9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

[Christopher7]

Where does it say reinforced concrete. It lists "Structural steel" and then in brackets references WTC 1,2,7 as three of the six.

Time for you to bring your evidence (besides the NIST or FEMA, since as a CTer you believe them to be false) demonstrating, like your quote, that there has never been a STEEL FRAMED HIGHRISE STRUCTURE to EVER COLLAPSE.

It also lists wtc5 but makes no mention of what or where the other 2 are.

 

[T.A.M.]

You are correct, but where they are is not that important. I would say what is of some relevence, though, is if the other "Structural Steel" Structures they mention, were complete or partial collapses.

My point was, as I have always said, the grandiose statement pushed by the CT movement, is too wide in scope.

If it was restructured as...

"There has never been a complete collapse of a steel framed structure in North America in recent history." That would be harder to disprove. Then we would have to find out if the other buildings listed under "Steel Structured" were (a) Steel Framed, (b) in North America, and (c) complete collapses...

 

[Christopher7]

as manc stated the building was undergoing renovations so there liekly was not a great deal of fuel available for the fire, meaning it would have been less intense than WTC fires


i dont have a picture handy, but its pretty lcear the steel framework around the core suffered a complete collapse


the steel portion DID collapse

BTW the building was NOT hit by a plane

You're right. I stand corrected.

However, The building was fully involved and the fire burned for ?hrs before the steel beams collapsed. Also i would like to know if the steel I beams were as strong as the ones in wtc7. I'v got some more research to do.

This is why i'm here debating. To hear the other side and learn something.

Thank you very much
Chris

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Christopher7, listen to what you are saying:

Before time T, what objects X did Y because of Z? If you can't show that X did Y because of Z before T then X did not Y because of Z.

You understand that this is a logical fallacy because there must be a first instance of something, yes?

The onus is upon you to show that Y could not happen to X because of Z, regardless of T. Or, put back in terms of 9/11: you have to show that the wtc7 could not have collapse because of fire and debris, regardless of if there had been an analogous situtation prior to 9/11 or not.

 

[Christopher7]

You are correct, but where they are is not that important. I would say what is of some relevence, though, is if the other "Structural Steel" Structures they mention, were complete or partial collapses.

My point was, as I have always said, the grandiose statement pushed by the CT movement, is too wide in scope.

If it was restructured as...

"There has never been a complete collapse of a steel framed structure in America in recent history."

That would be harder to disprove. Then we would have to find out if the other buildings listed under "Steel Structured" were (a) Steel Framed, (b) in North America, and (c) complete collapses...

You are also right. I deleted north because of the Venezuela fire (although i could get in trouble here)
I have confidence that if there are any other cases of total collapse, you will find them. Meanwhile i'm going to look into the Madrid collapse.

Thanks to all. Have a nice day.

 

[Trifikas]

Dude, we're talking about wtc7. Get with the program

Fires have gutted buildings in L.A., Philly, and Venezuela. In all 3 cases the steel frame was NOT DAMAGED. They were all rebuilt without replacing any of the steel I beams. Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?

Let's not cast aspersions as to what programs I am or am not with, dude. The "No previous high-rise steel etc.." argument still doesn't wash with respect with WTC 7, either. It had more than a fire to contend with, it had structural damage as well, and the location of the fire was probably in the absolute worst place in the structure, along a transfer beam supporting the majority of the load.

The standing theory is that a gas pipe continued to fuel the fire, continuously heating the transfer beam (maybe more than one, don't have this information immediatly in front of me) to the point of weakening and failure.



Don't have first hand knowledge of the other two, I watched Meridian burn from the City Hall plaza, and know from friends and family in the fire detection / supression businesses that they were worried about collapse of the building. A report is at

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf#search="meridian plaza philadelphia"


With respect to the the frame being intact, from the report:

After the fire, there was evident significant structural
damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire
damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as
three feet.

Meridian also claimed the lives of three of Philly's Finest.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, listen to what you are saying:

Before time T, what objects X did Y because of Z? If you can't show that X did Y because of Z before T then X did not Y because of Z.

You understand that this is a logical fallacy because there must be a first instance of something, yes?

The onus is upon you to show that Y could not happen to X because of Z, regardless of T. Or, put back in terms of 9/11: you have to show that the wtc7 could not have collapse because of fire and debris, regardless of if there had been an analogous situtation prior to 9/11 or not.

No. I only have to establish that it could have been a CD.
Rember, the official story is a 'could be' there's NO PROOF.
So no need to un-prove it

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No. I only have to establish that it could have been a CD.
Rember, the official story is a 'could be' there's NO PROOF.
So no need to un-prove it

If all you "have to establish [is] that it could have been a CD" then why are you wasting your time looking for other examples of steel frame fires resulting in collapse? It does nothing to substantiate your claim of CD.

 

[Christopher7]

If all you "have to establish [is] that it could have been a CD" then why are you wasting your time looking for other examples of steel frame fires resulting in collapse? It does nothing to substantiate your claim of CD.

I'm not, you guys are, and doing a very good job of it.

