Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[Dabljuh]

Grizzly Bear, you give an event involving a gas explosion as an example "progressive collapse", and then "progressive collapse" is not mentioned once. I could have stopped paying attention there.

But then you wrote this:

Irrelevant, there's really no difference in the dust cloud of a CD or a collapse initiated by structural failure.

Seriously? You think so?

Cmon, you can do better.

Here's a difference for you to start with: The gases formed by an explosion are HOT. The clouds at the WTC were HOT according to eyewitnesses. There's no mechanism by which you can create a hot gaseous cloud combined with pulverized concrete without explosive force. And when has a collapse not involving explosives ever created a significant dust cloud? The 'fire' theory cannot explain any of this, it would predict little to no dust clouds. The observed pyroclastic surge falsifies it.

PROTIP: In real science, you don't ask for "Proof" of a particular theory. Instead, you try to falsify it. You might take a while to understand this.

 

[Dabljuh]

[qimg]http://c.imagehost.org/0789/Animation2.gif[/qimg]

I'm sorry, you were saying?

Give him a break, he also thinks the buildings came down in free fall speed, when in reality they were about 50% slower. Proving nothing either way.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Especially not when it's a huge tower with tens of thousands of people living in it, where you would reasonably expect a couple fires in its lifetime.

Are you aware that the WTC towers were office buildings, not apartment buildings?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Give him a break, he also thinks the buildings came down in free fall speed, when in reality they were about 50% slower. Proving nothing either way.

I'm curious... Are you attempting to defend Gage by telling us he doesn't know what he's talking about, or are you "officially" throwing him under the bus?

 

[Dabljuh]

I'm curious... Are you attempting to defend Gage by telling us he doesn't know what he's talking about, or are you "officially" throwing him under the bus?

Why do you worry about my intentions?

Right now I wonder how long I'd have to post until someone pays me for it. I'm sure doing a better job than those weak guys here, so I deserve at least twice of what they're getting.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Right now I wonder how long I'd have to post until someone pays me for it. I'm sure doing a better job than those weak guys here, so I deserve at least twice of what they're getting.

You're right. I'll get that check for US$0.00 in the mail right away.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzly Bear, you give an event involving a gas explosion as an example "progressive collapse", and then "progressive collapse" is not mentioned once. I could have stopped paying attention there.

A progressive collapse is defined as a local failure which results in a disproportionate amount of damage. The cause of the failure is irrelevant in this discussion because that wasn't at issue. The case in point was that there was a domino effect resulting from the initial event. In the case of the Ronin apartment the cause was a gas explosion, in the trade centered the planes made the structure more unstable, and fire ultimately finished the process.

When you're done misreading my context let me know, but you've continued to misinterpret the point.

But then you wrote this:


Seriously? You think so?

Cmon, you can do better.

What do you think happens when a building the size of the towers collapses? I don't expect the dust cloud to prove anything short of the fact that the quantity of it is larger due to the size of the towers and the amount of materials inside. Yes, you CAN doi better than this.

Here's a difference for you to start with: The gases formed by an explosion are HOT. The clouds at the WTC were HOT according to eyewitnesses.

Are dust clouds in traditional demolitions 'hot', last I recall building aren't on 'fire' when they are demolished.

There's no mechanism by which you can create a hot gaseous cloud combined with pulverized concrete without explosive force.

This is a false dilemma, the size and amount of dust within a dust cloud proves nothing beyond its relation with the size of the building that collapsed. The towers contianed numerous materials which by nature are easily pulverized (ETA: Gypsum, drywall). As for the heat you left out two things:

-Heat energy dispersed by the collapse itself and the expenditure of kinetic energy
- Parts of the material still heated by the fires in the upper floors.

And when has a collapse not involving explosives ever created a significant dust cloud? The 'fire' theory cannot explain any of this, it would predict little to no dust clouds. The observed pyroclastic surge falsifies it.

The 'pyroclastic surge' does not falsify anything. Again, you've created another false dilemma, and introduced a strawman argument. The fire would not create all of the dust, aside from ash and pebbles of spalled concrete reacting to the heat energy from the fires. Again how do you differentiate a dust cloud from a large collapse and that from a controlled demolition?
In all cases, the end result is loss of load bearing capacity, leading to a collapse.

