What modivates 9/11 CT'ers

[TheRedWorm]

So, I see that is shifting the goalposts. The fact that the steel portion of the Windsor building collapsed should tell you something. Also, what do you mean "merely roof collapses."? The fact remains that the fire affected portions of these buildings collapsed.

 

[bofors]

Also, what do you mean "merely roof collapses."?

See this: the steel building frame is standing, only the roof is partially collapsed (which could have been made of wood or tin, i.e. something other than steel beams):

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html

Same goes for the other three.

 

[bofors]

Welcome bofors;
How many 883' passenger ships sunk after hitting an iceberg prior to 1912?

No, you mean "how many passenger ships sunk after hitting an iceberg other prior 1912"? 883' is irrelevant.

I assume that some did, but coincidents of steel frame buildings and fire are a lot more common.

 

[bofors]

No, actually it is quite obvious that NIST and the 9/11 Comission have covered-up the truth. I know it.

Now, let's continue with why I know NIST is covering-up the truth.

NIST is lying about existence of molten metal at the WTC sites: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY

In fact, John Gross refuses to answer whether he is sticking by his claim that there is no molten metal at the WTC sites.

 

[TheRedWorm]

With the McCormick building, in the article, it states that: "The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire..." So, how does that not state that steel is vulnerable in a fire? Isn't it at all possible that "merely a roof collapse" in the context of an enormous building could cause the totality of the structure to fail? If not, why not?

 

[bofors]

So, how does that not state that steel is vulnerable in a fire?

It is you who are moving the goal posts. The question is not whether steel per se is "vulnerable" in a fire but whether the structural steel frame of a building has ever collapsed due to a fire. It has not.

Moreover, the structural steel frames of buildings always survive roof collapses. The data you presented shows this to be true.

Isn't it at all possible that "merely a roof collapse" in the context of an enormous building could cause the totality of the structure to fail?

The idea is absurd. If the roof falls off, that is just one less that needs to be held up. You seem to think that real buildings are a "house of cards" or something fragile, just waiting to be blown over. No they are not, they are all over engineered by factors of at least 2.

Furthermore, this is irrelevant to 9/11. It quite obvious that neither of the collapses of the twin towers started at the roof. The collapses initiated tens of stories below the roof.

Finally, nobody in there right mind is suggesting that WTC 7 collapsed entirely because of a roof collapse either. In fact, other than the penthouse, the top of the building remains in tact while the building is destroyed at the bottom one floor at a time.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Let's put this into perspective here. A fire can cause steel to fail. Weather it is "merely a roof collapse," or a single piece of rebar, does not change the fact that steel can fail due to fire. Now, if fire gets to structural supports, and causes them to fail, how will a building not collapse?

Plus, since you brought it up, what kind of explosive would cause the penthouse to collapse a few seconds before the rest of the structure?

 

[Disbelief]

It is you who are moving the goal posts. The question is not whether steel per se is "vulnerable" in a fire but whether the structural steel frame of a building has ever collapsed due to a fire. It has not.

Of course the first question should be whether steel is vulnerable to fire. If it is, then there is the possibility that a steel building could collapse in a fire. Whether it has ever happened before or not, is not the real question.

 

[MarkyX]

In fact the Windsor building is used to make my point, it did not totally collapse despite burning for over 10 hours:

That's because it had a concrete core, unlike the WTC. The steel portion of the building collapsed.

The firefighters did not fight the fires, instead they let it burn. Why? Because they thought it would collapse due to the fire. I guess those firefighters are idiots.

If you can't even get this acknowledge this fact, how are you expected to be taken seriously?

 

[bofors]

... even if NIST provided a credible "gravity" account for destruction of all the WTC buildings now, I would still think that 9/11 was an inside job for other reasons. These reseasons include issues at the Pentagon, NORADs failure to respond and the clear indication of prior knowledge.

One more thing... the Anthrax attack is part of 9/11 as far as I am concerned and we know this was US Military grade Anthrax.

 

[apathoid]

In fact the Windsor building is used to make my point, it did not totally collapse despite burning for over 10 hours:

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9692/windsor6yw3.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

Do you realize that all of the steel perimeter columns collapsed in the Winsor fire?

ETA: Where are my manners? Welcome to the forum, bofors.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I think a new thread would be appropriate, instead of (further) derailing this one. If you are so inclined, bofors, you can start a new thread for discussion of any conspiracy related topic, or, I can do it for you if you wish.

 

[nicepants]

Edit: I'll save this for the relevant topic.

 

[bofors]

Let's put this into perspective here. A fire can cause steel to fail.

In general, fire does cause steal to "fail". A steal wood burning stove does not "fail" buy using it anymore than a frying pan "fails" on a gas stove.

Weather it is "merely a roof collapse," or a single piece of rebar, does not change the fact that steel can fail due to fire. Now, if fire gets to structural supports, and causes them to fail, how will a building not collapse?

The point is that the structural framing steal never fails do to fire in a mannar that causes anything approaching global collapse of the structure.

Plus, since you brought it up, what kind of explosive would cause the penthouse to collapse a few seconds before the rest of the structure?

I would assume some kind of thermite and C4 plastique would be used. The issue is not what kind, but where it was placed. In this case, the center columns, and penthouse directly above them, were blown out first so that the Building 7 collapse in onto itself.

 

[Disbelief]

Of course the first question should be whether steel is vulnerable to fire. If it is, then there is the possibility that a steel building could collapse in a fire. Whether it has ever happened before or not, is not the real question.

Since you missed this, maybe I'll reword it.

Why do you equate "hasn't happened" with "can't happen?" Would you not want to check if it is possible, before saying it can't happen? Why fire proof steel buildings?

 

[bofors]

That's because it had a concrete core, unlike the WTC.

Right, the Windsor building was a steal-reinforced-concrete structure. It is a different type of building than the WTC's steel-framed structures so it really is not good comparison. However, steel-framed structures perform better than cheaper steal-reinforced-concrete in fires:

Before examining the partial collapse of the Windsor building more closely, we note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in fires.

Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.

Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

In fact, the reason the why the Windsor did partially collapsed in the fire was becuase it was cheap steal-reinforced-concrete as opposed to steal-framed like the WTC buildings.

Better comparisons with the WTC buildings are:

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
The First Interstate Bank Fire
The 1 New York Plaza Fire
Caracas Tower Fire

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

The steel portion of the building collapsed.

Do you realize that all of the steel perimeter columns collapsed in the Winsor fire?

I am not sure what you are talking about here. Steel structure, including perimeter columns on the left, is visible in this photo:

 

[TheRedWorm]

Let's not derail this thread further, I've started one here

 

[bofors]

Why do you equate "hasn't happened" with "can't happen?"

Obviously these are not always equivalent, but in the case at bar the effectively are. I mean, steal-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under possible fire conditions and this is proved by the fact that they have not.

Why fire proof steel buildings?

As far as the application of abestos and such, I think it primarily has to do with preventing trusses from sagging, the framing itself (I-beams, H beams and such) does not need it (or get it).

 

[bofors]

Let's not derail this thread further, I've started one here

Ok... I will be replying in the new thread now.

 

[TheRedWorm]

nvm