I'v got some research to do. See ya tomorrow

Chris

 

[Christopher7]

Let's not cast aspersions as to what programs I am or am not with, dude. The "No previous high-rise steel etc.." argument still doesn't wash with respect with WTC 7, either. It had more than a fire to contend with, it had structural damage as well, and the location of the fire was probably in the absolute worst place in the structure, along a transfer beam supporting the majority of the load.

The standing theory is that a gas pipe continued to fuel the fire, continuously heating the transfer beam (maybe more than one, don't have this information immediatly in front of me) to the point of weakening and failure.



Don't have first hand knowledge of the other two, I watched Meridian burn from the City Hall plaza, and know from friends and family in the fire detection / supression businesses that they were worried about collapse of the building. A report is at

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf#search="meridian plaza philadelphia"


With respect to the the frame being intact, from the report:



Meridian also claimed the lives of three of Philly's Finest.

Link doesn't work. Sounds like something i should read.

I'll be back tomorrow. have a nice day

Chris

 

[Trifikas]

Link doesn't work. Sounds like something i should read.

I'll be back tomorrow. have a nice day

Chris

Sorry about that...the link works for me, but try this one:

www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

 

[kookbreaker]

ETA Just re-read your post, Where does is say that the steel frame portion failed?

You don't know what you are talking about.
There are 2 diffrent kinds of steel construction.

The Madrid Sheraton was a steel renforced concrete, that is, steel rebar (round pieces of steel) are set vertically and wraped with more rebar to make a cage. Then a form is placed arround the rebar and cement is poured into the form. I have done this kind of construction meny times (on a much smaller scale)
This kind of construction is not as strong as steel I beams which are NOT surrounded by concrete because they don't need the concrete. Unlike rebar they are self supporting.
A steel frame building means a steel I beam frame.
Madrid was not a steel frame building, it was a steel reinforced concrete frame building.
I hope i'v made that clear enough for a layman to understand.
If not let me know.

Yeah, here's a layman's comment back for you: Now that you've admitted everything you said here was wrong, do you want to take back the 'you don't know what you're talking about' comment?

 

[gumboot]

Link doesn't work. Sounds like something i should read.

I'll be back tomorrow. have a nice day

Chris

Another thing you should look up is the Kader Toy Factory fire, May 10, 1993, Thailand. Three steel-frame 4 storey buildings suffered total collapse from fire alone. Building 2 collapsed in 15 minutes.

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

Dude, we're talking about wtc7. Get with the program

Fires have gutted buildings in L.A., Philly, and Venezuela. In all 3 cases the steel frame was NOT DAMAGED. They were all rebuilt without replacing any of the steel I beams. Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?

You are horribly iignorant.

WTC 5. Office fire only. Fire-protected column and beam buckled on floor 8 of 9. Some lower floors failed completely and...pancaked. Why didn't the whole building collapse? It's only 9 stories tall and wider than it is tall. Imagine if this fire-damaged 8th floor had been hit by an airliner and had another 200 million pounds on top of it.

You work in construction?

As Kookbreaker points out, the Meridian building in Philly was so weakened it had to be shored so that it could be torn down safely. This fire was FOUGHT, the building was not hit by an an airliner traveling at top speed.

Beams deflected up to three feet between columns.

The Madrid building? The steel on the top ten floors DID fail, due to fire. The perimeter columns were not steel reinforced concrete, they were fire-protected steel.

 

[T.A.M.]

That is a good find gumboot, but most CTers will simply say they are not highrise buildings, blah blah blah

 

[gumboot]

That is a good find gumboot, but most CTers will simply say they are not highrise buildings, blah blah blah

True. The weakening steel structure didn't have 10 - 20 floors on top of it to support. And yet they still collapsed.

I find that whole CT thing of "they're so tall and strong" to be laughable. Taller buildings are ALWAYS less stable.

-Andrew

 

[Christopher7]

Sorry about that...the link works for me, but try this one:

www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

Thanx: That one didn't work fo me either. I can get to the page but can't scroll. Maby it's my dial-up.
Could you post the relivant part about it having to be torn down
Thanx

 

[Pardalis]

Christopher7, you are 63 and you spell "thanks" with an "x"???

Come on...

 

[Christopher7]

You are horribly iignorant.

WTC 5. Office fire only. Fire-protected column and beam buckled on floor 8 of 9. Some lower floors failed completely and...pancaked. Why didn't the whole building collapse? It's only 9 stories tall and wider than it is tall. Imagine if this fire-damaged 8th floor had been hit by an airliner and had another 200 million pounds on top of it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044aa72598802f.jpg

Good point about the damage to the steel beams. It had been my belief that fires in these buildings (Madrid, Meridian, and wtc5) had not caused structural damage. I stand corrected.
wtc5 was fully involved yet it didn't collapse completely
It had meny tons of wtc1 fall on it, thats probably what collapsed part of it.
Good find on Maridian pics.

 

[Christopher7]

Yeah, here's a layman's comment back for you: Now that you've admitted everything you said here was wrong, do you want to take back the 'you don't know what you're talking about' comment?

I overstated and have been corrected.......Revised statement:

Other than 9-11, no modern steel frame high rise building has completely collapsed in the USA due to fire.

I retract and apologise for the negative comment.

Chris