures, even your homes, are built based on probabilities and economics.

In other words, this CBI cartoon character thinks these USMB registered members and readers are complete idiots confused and Official Cover Story Fools cuckoo! WTC-7 was struck my no Jetliner and nothing even remotely similar and building fires have NEVER taken down any steel-framed skyscraper in the history of the cotton-picking planet. The simple fact is that any heat energy from any building fire burns in the neighborhood of 800 degrees 'and' for 20 minutes in any single location (SchwabCorp/UL Data).

Building fires simply do NOT even begin to burn hot enough to melt 2800-degree red-iron structural steel (911Research.net). Perhaps Mr. CBI is unaware of the fact that WTC-7 was built using "Compartmentalization" (educate yourself) of all steel-frame support components, which eliminates 'fire' from even a remote possibility of taking down WTC-7. This means that any single building fire would exhaust all available fuel, within the sub-compartment, before dying out from the inability to cross masonry firewalls into new areas of the building.

A 2 x 4 is used in certain applications, instead of something else, for reason and that reason is based on some estimate of its function within papameters that are considered reasonable, not every possiblility.

Holy Molies! This guy cannot even spell parameters nor possibility! Does your mommy know that CBI is using her computer? If you really want to debate this WTC-7 CD Topic, then head back to the Opening Post and begin drafting your rebuttal. Otherwise, I do not feel that CBI knows enough about these WTC CD Cases to even begin having a good conversation. Your problem is that we have 'two' other related 9/11 atrocities taking place on the SAME DAY and both of those cases have the same EMPTY HOLE:

My Flight 93 Topic:

Your problem is that we have pictures of this same EMPTY HOLE taken on April 20, 1994 (here), which says the Govt Cover Story for 'this case' is also a deliberate and fabricated LIE.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s]Continue Pushing Govt Cover Story LIES, If That Seems Good To You[/ame]

My Pentagon Topic:

In both cases, we see the same EMPTY HOLE that contains NO crashed 100-ton Jetliner. Period.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE"]Continue Pushing Official Govt LIES, If That Seems Good To You . . .[/ame]

This CBI guy needs to wake the hell up already. Thanks, BTW, for helping to prove my related theory (#9) . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[SFC Ollie]

The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.

It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, "were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

The National Institute of Standards and Technology did its own forty-three volume study of the Twin Towers. "Some 200 technical experts . . . reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, [and] performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," the institute says.

It also concluded that a combination of the crash and the subsequent fires brought the towers down: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."

Popular Mechanics, first in its March 2005 cover story and now in its expanded book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, after interviewing scores of other experts in the engineering field, takes apart the most popular contentions of the conspiracists. "In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified," the book says.

I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley, who conducted the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA study, and to Mete Sozen, structural engineering professor at Purdue, who was one of the principal authors of "The Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which was done under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. I also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, they view them as a huge waste of time. They are busy trying to figure out how to prevent buildings from falling in the future.

Of course, any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt will claim that all these people are in on the plot. And that I am in on it, too.

Get over it.


Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

 

[DiveCon]

The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.

It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, "were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

The National Institute of Standards and Technology did its own forty-three volume study of the Twin Towers. "Some 200 technical experts . . . reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, [and] performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," the institute says.

It also concluded that a combination of the crash and the subsequent fires brought the towers down: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."

Popular Mechanics, first in its March 2005 cover story and now in its expanded book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, after interviewing scores of other experts in the engineering field, takes apart the most popular contentions of the conspiracists. "In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified," the book says.

I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley, who conducted the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA study, and to Mete Sozen, structural engineering professor at Purdue, who was one of the principal authors of "The Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which was done under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. I also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, they view them as a huge waste of time. They are busy trying to figure out how to prevent buildings from falling in the future.

Of course, any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt will claim that all these people are in on the plot. And that I am in on it, too.

Get over it.


Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

this is what most of these nuttter troofers dont get

 

[Kat]

The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.

It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, "were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

The National Institute of Standards and Technology did its own forty-three volume study of the Twin Towers. "Some 200 technical experts . . . reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, [and] performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," the institute says.

It also concluded that a combination of the crash and the subsequent fires brought the towers down: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."

Popular Mechanics, first in its March 2005 cover story and now in its expanded book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, after interviewing scores of other experts in the engineering field, takes apart the most popular contentions of the conspiracists. "In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified," the book says.

