Ever notice the odd fires and broken windows of Building 7?

[rollingrock]

The arrows are pointing to the two sides of the building that had the
broken windows and visible (but limited) fires. Notice what's odd about it?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. And the south side was almost pristine by comparison...

:eyes:

[rollingrock]

2. If there were fires and shattered windows

one would think they would be on the south side, no?

[Bolo Boffin]

3. There were fires and shattered windows on the south side. n/t

[rollingrock]

4. Pics?

every source I've seen says they were on the north and east.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Pics.

That's the southwest corner.



Top southwest corner.



Composite picture of damage to the southside.



South damage low in the building.



Fire, described as "fully involved" by firefighters.

[rollingrock]

9. That's not the south side /nt

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Yes, it is. n/t

[jberryhill]

13. It most certainly is

The smoky side is the south side.

Take a look at the bottom picture in Bolo's post.

What's that in the foreground?

IT IS THE WRECKAGE OF THE TOWERS.

Are you saying that was all moved around to some other side than the south?

That must have been one heck of an operation.

To be clear, look again:



You're saying there were collapsed buildings on the NORTH side of WTC?

What were they?

Do you want to explain why the Verizon Building is to the left side of that picture of WTC7, and the view could be from anywhere other than the SOUTH?

[Realityhack]

58. Time to admit you are wrong. n/t

[jberryhill]

5. Oooh oooh, I know....

The pictures were taken from positions that had not been evacuated by order of the FDNY because of the collapse zone that had been ordered around WTC7.

What do I win?

[rollingrock]

6. Explain please. nt

[jberryhill]

8. Draw on your diagram....

...where you want a hypothetical photographer to stand in order to take pictures of the south side.

Everything south of Vesey was evacuated.

That's why everyone is just sitting around in this video, and was for much of the day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk

[rollingrock]

10. That makes sense

but there were news choppers in the air.

[jberryhill]

12. Yes, and they took photographs....

One of the problems with photographs of the south side is that the prevailing winds essentially created a vortex on that side which, due to the smoky fires burning in WTC7, made it hard to get a clear view of much of anything on that side.

[rollingrock]

14. Ok, my original question

might end up being a non-issue.

I can see how the fires might spread from the south to the north face. But it doesn't explain what shattered the windows on the north face. Can heat from the fire make them shatter? Maybe. But then again my oven window doesn't shatter when I turn it all the way up, so I'm not sure.

[jberryhill]

15. "Can heat from the fire make them shatter?"

Absolutely.

It is why your oven window is made from special glass designed for high temperature applications.

You were joking about that part, right?

[SDuderstadt]

17. Unfortunately, he's not joking...

now you see why "truthers" are so hard to reason with....

[rollingrock]

20. I am asking reasonable questions

Unlike you, I'm not doing anything unreasonable.

[jberryhill]

22. Asking why oven tempered glass is not used for office windows is not reasonable

There are many sources online from which you can learn a lot about glass.

It is okay that you were unaware that there are wildly different types of engineered glasses for different applications.

It is not okay, having gained an indication that your basic knowledge of glass is apparently nil, not to take some steps, such as reading wikipedia entries about glass, before presuming that your ignorance of the subject has provided you with an important clue supporting an accusation of mass murder.

It is also not at all reasonable, when presented with photographs of the south side of WTC7 to state "That is not the south side" without any support, and when your assertion is manifestly wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

52. You think your oven has regular glass in it?

Please point to anything I am doing that is unreasonable.

[rollingrock]

18. But why wouldn't they do the same for office windows?

for fire safety purposes in case of emergency.

[jberryhill]

21. It's prohibitively expensive and not necessary...

I gather that you also want the rubber seals around them to be high-temperature as well.

What "safety purpose" is served by having office windows that can survive temperatures well higher than humans can?

Is someone going to be baking a cake in there?

[AZCat]

23. I can't get people to install windows with thermal breaks...

and rollingrock wants to require heat-treated glass?!

[jberryhill]

24. Well harrrumph....

I demand to be able to broil burgers on my office desk, and I'm shocked the office isn't rated for that.

I turned the thermostat up to 375 and everything!

[AZCat]

28. You have a t-stat that goes up to 375?

Is that like having an amplifier that goes to eleven?

