One million New Yorkers to see Building 7 fall (AE911truth)

[edit on 27-8-2010 by okbmd]

Doing it your way Dave would produce an oxygen starved low temperature fire.

I wanted the firs to get a absolutely hot as the fuel would allow.

My way shows the heat at maximum temp for the longest most continuous period of time.

Fires inside buildings are starved for oxygen.

Remember the smoke from WTC 1 & @ after the initial flameup. Thick black smoke---oxygen starved low temperature fire Dave.

There were even scores of people waving from the entry hole of the plane it was cool enough to allow them to sit/stand there for a couple of hours.

Low temperature oxygen starved fire. Identical conditiions in WTC 7.
Plus WTC 7 still had the sprinkling system intact.

G.O.D. aka GOODOLDAVEwhere did the 500,000 gallons of water disappear to that was on top of WTC1 and WTC2?

That combined Dave is 1,000,000 gallons of water.

Do you recall seeing any water anywhere after WTC 1-2-7 imploded.

I did not observe any of the characteristics of water in the near or general vicinity of the collapse scene.

Just protoplasmic dust from pulverized, vaporized sublimated and evaporated construction material.

1,000,000 gallons of water, at 8 pounds per gallon, is 8 million pounds of water.

Did the water evaporate from the heat.
Did the water get all used up trying to put the fires out?
Did the water get drained a couple of weeks prior to 911?

Anyway that is one fact that I would make sure the watchers of the video of WTC 7 get told, is about how much water was on the top of WTC7, or at least how much was supposed to be on top of WTC7.

Originally posted by slugger9787
G.O.D. aka GOODOLDAVEwhere did the 500,000 gallons of water disappear to that was on top of WTC1 and WTC2?

That combined Dave is 1,000,000 gallons of water.

How many toilet seats in the WTC were up vs how many were down when it collapsed? What effect did the collapse have on the coke vending machines as compared to the potato chip vending machines? Who the flip cares?

We can see right away from the condition of the WTC steel that they weren't destroyed by any super duper secret explosives. They were all either snapped like twigs or torn like paper. Plus, the people clearing up ground zero were all experiences steel workers so they'd know right away if somethign suspicious happened to the building. There is ZERO tangible evidence of any sabotage so argung over frivolous things like what effect the collapse had on the water in the tanks is some pretty desperate straw grasping on your part.

Originally posted by slugger9787
Remember the smoke from WTC 1 & @ after the initial flameup. Thick black smoke---oxygen starved low temperature fire Dave.

Rubbish.

Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke..

www.hse.gov.uk...

Originally posted by slugger9787
There were even scores of people waving from the entry hole of the plane it was cool enough to allow them to sit/stand there for a couple of hours.

It was apparently so cool, that Edna Cintron felt she had to jump...

Originally posted by slugger9787
Doing it your way Dave would produce an oxygen starved low temperature fire.

You must come from the city. Fires NEED to be concentrated exactly like this to continue burning becuase it stops the heat from escaping. When you create a camp fire, the wood needs to be piled around the kindling in a way to create an internal pocket to trap the heat. Fires in fireplaces with enclosed glass doors work the same way. You don't need to worry about the fire finding air- unless it's in a vacuum or underwater, it'll find air. The last time I created a camp fire, I created it exactly like this and it was burning nicely even though it was drizzling...but then some clueless idiot came by and started pushing the wood around to make it look more pretty, and he opened up the internal pocket I created and it quickly fizzled out. Grrrr...

Whatever. I don't pretend to be a fire expert, but when I hear that the heat from a fire burning inside a building can get concentrated enough to cause thermal expansion on the steel, I can definitely believe it. I know becuase I've seen the principle in action, only in miniature.

Thick black smoke---oxygen starved low temperature fire Dave.

Baloney. The smoke was fuel rich, not oxygen starved. They're NOT the same thing.

Before I continue, I just want to know one thing- did YOU read the NIST report on the WTC 7 collapse?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


So who piled all the desks and file cabinets together in WTC 7.

You are as much self proclaimed expert on firearms as you are on fires.

I brought up the water as it has a direct bearing on the fire supression, and it is not even relatd to coke machines and potato chip machines or toilet seats.

The pathos present of bringing up superfulous items like that to ridicule others point of view is brilliant.