PROTIP: In real science, you don't ask for "Proof" of a particular theory. Instead, you try to falsify it. You might take a while to understand this.

Consider taking your own advice. You've misread the case studies I've pointed out to you rather grossly, and still deny that fire can weaken steel.

 

[A W Smith]

Grizzly Bear, you give an event involving a gas explosion as an example "progressive collapse", and then "progressive collapse" is not mentioned once. I could have stopped paying attention there.

But then you wrote this:


Seriously? You think so?

Cmon, you can do better.

Here's a difference for you to start with: The gases formed by an explosion are HOT. The clouds at the WTC were HOT according to eyewitnesses. There's no mechanism by which you can create a hot gaseous cloud combined with pulverized concrete without explosive force. And when has a collapse not involving explosives ever created a significant dust cloud? The 'fire' theory cannot explain any of this, it would predict little to no dust clouds. The observed pryroclastic surge falsifies it.

PROTIP: In real science, you don't ask for "Proof" of a particular theory. Instead, you try to falsify it. You might take a while to understand this.

there was no pyroclastic surge. a pryroclastic surge is defined as

Pyroclastic Surge
A turbulent, low-density cloud of hot rock debris and gases that moves at extremely high speeds. Because surges are low density, they tend to spread over large areas and move up and over ridge crests easily. By contrast, pyroclastic flows are high-density masses of hot rock debris and gases that tend to be confined in valleys.
Hot surges contain gas and steam at temperatures above 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit) and are ejected from the vent. They may be as hot as 800 degrees Celsius(1472 degrees Fahrenheit), and are produced by the same mechanisms as pyroclastic flows. Cold surges contain gas mainly below 100 degrees Celsius(212 degrees Fahrenheit) and can be produced when magma comes into contact with a large volume of water, for example if the vent is under a lake or the sea.
Surges can travel around ten kilometres and are enormously destructive because of their massive kinetic energy and, for hot surges, the lethally hot gas. Even cold surges can contain large quantities of poisonous gases such as hydrogen sulfide

if there was such a surge at the world trade center. The people in this photo would have been roasted.

the assertion that a pryroclastic surge existed at the world trade center has thus been falsified.

 

[1337m4n]

When was I debunked? Oh right, I wasn't, not in the slightest. There were some arguments regarding the behaviour of the MSM (which by then could already have been answered by looking at my sig) and many, many blatant lies. The only real argument was that controlled demolition were really hard to pull off - Which is by itself true. But unlike a fire-related collapse, not entirely impossible. The latter being my central point. Maybe it wasn't CD, maybe it was alien heat rays. Is that more probable? Every hypothesis is relatively improbable, be it 'fire', be it 'cd' and be it 'alien heat rays' - But they're not all equally improbable. You're meant to find the most rational explanation.

Lets just pretend I was debunked for now, what does that change? You don't have to pay attention to me either way. Go away if you don't like it. It's not like you are paid to read and write my obviously inane stuff now are you?

Now, back to reality. I wasn't debunked. Since my central argument is the debunking of the officious theories ("Fire") that means you can no longer, by rational standards, support the fire theory, doesn't it? Oh no. You're a conspiracy kook now. Are you gonna blame the jews? I think the jews have it bad enough without your antisemitic drivel, thank you very much.

Sorry, but your "central argument" is groundless. You do not cite one single source. You make up lies and ask us to debunk them when in fact it is you who has the burden of proof to prove your fantasies, not us to debunk them. Where do you prove that the Towers had 600% redundancy? Oh wait, you don't. Where do you prove that its impossible for a steel building to collapse? Oh wait, you don't. Where did you get your information from? It looks like you made it all up off the top of your head.

Where are the explosives? You say WTC was destroyed by explosives. Where are they? Where is the seismic signature? Where are the audio recordings? Where are the bomb scraps and detcord in the rubble? Show us the explosives.

We can show you fire and airplane impacts. But you cannot show us explosives.