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: These go to eleven.

[jberryhill]

30. Yes, all of my appliances are designed by the people who make stuff in James Bond movies

That's why my sauna, for example, has the lock and thermostat on the outside, and the setting goes up to "Fatal".

[AZCat]

32. Thunderball, right?

Ahh, what fun we could have if only we weren't such a litigious society.

[jberryhill]

35. Nailed it....

Now, you are definitely ready to train in my astronaut centrifuge.

[AZCat]

37. Man this is hard.

I don't think I know this one. I didn't see Moonraker, but I did see the one in Vegas where they drove around in a moon rover. I forget the name...



FYI - I've had to institute a "No Google" policy for office trivia, because it ruins the fun. I try to play the same way on forums.

[jberryhill]

40. JamesBondWiki.com

Or just order one from mi6.co.uk:

http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/q-branch/astronauttrainingcentrifuge.php3

[AZCat]

44. So it WAS Moonraker.

This is what I get for not having a TV. :(

[rollingrock]

26. The purpose would be

making them heat-proof as to limit the amount of oxygen getting in in case of fire.

If you can deprive it of oxygen getting in from the outside the fire's not going to get very far.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Have you watched the video I linked to?

It covers all of your questions.

[jberryhill]

33. You know....

You can actually study fire safety engineering for years. There are people who do that.

You should really take it up since within about 15 minutes of learning, for the first time in your life, about oven tempered glass, you have hit upon an astounding idea that will revolutionize the construction industry.

You may find that, regardless of the window situation, the occupants of your building may be interested in having a supply of oxygen that does not rely on active systems to provide it.

[rollingrock]

38. I'm not saying you're wrong

I'm saying what the benefits of heat-treated glass in an office building would be.

You say it would be cost-prohibitive to do that in most cases, so I'll just go ahead and take your word on it. You know more about it than I do.

[AZCat]

39. That's not necessarily a good idea.

We want to get rid of smoke/hot gases. Sometimes we'll set up the ventilation system to exhaust from a space when the fire alarm system trips. You have to bring in fresh air to replace the exhausted air.

[jberryhill]

43. Hell no

I'm going with rollingrock on this one.

Buildings should be hermetically sealed and air tight.

Think of the advantage. Not long after moving in, the tenants won't complain about anything.

[AZCat]

45. Hmmm. Most commercial buildings leak ~ 0.12 cfm/sqft.

You'll need to spend a pretty penny to seal your envelope 100%. It might not be a bad idea to build the building around the future tenants, to cut down on penetrations (a.k.a. leaky spots). Good luck collecting the monthly rent, though. Better get direct deposit!



On Edit: For those who really care, envelope leakage rates depend on lots of factors, including typical wind speeds and directions, construction type, building pressurization scheme, building geometry, etc. For specific information, consult your local building professionals.

[rollingrock]

47. Ok, fine

I concede the point

[AZCat]

48. No problem.

It's a good question. I just happen to have experience in the area. It wasn't until recently that fire scientists understood the importance of the smoke/hot gas mechanism.

[jberryhill]

50. Don't buy AZCat's nonsense...

C'mon, he's talking about getting rid of "exhausted air".

Air doesn't get exhausted. The air we have has been around for millions of years, and it's not tired in the least.

You're really going to buy his nonsense that air gets "exhausted" in a fire, and then someone needs to replace it with well-rested and alert air?

[rollingrock]

51. LoL

AZCAT gets a pass because I'm in such a good mood.

And I know he knows better, lol.

[AZCat]

53. What?! That's crazy talk!

Trust me, I know building science. Air gets tired when you take it out of its natural environment and make it run around buildings all day long. That's why you have to let it back outside, where it can recover its "essence". I've been campaigning for years to make artificial constructs (like buildings) air-free. It's cruel what we do, imprisoning air for hours on end! Oh, the humanity!

[rollingrock]

55. Now I don't who to believe

so I'll say you're both right. bwahaha.