Dave a fuel rich fire is EXACTLY the same thing as oxygen starved.

Too much fuel + too little oxygen = fuel rich/oxygen lean (read starved)
Too much oxygen + too little fuel = fuel lean (read starved)/oxygen rich.

Fuels burn best at a ratio of @ 15:1.
15 parts oxygen to 1 part fuel.
Too much oxygen and not enough fuel does not burn well.
Too much fuel and too little oxygen burns with lots of smoke due to incomplete combustion due to not enough oxygen for available fuel.

Even simple auto mechanics and peon welders know this in order to be successful in their lines of work.
Also junior cub scouts are learning this at about age eight.
How about it Dave.
It is the same thing. Fuel rich equals oxygen starved.

I trust you know as much about firearms and ballistics.

Originally posted by slugger9787
I brought up the water as it has a direct bearing on the fire supression, and it is not even relatd to coke machines and potato chip machines or toilet seats.

...nor is it related to the physical mechanics of the collapse of WTC 7. The tanks were (as you pointed out) on the roofs of WTC 1 and 2, where the planes impacted. Your casually flipping from WTC 7 to WTC 1 and 2 and back as it suits your argument is known as "misdirection".

I can make a conjecture that the plane impacts damaged the fire suppression capabilities on the floors that were struck which makes the available water supply moot (which is exactly what the 9/11 commission report says happened to WTC 7), so instead of arguing over what happened to all the water, you're really arguing exactly how many fire sprinklers were destroyed vs how many were left intact after the impacts that could still distribute the water. It's still on the list of "who the flip cares", becuase the answer is, "obviously, not enough".

The pathos present of bringing up superfulous items like that to ridicule others point of view is brilliant.

Thanks, but it's hardly brilliance to point out the glaring problems in your statements, namely, because there are so many of them. I've already mentioned numerous times that the steel at ground zero showed NO signs of sabotage so it's not for debate that whatever did cause the towers to fall, sabotage wasn't it. Whatever it is you're arguing about is therefore moot.

When you create a camp fire, the wood needs to be piled around the kindling in a way to create an internal pocket to trap the heat.

This is not even close being true. Please research what you post before you post it. I realize its just a small fallacy about campfires but you use it to "debunk" building fire theory.

Its just ridiculous to think that if you can't even get the small facts right that you are serious about debating the events of 911.

You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.

Originally posted by slugger9787
Dave a fuel rich fire is EXACTLY the same thing as oxygen starved.

Too much fuel + too little oxygen = fuel rich/oxygen lean (read starved)
Too much oxygen + too little fuel = fuel lean (read starved)/oxygen rich.

All right, I'm not going to follow you down these ridiculous rat holes of yours any longer. Let's nip this arguement in the bud right now.

Read this over and over until it finally sinks in- THERE WERE NO SIGNS OF SABOTAGE ON THE STEEL BEING PICKED UP AT GROUND ZERO. Bickering over these side tangents of what happened to the water in WTC 1 and 2 or whether fuel rich means the same thing as oxygen starved doesn't make any difference becuase THERE WERE NO SIGNS OF SABOTAGE ON THE STEEL BEING PICKED UP AT GROUND ZERO. At best, all it means is that both the NIST report *and* these conspiracy claims of sabotage might be wrong and the collapse was caused by some as-yet unknown reason.

I have no agenda so I can live with that. Can you?

Originally posted by jprophet420

When you create a camp fire, the wood needs to be piled around the kindling in a way to create an internal pocket to trap the heat.

This is not even close being true. Please research what you post before you post it. I realize its just a small fallacy about campfires but you use it to "debunk" building fire theory.

Then please explain why, whenever I create a fire using this principle, it always works, and whenever others create a fire while ignoring this principle, they always go through three times the work to get the thing started. I have to believe fire works the same way here in Connecticut the same way it works where you are.

This is really netiher here nor there. This guy is attempting to claim the fires inside WTC 7 was oxygen starved and therefore of low temperature, which is ridiculous. The NYFD specifically told Silverstein the fires in WTC 7 were out of control, which is what sparked that whole "pull it" bit to begin with. Not even your own evidence suggesting conspiracy backs the claim up.

