The great thermite debate.

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
That collapse of yours training tell you this? lol! Sometimes buildings collapse without even being exposed to fire or earthquakes. :o

http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblogs/explorer/2005/09/collapse.html
I figured i would check out your link, but since it wasn't a steel framed skyscraper with a massive reinforced core it really isn't a very good illustration of how skyscrapers just all of a sudden collapse, not once, not twice, but three times in a single day in the same place. Just because a fire chief decides that after seeing 2 skyscrapers collapse, leaving him in disbelief but nonetheless he decides to play it safe and tells people to be prepared for a collapse since, well the near impossible just happened.......twice, isn't really justification as proof that it was going to collapse as it did. Something happened to those buildings, Whether it was Nano thermite, directed energy weapons, Israelis, OBL or Martians is irrelevant at this point.

Ben Rich said:
We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity....Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I figured i would check out your link, but since it wasn't a steel framed skyscraper with a massive reinforced core it really isn't a very good illustration of how skyscrapers just all of a sudden collapse, not once, not twice, but three times in a single day in the same place. Just because a fire chief decides that after seeing 2 skyscrapers collapse, leaving him in disbelief but nonetheless he decides to play it safe and tells people to be prepared for a collapse since, well the near impossible just happened.......twice, isn't really justification as proof that it was going to collapse as it did. Something happened to those buildings, Whether it was Nano thermite, directed energy weapons, Israelis, OBL or Martians is irrelevant at this point.
????????????????????????????????????????
[youtube]bgm8dNJvM6k[/youtube]
[youtube]3uldHldT6Cg&NR=1[/youtube]
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
I figured i would check out your link, but since it wasn't a steel framed skyscraper with a massive reinforced core it really isn't a very good illustration of how skyscrapers just all of a sudden collapse, not once, not twice, but three times in a single day in the same place. Just because a fire chief decides that after seeing 2 skyscrapers collapse, leaving him in disbelief but nonetheless he decides to play it safe and tells people to be prepared for a collapse since, well the near impossible just happened.......twice, isn't really justification as proof that it was going to collapse as it did. Something happened to those buildings, Whether it was Nano thermite, directed energy weapons, Israelis, OBL or Martians is irrelevant at this point.
..........never mind that the building had several overt signs of collapse hours before it came down. The buildings didn't suddenly come down. The whole process of collapse took several hours. Structural members were weakening and failing inside building 7 for at least a few hourse before it came down. More convenient ignoring of facts or did you miss all that? I personally saw these signs! Numerous firemen saw these signs. They woudln't have been there in a demo would they? Or was this more "window dressing" to cover whatever shadow group perpetrated this true intentions? :roll:
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
..........never mind that the building had several overt signs of collapse hours before it came down. The buildings didn't suddenly come down. The whole process of collapse took several hours. Structural members were weakening and failing inside building 7 for at least a few hourse before it came down. More convenient ignoring of facts or did you miss all that? I personally saw these signs! Numerous firemen saw these signs. They woudln't have been there in a demo would they? Or was this more "window dressing" to cover whatever shadow group perpetrated this true intentions? :roll:
You were inside building 7 before it collapsed?
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
You were inside building 7 before it collapsed?
OMFG!!!!! Seriously dude?:wall::wall::wall:


o·vert (
-vûrt
,
vûrt
) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]ADJECTIVE:[/SIZE]

  1. Open and observable; not hidden, concealed, or secret: overt hostility; overt intelligence gathering.
  2. Of, relating to, or being military or intelligence operations sanctioned or mandated by Congress: [SIZE=+0]overt aid to the rebels.[/SIZE]
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/overt
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
OMFG!!!!! Seriously dude?:wall::wall::wall:


o·vert (
-vûrt
,
vûrt
) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]ADJECTIVE:[/SIZE]


  1. Open and observable; not hidden, concealed, or secret: overt hostility; overt intelligence gathering.
  2. Of, relating to, or being military or intelligence operations sanctioned or mandated by Congress: [SIZE=-0]overt aid to the rebels.[/SIZE]
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/overt
You said you could see all the INSIDE structural members weakening before they collapsed. There is no way to see that without being inside. And there is no way you could see what NIST says failed first, since it wasn't on the side with the damage.