[AZCat]

56. In this post, I analyze conflicting appeals to authority.

With no evidence whatsoever, I claim that I've inhabited more buildings than either of you - claim worth 3 "authority points" (AP). I also have several fat reference books on my shelf, and these indicate I am "learned" - 4 AP. However, jberryhill has a beard - 4 AP. And he wears glasses - 2 AP. These attributes combine nonlinearly, so even though my AP sum is greater than his, he has a higher "authority index" (the math is complicated, and involves imaginary numbers).

Conclusion: jberryhill is a greater authority than AZCat.

[Realityhack]

60. imaginary numbers like eleventeen? n/t

[Realityhack]

59. Maybe you can get PETA to help you if you classify AIR as an animal n/t

[AZCat]

16. Heat can be a big problem with glass.

PPG (glass manufacturer) has a good website that talks about thermal design issues for fenestration. I'll see if I can find a link later.

[AZCat]

61. I found the PPG reference.

They have an online calculator, but this pdf probably explains it better. Let me know if you have any questions.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. This video deals with the fires, the damage, and the windows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbIr7Ln4fXY

Richard Gage even makes a special appearance.

[jberryhill]

25. All right, all right, we failed the test, so....

What was supposed to be "odd"?

[rollingrock]

27. For one

the NIST admitted that they never tested for explosives residue, nor have they analyzed the dust. So we can't know if the fires (from all sides) of the building weren't set by explosives going off in Building 7. There's no way to know anything conclusively without proper testing, which they never did.

[jberryhill]

29. Who uses explosives to set fires?

WTC7 contained thousands of gallons of diesel fuel.

Demolition explosives are not incendiary devices.

Uncontrolled fires spread. That's what fire does. Nobody was fighting the fire in WTC7.

[rollingrock]

34. The explosives

would have been used to bring the building down, not set off fires.
The fires was a secondary result.

...But things didn't go as planned at first, so the building didn't come down when it should have. Which explains the hours long delay before it finally collapsed (that's one theory).

[jberryhill]

36. So, what made the building come down?

You are saying the explosives didn't work, and only set fires.

I'll briefly state that, next to your knowledge of explosives, you are a relative expert on glass.

Demolition explosives are extremely efficient at creating high pressure shock waves, and not so good for starting fires.

But, okay, let's put that aside. The explosives didn't work. So, what caused the collapse of the building?

[rollingrock]

41. We won't know that

until when and if NIST ever decides to conduct proper testing for explosive residue.



(Though independent sources have done this type of testing, and according to them the results were positive).

[jberryhill]

42. But - wait a minute....

You've already said that explosives didn't bring the building down.

You said the explosive failed to bring the building down.

So how would testing for explosive residue be of any help?

[rollingrock]

46. What I said was

the building failed to go down when it should have. Which would be due to technical difficulty.
but eventually it did come down after the technical problems was straightened out. Like I said, that's the theory.

[jberryhill]

49. Let me make sure I have your theory nailed down here

Okay, so...

WTC7 was rigged for explosives.

1. It was supposed to be demolished early in the day - which would have made it stunningly clear that it was demolished, since if it was blown early in the day, nobody would have attributed its demise to the fires that burned in it all day long, however....

2. They tried to blow it up, but something went wrong and only some of the explosives went off, causing fires throughout the building which burned for hours and fully involved most of the building (see the video linked elsewhere in this thread)...

3. The remaining unexploded explosives, their detonation mechanism, and the controls for the detonation mechanism, which didn't work early in the day, worked a whole lot better after sitting around in an uncontrolled building fire all day long.

Do I have those parts of your theory nailed down correctly?

[rollingrock]

54. Let me just address the first one for now

it was timed to go down within a few minutes after the collapse of WTC1.

The fall of Bldg 7 would be disguised by the massive dust clouds created from the collapse of Tower 1. They can then say that Bldg 7 collapsed because Tower 1 fell on it, so they both went down at approximately the same time. But things didn't work out as planned so they had to come up with the new excuse that it went down because of fires. That's the theory.

Thanks for the debate but it's time for dinner. Good night.

[achtung_circus]

57. So, "They can then say that Bldg 7 collapsed because Tower 1 fell on it"

But how could the conspirators know that the tower would fall in that particular direction. Of the 4 cardinal directions, only 1 would account for the WTC 7 collapse. That's a 25% chance of successful cover to a conspiracy to blow WTC 7 and a 75% chance of failure.