Before I go any further, let me ask you the same question everyone else is avoiding like roadkill- did YOU actually read the NIST report?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


1. Yes, I read it. I noticed they were unable to show the math. I read it anyway.

2. No, I have started many a camp fire. I am positive you can successfully start a campfire without trapping the heat.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
C)A ccording to NIST, the fires caused column 79 to overheat and expand, and becuase the steel was vertical and couldn't expand up or down, it expanded sideways, pushing the horizontal girder between columns 79 and 44 and causing floor 13 to collapse. The NIST report go into all of that so I'm not going to waste my time repeating it here to satisfy this weird little game playing of yours.

so thats what caused wtc 7 to come down? hmmm.... now my first question is why wouldn't the steel expand inward, instead of outward against the girders which would obviously have more resistance but we can ignore that

also how much did the steel expand?

lets assume worst case, I couldn't find any info on how thick the steel was for wtc 7, but wtc 1 and 2 used 5 inch thick steal for their columns at the base, which would be way over kill for wtc 7 at floor 13, but lets just use 5 inches.

how much did the steel get heated? I have no idea but, lets assume the steel is normally at zero degrees why not? and it got heated to 2500 degrees which would melt it, but lets just use some numbers

0.00000645in*in*deg F - forumla for steel expansion

0.00000645in*5*2500F = 0.080625 n. which obviously it would of been alot less.

so .08in was enough to cause a grider to fail?

or are we going to assume that the entire column expanded in the direction of column 44 and in no other direction? biggest column I could find is again from wtc1 and 2 so would be way oversized for wtc 7, is 52inx22in. so ill assume the same thing as above and that all 52 inches expanded in the direction of column 44.

0.00000645in*52*2500F = 0.8385 so even at an impossible amount of expansion, you think less than an inch caused a grider to fail? and mind you the amont of expansion would obviously be alot less.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave, You constantly belittle, deride, chide and attempt to make others appear ignorant.

I brought up the fire business so you would make a fool of yourself on your next several posts.

Now others have realized how little you know about basic things like fires and oxygen, water effect on fires and are spending their time tying to help you understand fires.

Like I sid earlier, I have faith you know as much about fire arms as you do fire.

In the sequence of still photos of WTC7 from the beginning of the day to 5:21 pm the fires ar seen getting smaler and smaller, and emitting less and less smoke, but accoring to you the fires are getting out of control, and now hot enough to expand steel to the point of collapse.

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat and the one thing better than that is water.

A 43 story piece of steel, is going to heat up uniformly, no all the steel is gong to heat up uniformly over the whole building to cause it to expans and initiate the collapse sequence.

Originally posted by jprophet420
1. Yes, I read it. I noticed they were unable to show the math. I read it anyway.

How can they possibly show the math? The entire report was an educated estimate on how the WTC 7 collapsed becuase there were too many unknowns. There's no way in creation they could ever know the exact temperatures the fires reached, the exact spot where the initial loss of structural integrity occurred, the distribution of flammable objects in the building, what damage the impact of the wreckage may have had on the fireproofing of the steel, the exact physical procession of the collapse, or any of that. You can't calculate A + B = C is if you only know the value of A.

2. No, I have started many a camp fire. I am positive you can successfully start a campfire without trapping the heat.

I must tell you that I'm immune to strawman arguments as well. I didn't say you couldn't start a fire without trapping the heat. I said you should trap the heat to keep the fire going. You don't *need* to trap the heat, but then again you shouldn't *need* to use gasoline on a camp fire either.

Dude, don't even go there. The more you try to drag the topic off on these side tangents, the more you're only showing your desperation in keeping these conspiracy stories of yours alive.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Strawman.

Seriously feeble off-topic effort.

Well said, Lucidity! When I hear lame debunking efforts like that from the peanut gallery I think of the scene from A FEW GOOD MEN:

"TRUTH!? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

reply to post by GoodOlDave


David, Here is a quote from your most recent post.

"Dude, don't even go there. The more you try to drag the topic off on these side tangents, the more you're only showing your desperation in keeping these conspiracy stories of yours alive."

Now Dave go look at your very first post in this thread, very off topic, tangential, peripheral comments, then all you've done is scold others ever since them.

My grampa told me this when I was a lad:

"Every D.O.G. smells his own stink first."

This should remind you what the water should of done!