Structural members were weakening and failing inside building 7 for at least a few hourse before it came down. More convenient ignoring of facts or did you miss all that? I personally saw these signs!
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
You said you could see all the INSIDE structural members weakening before they collapsed. There is no way to see that without being inside. And there is no way you could see what NIST says failed first, since it wasn't on the side with the damage.
I never said nor did I ever imply in any way that I was inside that building. You are now taking even MORE shit I've said out of context. Alright, since you like to play semantics and mince words and take things out of context, let me try to spell it out for you best I can. Overt signs means that there are things happening with the building that tell you a loss of structural support INSIDE the building is occurring. Leaning, bulging, shit falling off the building are all really strong clues that a collapse is imminent (when you are seeing signs on the OUTSIDE of the building it is assumed that a loss of structural support is occurring within), which also leads one to conclude what is going on INSIDE the building. I can't see INSIDE of your body but when you display certain OVERT symptoms, it can be ASSUMED with a good degree of certainty what is going on. Case in point: you just fell 12 feet off of an extension ladder while painting your house. You fall onto your right arm. You are experiencing extreme pain and your arm is shaped like an "L" now. I can't X-ray it on the scene, but I can assume with a good degree of certainty that your arm is broken. Same with buildings.:cool:
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
So if My house has a wall that is leaning 5 degrees too much, does that mean it will collapse soon? IF a Skyscraper is 100% engulfed in flames hot enough to weaken steel , will it fall? Remember there can't be any structural damage to building 7 because your evidence you are using to convince me of such clearly states that the building came down because of fire, not structural damage. The reason they don't include structural damage in the report is because there is none. So you either believe all of what NIST tells you or NONE of it. You don't get to cherry pick the data that agrees with you and then also say you don't agree with it. You either agree with the NIST report or you don't, there is no half way.

What exactly are all the overt signs of collape? NIST must have a list of them, can you tell me what they are? Remember do not mention structural damage, because there was none. Thermal Expansion (A Brand new phenomenon) was to blame right?

I find FEMA's statement to be thought provoking...
FEMA said:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
You should just ignore that, don't mention anything or you will have to come up with a brand new argument instead of "NIST says so".
 

hazyintentions

Well-Known Member
So if My house has a wall that is leaning 5 degrees too much, does that mean it will collapse soon? IF a Skyscraper is 100% engulfed in flames hot enough to weaken steel , will it fall? Remember there can't be any structural damage to building 7 because your evidence you are using to convince me of such clearly states that the building came down because of fire, not structural damage. The reason they don't include structural damage in the report is because there is none. So you either believe all of what NIST tells you or NONE of it. You don't get to cherry pick the data that agrees with you and then also say you don't agree with it. You either agree with the NIST report or you don't, there is no half way.

What exactly are all the overt signs of collape? NIST must have a list of them, can you tell me what they are? Remember do not mention structural damage, because there was none. Thermal Expansion (A Brand new phenomenon) was to blame right?

I find FEMA's statement to be thought provoking... You should just ignore that, don't mention anything or you will have to come up with a brand new argument instead of "NIST says so".
Somewhere it there you said there was no structural damage, I know you where making a point but that will likely be ginja and doc's argument at this point.

Those planes did a shit ton of damage to the particular area's where the towers were hit. That is unanimous. What tickles my curiosity is why they didn't fall over from the point of impact, if the plane really did sever so many columns in one corner/face of the building why should i come crashing straight down...

Didn't the damaged upper section WTC 2 have a near 20% lean to the rest of the building at one point before the collapse?

I'm not buying that cookie..
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
So if My house has a wall that is leaning 5 degrees too much, does that mean it will collapse soon? IF a Skyscraper is 100% engulfed in flames hot enough to weaken steel , will it fall? Remember there can't be any structural damage to building 7 because your evidence you are using to convince me of such clearly states that the building came down because of fire, not structural damage. The reason they don't include structural damage in the report is because there is none. So you either believe all of what NIST tells you or NONE of it. You don't get to cherry pick the data that agrees with you and then also say you don't agree with it. You either agree with the NIST report or you don't, there is no half way.