That approaches Keystone Kops odds of success.

[jberryhill]

62. Could you remind me again

...what the point was of demolishing Building 7?

[rollingrock]

63. Good question

One scenario: Tower 7 housed the New York Securities and Exchange Commission, as you know is the agency responsible for regulating Wall Street and prosecuting financial crimes. So for Bushco and his 'free-market' loving buddies, the SEC is like public enemy number one. So when the opportunity to get rid of the SEC or at least severely crippling them presented itself they took advantage of it on 9/11. It's a good motive anyway IMO.


This article was discussed here a while ago.






Here's what it says if you can't read it.

SEC office destroyed:IPO probe in jeopardy

NY Post/Bloomberg
September 12, 2001

The Securities and Exchange Commission's new York office disappeared in flames in the collapse of the World Trade Center's Tower 7, jeopardizing the agency's massive probe of initial public offerings and other cases.

"It's devastating," said Carmen Lawrence, who from 1995 to June 2000 led the SEC's New York operation, which is the agency's largest regional office. "They'll have to scrap many cases, and start from scratch on others."

The 47-story building housing the SEC's office fell at 5:21 p.pm. about seven hours after two adjacent 110 story World Trade Center buildings collapsed from damage inflicted when two hijacked commercial airliners crashed into the twin towers.

The SEC's New York office has been investigating whether some of Wall Street's biggest brokerages, in exchange for hot internet initial public offering shares, charged excessive commissions or forced investors to buy more stocks after an IPO.

The SEC and the Justice Department for months have been trying to determine of firms such as Credit Suisse, First Boston, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter & Co. essentially extracted kickbacks in return for allotments of sought after IPO shares.

"It will be many, many months before they can get back to square one on the cases they try to resume," said Lawrence, co-chair of the securities law practice at the Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobsen law firm in New York.

Wayne Carlin, who now heads SEC's New York office, said he is concernend about evidence destroyed in the fire. All 320 employees were evacuated without injury, he said. SEC spokesman John Harmon (sp?) said the agency "is presently looking for new space for employees to work in." It's too early to access what effect the office's destruction will have on pending SEC cases, he said.

The SEC can ask companies that are under investigation, or have been charged with securities violations to produce copies of documents they already have given to the SEC, Lawrence said. These companies are legally required to provide the copies, he said.

One nine year old SEC case involving the former Motel 6 LP, in which 29 defendants were charged with insider trading, may be set back dramatically. Lawrence said. The case, which ws supposed to be tried soon, "now isn't going to trial," he said.

[SDuderstadt]

64. So, they destroyed WTC 1 & 2 (and other buildings)...

so they could get to their REAL target?? That sounds more than goofy.

[rollingrock]

65. It was more like a two for one

Tower 7 was just a bonus.

[SDuderstadt]

66. So, now your theory makes even less sense....

I hope you know that.

[rollingrock]

67. It makes perfect sense

you're too blinded by your ideology to realize it.

[SDuderstadt]

68. Maybe to you...

and other CT types, but it makes little sense to those of us who live in an evidence-based world. I don't know what you think my "ideology" is, but I can assure that there are many liberals like myself who think your theories are patently goofy.

[rollingrock]

69. Get over it, Dorothy

The official story is a fairy tale.

but maybe if you keeping clicking your heels together one day your fantasy will come true!

:D

[SDuderstadt]

70. You don't know a fucking thing...

about my ideology and, just maybe, if you click YOUR heels together enough times, you'll actually develop concrete evidence of your goofy theory. Good luck.

[defendandprotect]

71. Some suggested that they had to begin bringing down the towers because

the fires were obviously going out -- and explosions/bombs going off very

apparent as we can see on film.

And besides bombs, lots more power applied to it all, of course!!!

[defendandprotect]

72. Or they were trying to make it look like "fires" were a problem in WTC7 . . .

Meanwhile, weren't there a lot of valuables that had to have been moved out --

GOLD somewhere in basement?

and making sure that all the SEC records -- records of Enron crimes were actally

destroyed?

[defendandprotect]

73. You can activate the explosive/bombs from a distance -- even from a helicopter flying over . . .

but you can be in danger trying to get enough "fuel" of any kind into a

tower to make it look good!