I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley, who conducted the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA study, and to Mete Sozen, structural engineering professor at Purdue, who was one of the principal authors of "The Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which was done under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. I also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, they view them as a huge waste of time. They are busy trying to figure out how to prevent buildings from falling in the future.

Of course, any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt will claim that all these people are in on the plot. And that I am in on it, too.

Get over it.


Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

this is what most of these nuttter troofers dont get

It has been proven over and over and over by non-partisan groups. Why anyone would want to embarrass themselves with the nonsense is beyond me.

 

[DiveCon]

The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.

It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, "were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

The National Institute of Standards and Technology did its own forty-three volume study of the Twin Towers. "Some 200 technical experts . . . reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, [and] performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," the institute says.

It also concluded that a combination of the crash and the subsequent fires brought the towers down: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."

Popular Mechanics, first in its March 2005 cover story and now in its expanded book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, after interviewing scores of other experts in the engineering field, takes apart the most popular contentions of the conspiracists. "In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified," the book says.

I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley, who conducted the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA study, and to Mete Sozen, structural engineering professor at Purdue, who was one of the principal authors of "The Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which was done under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. I also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, they view them as a huge waste of time. They are busy trying to figure out how to prevent buildings from falling in the future.

Of course, any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt will claim that all these people are in on the plot. And that I am in on it, too.

Get over it.


Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

this is what most of these nuttter troofers dont get

It has been proven over and over and over by non-partisan groups. Why anyone would want to embarrass themselves with the nonsense is beyond me.

they clearly have psychological issues and need professional help

 

[eots]

The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.

It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, "were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

The National Institute of Standards and Technology did its own forty-three volume study of the Twin Towers. "Some 200 technical experts . . . reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, [and] performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," the institute says.

It also concluded that a combination of the crash and the subsequent fires brought the towers down: "In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."

Popular Mechanics, first in its March 2005 cover story and now in its expanded book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, after interviewing scores of other experts in the engineering field, takes apart the most popular contentions of the conspiracists. "In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified," the book says.

I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley, who conducted the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA study, and to Mete Sozen, structural engineering professor at Purdue, who was one of the principal authors of "The Pentagon Building Performance Report" of January 2003, which was done under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. I also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, they view them as a huge waste of time. They are busy trying to figure out how to prevent buildings from falling in the future.

Of course, any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt will claim that all these people are in on the plot. And that I am in on it, too.

Get over it.


Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

this is what most of these nuttter troofers dont get

It has been proven over and over and over by non-partisan groups. Why anyone would want to embarrass themselves with the nonsense is beyond me.

James Quintiere, Ph.D.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”


“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...


2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps ]

Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.

Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:

· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)

· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986

· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST

· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLMAzUIb5M&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - 9/11 Redux Pt1[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QXYNcVuBPM&feature=channel]YouTube - 9/11 Redux Pt2[/ame]

 

[eots]

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[cbi0090]

Sorry, but I don't spend a lot of time writing responses like this, at least not without my secretary proofing them, but it's obvious you have no intention of listening to any reason. What makes this whole proposition so silly is the notion of a controlled demolition and what it would take to pull it off. If you had ever visited a demolition site before the explosion and walked through the building to see what it takes to do something like that you'd know just how far fetched the idea is. But you won't, and haven't and never will.

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry, but I don't spend a lot of time writing responses like this, at least not without my secretary proofing them, but it's obvious you have no intention of listening to any reason. What makes this whole proposition so silly is the notion of a controlled demolition and what it would take to pull it off. If you had ever visited a demolition site before the explosion and walked through the building to see what it takes to do something like that you'd know just how far fetched the idea is. But you won't, and haven't and never will.

you know they have lost when the main complaint about your post is either spelling or grammar

 

[eots]

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics". Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Former William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Author or co-author of several books on economics and politics, including; The Supply-Side Revolution (1985), Alienation and the Soviet Economy: The Collapse of the Socialist Era (1990), The Soviet Union After Perestroika (1991), The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America (2003).

Interview Alex Jones Show 1/9/08:

"There's no accountability now, because the government got away with 9/11 and so any kind of violence is justified in terms of protecting us from terrorists or people who might have been a terrorist ...