What exactly are all the overt signs of collape? NIST must have a list of them, can you tell me what they are? Remember do not mention structural damage, because there was none. Thermal Expansion (A Brand new phenomenon) was to blame right?

I find FEMA's statement to be thought provoking... You should just ignore that, don't mention anything or you will have to come up with a brand new argument instead of "NIST says so".
Depends. Is it a load bearing wall? What happened to cause the wall to be "leaning 5 degrees too much"? Nothing is ever a certainty and in some instances structures can be stabilized and a collapse can be prevented. We've already discussed the role design plays. That is perhaps one reason why one building collapses and another does not. NIST doesn't say there was no structural damage. They say that they don't believe, and perhaps because they have no evidence to support it, the damage sustained by the collapsing towers played a role in Bldg. 7's collapse. All those other fires you are bringing up, I've attempted to point out MAJOR differences in some of those other fires and the WTC 7 fires, such as the lack of pressure and failing sprinkler systems, the fact that the FDNY got little to no water on those fires. Collapse is an ever present concern in virtually any fire. Does that mean that every structure fire will have a collapse? Of course not! :blsmoke:

Nothing is black and white in this world. Why would building collapses and fires be any different?


You asked what the signs of collapse are. Here is an exerpt of an article titled The Signs of Impending Building Collapse from "Fire Engineering" which is a very popular publication and website for firefighters.

Building movement most times is very subtle. But a moving building is a collapsing building. For what other signs-in addition to cracks, bulges, leaning walls-should we be looking?
Additional signs. Sagging horizontal membranes can indicate an impending full or partial collapse. Some of us never think of ceiling failure as a potential problem. I remember that an entire tin ceiling of a large living room dropped all at once as I touched it with my hook. It slammed my officer into the corner remote from the entrance. He was brought to his knees as he was buried by the "wave of tin." The lieutenant was the greatest truck officer with whom I had ever worked. As he freed himself and reached the top of the pile, he said to me, "Great pull, kid!" But it can be an entrapment hazard.
Such is the case with the local collapse of suspended ceilings supporting tiles and light fixtures. If the accompanying fireball follows, it can seriously impede your exit effort. Watch the ceilings above you for early sagging. If there is sagging, pull the ceiling as you advance, or it most assuredly will come down after you pass under it.
Sagging floors and roofs. Sagging of more serious membranes and floors and roofs is a special collapse indicator, after a lengthy firefight, from a remote location-an adjoining occupancy in the same building or (heaven forbid) from the outside. If you are standing on the floor or roof, look for puddles. If you walk from one wall to the opposite side wall and your feet get wet, the floor or roof is sagging and "pooling" water. Report it to Command, and determine if dewatering by cutting holes is an option and necessary or whether you should recommend evacuation.
Remember, you must suggest some action to Command. You are the only one who can see the condition. If the level of floors is in doubt, open the walls at the base to inspect the beam ends. Which walls? The two opposite each other supporting the shortest dimension of the floor is a great first choice. Construction engineers are just like us-frugal. They buy the shortest support lumber or steel possible-and this is located between the two bearing walls that are closest to each other.
In dwellings, look at the finished floor. If the wood abutting the walls described above has a "new wood" finish (is lighter in color), the indicator is blatant. The wall is leaving the floor, or the floor is leaving the wall. In either case, give your report as you are exiting the building.
Wall openings. More indicators of building movement can be found in monitoring the openings in the walls-the doors, windows, and passageways. Are they square? Do the doors still fit? Can you close them? Have the windows cracked for no reason? Are the frames square in the window frame? If not, the building is probably moving. Together with other signs of collapse, these are clues that you should change the strategy to defensive as soon as possible.
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-153/issue-7/departments/random-thoughts/the-signs-of-impending-building-collapse.html
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-153/issue-7/departments/random-thoughts/the-signs-of-impending-building-collapse.html[/URL]
Great article, but I am confused on how you tear down a floor in a skyscraper to prevent it falling down on you. the floors are made of steel and concrete, seems like it would be hard to do that. Perhaps this article is only meant to inform people of building collapses in anything other than Skyscrapers? I didn't see any sagging in any of those buildings on 9/11. I assume the firefighters also didn't see any sagging or they would have torn out the ceilings that were sagging.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Great article, but I am confused on how you tear down a floor in a skyscraper to prevent it falling down on you. the floors are made of steel and concrete, seems like it would be hard to do that. Perhaps this article is only meant to inform people of building collapses in anything other than Skyscrapers? I didn't see any sagging in any of those buildings on 9/11. I assume the firefighters also didn't see any sagging or they would have torn out the ceilings that were sagging.
So this time you're going to focus on "sagging celings"? lmfao!!!!!!!!!! I guess you are entitled to take what you wish from the article but I was trying to give you an independent source that spelled out how subtle the signs of collapse can be. It doesn't matter if it's a 10' X 10' shed or a 47 story steel frame skyscraper. There are special considerations for nearly every building type and without a doubt, skyscraper fires are some of the most technically challenging, physically demanding and dangerous types of fires to fight. Try humping 100+ pounds of gear up 47 flights of stairs! I've had to do it..........multiple times!!!!!! lol! It's a bitch. I remember the first time I ever fought a highrise fire, we had to go up to the 28th floor and had to go up the stairs since the elevators weren't operable. I was pale as a ghost and about ready to pass the fuck out and I hadn't even started fighting the fire yet, but I digress. For some reason I cannot get on the NIST site today. I am pretty sure it discusses bulging and leaning that was witnessed by numerous firefighters that day, myself included. Shit was falling off that building, cracking..............the building was moving! It may be many times larger than your average structure fire, but structures are structures. They are all susceptible to collapse if exposed to the right conditions.:leaf:

BTW, pulling ceilings has nothing to do with stabilizing a structure or preventing collapse.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
So this time you're going to focus on "sagging celings"? lmfao!!!!!!!!!! I guess you are entitled to take what you wish from the article but I was trying to give you an independent source that spelled out how subtle the signs of collapse can be. It doesn't matter if it's a 10' X 10' shed or a 47 story steel frame skyscraper. There are special considerations for nearly every building type and without a doubt, skyscraper fires are some of the most technically challenging, physically demanding and dangerous types of fires to fight. Try humping 100+ pounds of gear up 47 flights of stairs! I've had to do it..........multiple times!!!!!! lol! It's a bitch. I remember the first time I ever fought a highrise fire, we had to go up to the 28th floor and had to go up the stairs since the elevators weren't operable. I was pale as a ghost and about ready to pass the fuck out and I hadn't even started fighting the fire yet, but I digress. For some reason I cannot get on the NIST site today. I am pretty sure it discusses bulging and leaning that was witnessed by numerous firefighters that day, myself included. Shit was falling off that building, cracking..............the building was moving! It may be many times larger than your average structure fire, but structures are structures. They are all susceptible to collapse if exposed to the right conditions.:leaf:

BTW, pulling ceilings has nothing to do with stabilizing a structure or preventing collapse.
I only learned to fight aircraft and ship fires, I don't know anything about fires that cause skyscrapers to collapse. I know exactly how hard fighting fires it is, but that has little to do with skyscrapers collapsing.

Your article, while informative and useful if you are in a regular masonry or stick frame building and are INSIDE it, then yeah it seems to make sense, but since no one was inside Building 7 to asses the damage or even see any puddles of water forming on the floor because of deformation, just how in the hell are you supposed to know? Find me an article written before 911 that tells firefighters exactly how to know if a skyscraper is going to collapse without anyone having to go inside. If you can find that article, then i will concede the whole argument to you and will start believing the MSM view that a few guys hijacked planes and rammed them into buildings and the fires did it.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
Are you trying to point out how an undamaged floor 10 stories above a floor on fire catches fire itself, but none of the floors between them do? Seems odd, its like having a fire in your neighbors apartment, and your apartment doesn't take any damage, but the apartment on the other side of you catches fire and burns down also. Seems weird doesn't it? Also the word that NIST uses is "likely" which means they are just guessing (educated guessing) at how it happened. In fact the WHOLE entire NIST report is nothing more than a giant GUESS.
Elevator shafts become Chimneys
Ventilation Ducts become Chimneys

Dude God Could tell you himself that 9/11 was not an inside job and you still wouldnt believe him because it fits your world view and sense of self to believe otherwise No matter what the facts are
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Elevator shafts become Chimneys
Ventilation Ducts become Chimneys

Dude God Could tell you himself that 9/11 was not an inside job and you still wouldnt believe him because it fits your world view and sense of self to believe otherwise No matter what the facts are
Elevator shafts become chimneys? But just on 9/11 right? otherwise they don't become chimneys.

