Fire and Steel

[bofors]

It's worse than that. He's actually using circular logic, if you examine the claim closely enough:

Claim: WTC did not collapse due to fire.

Evidence (tier 1): Steel buildings cannot collapse due to fire
Evidence (tier 2): No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire

However, the WTC itself was a steel building. This would refute the tier 2 evidence. So to counter this claim we must tack on a third tier of evidence:

Evidence (tier 3): The WTC did not collapse due to fire.

Basically, his proof that the WTC didn't collapse due to fire, is that it didn't collapse due to fire.

And if you think about it, this really applies to ALL Truthers making the "first time in history" argument. They're ALL using circular logic.

Try this instead:

Hypothesis: Steel-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under plausable building fire conditions.

Proof: No steel-framed buildings have globally collapsed from fire.

 

[Terry]

Good ed, are you doing it on purpose to be annoying? the word is steel.

 

[leftysergeant]

Try this instead:

Hypothesis: Steel-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under plausable building fire conditions.

Proof: No steel-framed buildings have globally collapsed from fire.

No other on that scale, because there were no similar buildings of that type on that scale involved in fires.

Buildings of similar construction on a smaller scale collapse globally quite often, the Kader factory in Thailand being the best example of this.

 

[Gravy]

What the hell are they teaching in materials science classes in Sweden?

Bofors, I think you missed post #6.
Large multistory steel-framed factory buildings quickly collapse due to fire

 

[bofors]

Why? Because you say so? It is in no way proven, and in fact is disproven by the WTC collapses.

And I accused of circular logic??? Come on...

The cause of WTC collapses is the question here, they can not be used as proof that plausible fire can globally collapse building without cirucular logic.

 

[leftysergeant]

And I accused of circular logic??? Come on...

The cause of WTC collapses is the question here, they can not be used as proof that plausible fire can globally collapse building without cirucular logic.

Two posts immediately before this one prove you wrong.

 

[bofors]

Good ed, are you doing it on purpose to be annoying? the word is steel.

Look, I am a terrible speller.

I usually use the built-in global spell checking of Apple's OS X operating system, but I was posting from a Vista computer in this forum because it was more convenient.

Since spelling is such a big deal here, I just switched back OS X so I can fix my spelling errors before I post.

 

[Gravy]

And I accused of circular logic??? Come on...

The cause of WTC collapses is the question here, they can not be used as proof that plausible fire can globally collapse building without cirucular logic.

Please explain specifically why you believe NIST's explanation of the tower collapses and their working hypothesis of WTC 7's collapse initiation are not plausible.

Remember, be speciflc, and address what they actually say, not what you imagine they say. Thank you.

 

[Gravy]

Look, I am a terrible speller.

Oh. I thought you were Swedish. When you post, spell check should automatically underline in red the words it doesn't recognize.

But seriously, you're taking materials science and don't know how to spell "steel?" I have great trouble believing that.

Edit: that you're studying materials science, that is.

 

[bofors]

Bofors, I think you missed post #6.
Large multistory steel-framed factory buildings quickly collapse due to fire

Ok, I have looked at this case a little, but I see no pictures of the supposed collapse. However, I did find this:

The Building's Structural Integrity
Probably the most notable difference between the Triangle and Kader fires is the effect they had on the structural integrity of the buildings involved. Even though the Triangle fire gutted the top three floors of the ten-storey factory building, the building remained structurally intact. The Kader buildings, on the other hand, collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070305145938/www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0&ssect=1


So:

(1) The "Triangle" fire is yet more evidence that steal buildings do not globally collapse.

and

(2) If the "Kadar" buildings did actually globally collapse, it is because unlike the WTC buildings their steel was not "fireproofed".

 

[bofors]

Oh. I thought you were Swedish. When you post, spell check should automatically underline in red the words it doesn't recognize.

But seriously, you're taking materials science and don't know how to spell "steel?" I have great trouble believing that.

Edit: that you're studying materials science, that is.

Does this help?

 

[bofors]

You'd figgure that trusses help support the structure.