Well, I've never tried to hide anything. I just try to say what the evidence supports. I never believed 9/11, because I had engineering training at Georgia Tech and I could tell when a building is being blown up by explosives. Any fool can look at those films and see the buildings aren't falling down, they're blowing up." At 9:25 of the segment at YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) – Intellectuals Speak Out: "This is the most important book of our time. Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 "terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East. The book's call for a truly independent panel of experts to be empowered to bring out the true facts must be heeded or Americans will never again live under accountable government." Interlink Books


Essay 8/16/06: "We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false." INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE. NEWS, COMMENTARY & INSIGHT


Essay 2/6/06: "There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations." http://www.counterpunc


Bio: Biography - Paul Craig Roberts

 

[Gamolon]

lol...so if you had a 30 ft beam and heated one end to 4500 degrees the whloe beam would melt...lol...what happens to the tempature of the rest of the beam that the heat is not directly applied to..

Where is the radiating heat in these photos eots that you are assuming should be showing up where the torch is cutting? Where is the heated yellow or orange colored steel?

I have done a lot of cutting and I love to invite you to place your hand on that steel plate

Eots, I see you haven't answered the question. Where's the yellow or orange colored heated steel that you say should be evident radiating from the torch cut?

 

[Gamolon]

Were you not aware that it stays on the forum after you post it?

Make up your mind. Was it too cool to melt steel or was your beloved superthermite used?

Can you please stick to one lie?

well with gams help we have clearly determined the temperatures were over 2000 degrees but none of the material supplied to nist shows temperatures anywhere near this hot because if it did there would be no denying the fact these temperatures can not be reached in a kerosene fire...is this to complicated for you

How did the steel portion of the Madrid Windsor building collapase eots? Here is the link to the description.
The Madrid Skyscraper Fire - includes videos and photos

Here is the picture.

Do you know what survived the collapse? The concrete core portion of the building. The steel COLLAPSED.

How did this happen without thermite and just with a fire? The fire reportedly reached paek temps of 1472F. I thought fires couldn't get that high eots? At what temperature does steel begin to weaken again? About 650F?

Another funny thing. Your man Terral wants us to believe that fires don't burn for very long and move on to other sources of fuel. How did this blaze last for 18 to 20 hours?

Look at this link and explain to me how parts of the building started to collapse after only 1 1/2 hours WITHOUT thermite.
Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

Terral? Eots?

Nobody wants to answer the questions?

1. What caused the steel part of this building to collapse?
2. How did this fire burn for 18 to 20 hours? According to Terral, fires burn up the source and move on.

The first problem with the ‘Fire Caused The Collapse’ Theory is that building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit,

3. This fire reached 1472F. What happened to your claim of building fires only burning between 800F and 1000F?

 

[Gamolon]

Again eots, why didn't the steel plates of this column, which you guys say was cut by thermite, show any signs of warping or bending?

because it is too short

Ok. I'm done laughing at this statement.

Can you please explain why there is no bending or warping shown on this column because, according to you, it was too short?

 

[Gamolon]

Here's why you're wrong. Again. Look at this photo I marked up.

As the text in the picture asks, how in the hell did a shape charge, placed parallel to the face of the plate make 45 degree angle jagged cuts (shown with the red lines on the photo) THROUGH the plate?

YOU'RE FULL OF CRAP!

Hey Terral. No explanation for this eh?

Still no explanation for this genius?

Eots, since Terral can't explain this with his bullshit like he has tried to explain other events, maybe you'd like to try?

Can you tell me why the thermite cutting charge placed on left face on this beam made 45 degree directional groves through the plate? How can an explosive cutting charge placed parallel to the face of that plate, when detonated, make 45 degree grooves thrpugh that plate? The force of the detonation would be perpendicular (or 90 degrees) to the outside face of that plate, thus making grooves in that direction.

Care to explain?

 

[Gamolon]

And the BEST one of all?

This photo annotated by Terral in which he CLEARLY says that there are no burns from fire OR melted steel caused by fire.

Yet he says that the steel pictured in the photo was SEVERED by thermite cutting charges.

Hey Terral. Was your plan to debunk your own claims within the same photo?

 

[Terral]

Hi Gam:

Terral? Eots?

Nobody wants to answer the questions?

For the umpteenth time: Gam can show us his "Building Fires Did It" explanation in a thesis statement, claims, evidence and conclusions, if he ever grows a pair and actually wants to debate the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Topic. Asking a billion questions does not make the Official Cover Story Case 'and' Gam very well knows it. Your problem is that thousands of massive steel-frame supports were 'cut' at the same time to allow this 47-story skyscraper . . .