What are your sources again? Oh wait you don't have any.

Now I will take the time to debunk your false information step by step.

 

[Dabljuh]

domino effect

I had actually written an elaborate example involving dominos to explain a "progressive collapse" but then deleted it because, well, the WTC made "WHAM" and was gone, so it obviously wasn't anything like that. So we're back at the term "Mystery WTC collapse"


And regarding your remaining drivel about mysterious dust clouds, please point out the dust cloud on this picture - a building destroyed by an earthquake.



Oh, almost forgot:

and still deny that fire can weaken steel.

Strawman.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I had actually written an elaborate example involving dominos to explain a "progressive collapse" but then deleted it because, well, the WTC made "WHAM" and was gone, so it obviously wasn't anything like that. So we're back at the term "Mystery WTC collapse"

That would be factual if the collapse didn't take 15 to 20 seconds... try again...

And regarding your remaining drivel about mysterious dust clouds, please point out the dust cloud on this picture - a building destroyed by an earthquake.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1725648717be8cde65.jpg[/qimg]

Destroyed? Damaged beyond repair yes... after all what use is a building that's suffered a failure of it's foundation?
Looks to me like the internal structure of the building held together... Try again...

 

[Dabljuh]

prove

Learn the basics of science. You don't ask for proof. You ask for falsification.

Example: "Steel buildings cannot collapse due to fire"

Falsification would be an example of a steel building that did collapse due to fire. And that hasn't been provided, the closest thing so far have been the WTC itself (which arguably didn't collapse due to fire) and the windsor tower (which didn't collapse)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh, almost forgot:
Strawman.

You were saying?

Normally built-in redundancy and the relative difficulty of uncontrolled fire to heat a steel structure to even near the point where it loses a significant amount of tensile strength make sure that no fire can ever hope to cause the central steel skeleton itself to fail catastrophically.

Steel structures undergo fireproofing because they can and do suffer damage from fires. A skyscraper has a lot of stuff in it. It's a catastrophe in itself if the slightest fire causes the entire thing to burn out with nothing but the metal/concrete skeleton still standing. Which is pretty much the worst that fire can do to a steel skyscraper. Normally built-in redundancy and the relative difficulty of uncontrolled fire to heat a steel structure to even near the point where it loses a significant amount of tensile strength make sure that no fire can ever hope to cause the central steel skeleton itself to fail catastrophically.

 

[Dabljuh]

Destroyed? Damaged beyond repair yes...

Oh, quite a beginner's mistake there.

Find me one example of a steel frame building that was "destroyed" by this your own definition without the use of explosives.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Right now I wonder how long I'd have to post until someone pays me for it. I'm sure doing a better job than those weak guys here, so I deserve at least twice of what they're getting.

I'm sure Mom tells you that every day. But she isn't here. Back to the tree fort kiddo.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

<snip>
and the windsor tower (which didn't collapse)

Reread post # 40:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3837471&postcount=40

You still can't seem to differentiate from concrete slab construction and steel

 

[Dabljuh]

You were saying?

That's what I said. This is what you said:

and still deny that fire can weaken steel.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh, quite a beginner's mistake there.
Find me one example of a steel frame building that was "destroyed" by this your own definition without the use of explosives.

Hey, you're trying to prove to me that dust clouds can't appear in a total collapses, and you try to prove that to me by using a building that came off its foundation in an earthquake? How'd you swing that?

 

[A W Smith]

Learn the basics of science. You don't ask for proof. You ask for falsification.

Example: "Steel buildings cannot collapse due to fire"

Falsification would be an example of a steel building that did collapse due to fire. And that hasn't been provided, the closest thing so far have been the WTC itself (which arguably didn't collapse due to fire) and the windsor tower (which didn't collapse)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

 

[kookbreaker]

Give him a break, he also thinks the buildings came down in free fall speed, when in reality they were about 50% slower. Proving nothing either way.

I'm sorry, but I'm not giving an alleged trained professional any breaks whatsoever. He's made so many mistakes its pathetic and he relies on material that was debunked ages ago. There have been plenty of threads on Gage, and he is no longer in the realm of being given a break.