If God came down and told me the fires did it, I would believe him, but I can make an assumption with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certainty that it will NEVER happen in a trillion billion years.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
I only learned to fight aircraft and ship fires, I don't know anything about fires that cause skyscrapers to collapse. I know exactly how hard fighting fires it is, but that has little to do with skyscrapers collapsing.

Your article, while informative and useful if you are in a regular masonry or stick frame building and are INSIDE it, then yeah it seems to make sense, but since no one was inside Building 7 to asses the damage or even see any puddles of water forming on the floor because of deformation, just how in the hell are you supposed to know? Find me an article written before 911 that tells firefighters exactly how to know if a skyscraper is going to collapse without anyone having to go inside. If you can find that article, then i will concede the whole argument to you and will start believing the MSM view that a few guys hijacked planes and rammed them into buildings and the fires did it.
Bro, the web is much too cluttered up with 9/11 sites to even BEGIN to find any literature pre-9/11 dealing with skyscraper collapse danger. I'm here to tell ya, it's been a subject of conversation in the fire service for years before 9/11! You are free to go talk to a few old school firemen and see what they have to say about skyscraper fires and the danger of collapse. Unfortunately our minds are polluted with the images of that day and nobody, least of all a fireman is going to be able to seperate his emotions from that terrible day. What I'm saying is there probably were some ignorant ass firemen or some arrogant ass firemen who THOUGHT skyscrapers couldn't collapse. A WHOLE lot of people thought the Titanic was unsinkable. Engineering disasters, and 9/11 was an engineering disaster of a sort IMO, have been with us since the beginning of time! This is nothing new. Skyscrapers collapsing may be a new thing and we've gone back and forth for days about this and it's painfully obvious you are going to continue to poo-poo any link I can provide by finding SOME small flaw in it that you think somehow bolsters your argument. It's not about winning a debate for me. This subject, I am EXTREMELY passionate about! I have a very personal connection to the events of that day and the days that followed. Whatever anyone believes, that day changed us all for better or worse (I believe it's mostly been for the worse) but there were some good things that came out of that tragic day. Skyscrapers built from this point on will be built safer, to be sure. My only caveat is we should be careful having faith in the ingenuity of man. It usually fails us in some way, large or small. No matter how safe our tall buildings seem there are always going to be things that can happen that no structural engineer or regulatory body could forsee. Human arrogance has gotten us into trouble thinking things, no matter how statistically miniscule the odds of something happening, were not possible that turned out to actually be possible. Odds mean jackshit in the real world, surely you've been around long enough to experience this? If something has the slightest chance of happening, it probably will happen at some point. Perhaps that day, the bad guys really did get lucky by causing as much chaos as they did, but I have little doubt it was anybody other than who MSM and others have told us it was. :blsmoke:

Here is one more link for you to check out. Make sure you check out the 3 videos embedded in the page. They are all just a couple of minutes long but I think you'll find them worth the watch. It has nothing to do with skyscrapers or pre-9/11 skyscraper collapse danger or warning signs, but regardless of the internal structure, for the most part buildings will all exhibit the same basic types of warning signs from the exterior. Maybe not all of them and it could be any combination and occasionally they give virtually no warning at all or the warning signs are so subtle that even some of the finest, most well trained firemen in the world miss them. Enjoy!:mrgreen:

http://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-safety/articles/458061-Building-Collapse-Learn-the-Warning-Signs/
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Elevator shafts become chimneys? But just on 9/11 right? otherwise they don't become chimneys.

If God came down and told me the fires did it, I would believe him, but I can make an assumption with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certainty that it will NEVER happen in a trillion billion years.
Perhaps in a trillion billion years those odds will have been wittled down enough to actually make that a possibility! lmfao!!!!!:p
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Top