. . . to collapse into its own footprint . . .

. . . in mere seconds like this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]Gam Wants To Believe 'This' Happened From Building Fires!!![/ame]

Again, there are only 'two' (2) theories for what took WTC-7 down CD-style into its own footprint:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires/Debris. << Gam is pushing this fantasy, but refuses to present his case. :0)

Any rebuttal to my Opening Post CD Presentation 'must' be supported by a thesis statement ("Building Fires Did It") and claims ("Fires Cut Thousands Of Massive 2800-degree Supports," Etc.) and evidence ("Good Luck Gam") and conclusions ("Gam Is Pushing Official Cover Story LIES" and has no case). However, Gam HAS NO CASE. Period. So he stumbles around on my topic throwing stones at a Controlled Demolition Case that he does NOT even begin to understand. The Opening Post makes the Case that WTC-7 was built using "Compartmentalization" of all steel supports, which rules out any possibility of DEATH BY FIRE.

911Research Website:

5.3.3 Compartmentalization

Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.

Figure 5-11 Compartmentalization provided by concrete floor slabs.

A zoned smoke control system was present in WTC 7. This system was designed to pressurize the floors above and below the floor of alarm, and exhaust the floor of alarm to limit smoke and heat spread.

The fireproofing material used to protect the structural members has been identified by Silverstein Properties as "Monokote." The Port Authority informed the BPS Team that New York City Building Code Construction Classification 1B (2-hour rating for beams, girders, trusses, and 3-hour rating for columns) was specified for WTC 7 in accordance with the architectural specifications on the construction notes drawing PA-O. According to the Port Authority, the construction notes on drawing PA-O also specified the following:

• Exterior wall columns (columns engaged in masonry walls) shall be fireproofed on the exterior side with 2-inch solid gypsum, 3-inch hollow gypsum, 2-inch concrete or spray-on fireproofing.
• Interior columns shall be fireproofed with materials and have rating conforming with Section C26-313.3 (27-269 current section).
• Beams and girders shall be fireproofed with 2-inch grade Portland cement concrete, Gritcrete, or spray-on fireproofing or other materials rendering a 2-hour fire rating.

The Port Authority stated that it believed the thickness of the spray-on fireproofing was determined by the fireproofing trade for the specific structural sections used, based on the Underwriters Laboratories formula for modifications, which were reviewed by the Architect/Engineer of Record during the shop drawing submittal. Spray-on fireproofing, as required by the code, was also listed on the drawing as an item subject to controlled inspections, in accordance with Section C26-106.3 (27-132 current section). The Architect/Engineer of Record was responsible for ensuring that the proper thickness was applied. The Port Authority had extended its fireproofing inspection program to this building.

The limited WTC-7 building fires could NOT penetrate the masonry Compartmentalization Countermeasures to then 'cut' massive steel-frame supports to provide a 'symmetrical collapse.' You just saw that WTC-7 was in full free fall 'and' no sign of building fires were seen through any of the unbroken windows! Gam has no theory on how thousands of massive steel-frame supports were 'cut' by building fires (impossible) or any other method. Period! The ONLY answer that makes ANY sense whatsoever is that WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition, which is presented in the OP of this thread.

1. What caused the steel part of this building to collapse?

The Madrid fire lasted for more than a day like a torch . . .

. . . but the steel-frame itself did not collapse CD-style like WTC-7 'and' in just a few hours.

2. How did this fire burn for 18 to 20 hours? According to Terral, fires burn up the source and move on.

The SchwabCorp/UL data applies to typical building fires 'and' the Madrid fire was obviously not typical. Gam is comparing apples to oranges, because the Madrid skyscraper burned for more than a day and DID NOT COLLAPSE, when WTC-7 burned for a few hours and COLLAPSED COMPLETELY.

3. This fire reached 1472F. What happened to your claim of building fires only burning between 800F and 1000F?

The fact is that Gam has 'no precedent' for overbuilt steel-frame skyscrapers collapsing CD-style from building fires. Period. Perhaps Gam would have a case, IF the Madrid skyscraper burned for a few hours and 'then' collapsed into its own footprint leaving the adjacent buildings unscathed. However, if anybody here wants to follow Gam and his "Official Cover Story LIE," then more power to you! The Official Cover Story DUPES around here help to prove my thesis that The USA "IS" Worthy Of Utter Destruction Off The Face Of The Earth (#9).

Keep up the good work . . .

Terral