Sure.

What would happen to the structure if enough of the trusses sag and lose strength?

I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.

 

[Terry]

Does this help?

Not really. At most it suggests you ought to know better.

 

[Gravy]

Double post.

 

[Gravy]

Does this help?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2323/bacheloriw9.jpg
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4853/um1usnewsbg7.jpg

Hell no. It makes me despair for the U.S. higher educational system.

A materials engineer who can't spell "steel" and who can't understand why steel-framed buildings need thermal protection?

That's the most depressing thing I have heard in ages.

So, when can we expect your detailed critique of the NIST reports?

Second time: please address what they actually say, not what you imagine they say.

Fair enough?

 

[Gravy]

Ah, bofors, I see that you're a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Are you ready for debate? I am, and I was an English major with no advanced degrees.

 

[bofors]

Holy cow. You're an architect / engineer for 9/11 "truth", Bofors?

Um.. yes. By the way, what are your qualifications here?

Did you learn anything in school, or do you just get your information from conspiracy websites?

As I indicated in the post, the text I block quoted was from Jim Hoffman, a former MIT materials scientist and author of:

http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.wtc7.net/

As an architect / engineer who had to send in copies of his degrees to join the group, (by which I assume you mean that you at least graduated)

Not only did I graduate, I received the Andrew A. Kucker award for outstanding engineering research:

you must have taken some university courses in statics, structural systems, and strengths of materials. Right?

Sure, I took mechanical engineering stactics and dynamics. I also took two general material science coarses which cover materials strengths topics and a graduate level materials mechanics coarse. I also took graduate level ceramics and polymer courses which covered topic in mechanics with respect to these specific types of materials in great detail.

So, you should be able to answer this relatively simple structural question related to the comparison you make above:

Which performs better - retains the greatest portion of its original strength the longest - in a typical building fire?

A). A steel framed building.
B). A heavy wood timber framed building.

And, why?

For the purpose of this example, please assume that other than the materials of construction, the buildings and fires are essentially the same, with no extraordinary differences between the two structures. Also assume that there have been no additional fire protection measures taken, such as spray-on insulation or sprinkler systems.

(A) - the steel framed building retains its strength longer than wood because wood does not dissipate (absorb or conduct) heat well (physics of heat conduction) and wood burns (chemical reaction with environmental oxygen) at a much lower temperature than steel melts.

Based on what you've said above, I don't think you have the best understanding of structures and materials, as you seem not to understand the purpose of reinforcing steel in structural concrete, or the properties of steel in general. But, we'll see.

Well, like Jim Hoffman, my specialty is in polymers not metallurgy or civil engineering materials. But none of that is needed to understand 9/11, only a very basic understanding of physics. Unfortanately people here do not seem to have such a basic understanding of physics (or rather are ignoring what should be intuitive).

 

[Bell]

And I accused of circular logic??? Come on...

The cause of WTC collapses is the question here, they can not be used as proof that plausible fire can globally collapse building without cirucular logic.

Just the same as they CAN'T be used to proof fire CAN'T bring down steel buildings because it has never happened before.

 

[Bell]

I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.

 

[bofors]

A materials engineer who can't spell "steel" and who can't understand why steel-framed buildings need thermal protection?

Sorry for my spelling problems, I am a little dyslexic. Why you think that has any bearing on my comprehension of 9/11 and WTC building demolitions, I do not know.

I am not sure what you are talking about here (meaning what statement of mine to which you are referring), but steal-framed buildings do not "need" thermal protection any more than they "need" water-sprinklers (by the way the WTC twin towers did not originally have water-sprinklers). Thermal protection, which I assume by the way you mean fireproofing like asbestos, simply provides additional safety. Your own reference to the Kadar proves this is not necessary.

So, when can we expect your detailed critique of the NIST reports?

Second time: please address what they actually say, not what you imagine they say.

Fair enough?

I am sorry but a detailed critique of the NIST WTC report is not necessary. We can dismiss it on its face for some rather obvious reasons.