No steel highrise has ever been bit by a full speed, fully fueled 757 either. All sorts of new and exciting things happened on 9-11.
what's your point? that something different happened on 9-11?
big deal.
Moderated Thermite: Was it there or not?
- Thread starter Caper
- Start date
No steel highrise has ever been bit by a full speed, fully fueled 757 either. All sorts of new and exciting things happened on 9-11.
what's your point? that something different happened on 9-11?
big deal.
I wasn't talking about the towers. I was talking about thermal expansion and WTC-7. Get off debunker autopilot. What's your point now?
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
I always tell people who argue against first time in history; the idea that because something has never happened before makes the first time occurrence impossible is a paradox. And steel properties are extremely well documented with records of structural failure of varying degrees available solely due to fire. Would someone mind enlightening me why this would not eventually lead to something catastrophic like the progressive collapse of some of the tallest buildings in the world when the right conditions converge together on the same day? What logic still compels the same individuals to complain about this crap 8 years after something of significant scale took place, and something of equal scale transgressed as a result?
Last edited:
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
Truthtard: No fire has ever caused the complete collapse of any steel structured highrise ever.
Properly trained engineer: No steel highrise has ever been bit by a full speed, fully fueled 757 either.
Why do I keep reading this point over and over? Does Truthtard think he'll catch that one reader who really doesn't know the answer and this will turn them like a Catholic saved by the Church of England?
Point 1: Truthtards are in the minority here.
Point 2: If they find it offensive being repeated referred to as morons, they should find arguments that are increasingly convincing or at least stop typing the same words over and over.
Properly trained engineer: No steel highrise has ever been bit by a full speed, fully fueled 757 either.
Why do I keep reading this point over and over? Does Truthtard think he'll catch that one reader who really doesn't know the answer and this will turn them like a Catholic saved by the Church of England?
Point 1: Truthtards are in the minority here.
Point 2: If they find it offensive being repeated referred to as morons, they should find arguments that are increasingly convincing or at least stop typing the same words over and over.
I expect, say...100 posts before we say auf wiedersehen.
That's similar to an exchange that happened before you signed up between a debunker and a user name Homeland Incoherency.
Homeland Insurgency said:
debunker said:
Homeland Insurgency said:
debunker said:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Keep it on topic and civil. Everyone.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LibraryLady
Last edited by a moderator:
What is your problem?
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
Technically true. But this image shows that a tall steel structure can completely fail due to fire alone. What remained standing was concrete:
You should also note that no steel framed high rise has ever "Fallen over sideways" in one piece in any situation involving what you described. Reinforced concrete structures? Yes, several times. That's because it's designed and engineered entirely differently from a steel building.
You should look at it again.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Except of course 3 steel hirise buildings in 2001. Apart from those, you mean.
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
For what? I see 11 stories of steel that collapsed from fire. What do you see?
oh. of course
I think either you or I need glasses if you think that looks anything like a complete collapse. We are trying to compare what happened to the buildings on 9/11 correct?
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Ok, this conversation has officially descended into stupidity due to the inability of one of the participants here to grasp the relevant issues. The performance of steel structures in fires is a well studied topic, from the controlled Cardington tests to the post mortems of events such as the Broadgate fire. The fact that effects such as creep can lead to local failures is quite known, and the fact that the accumulation of local failures - whether from fires or other events - can add up to a progressive collapse is also well known. Whether those structures are bridges, small buildings, or skyscrapers is irrelevant; the point is how a structure's design responds to the effects of a fire. And that is not something that can be determined by oversimplifications, such as sweeping statements regarding skyscrapers and fires.
The fact that some structures collapse from fire and others do not are directly attributable to differences in design. Arup's Susan Lamont addressed this exact issue in her thesis, modeling two similar but not exactly identical structures performance in identical fires. Simple issues, such as distances between columns and therefore span lengths can make the difference between a structure standing or collapsing. Simply stating that skyscrapers have never collapsed in the past due to fire is a demonstration of complete ignorance of the fire-structural response knowledge accumulated over the years. A proper appraisal considers design elements. An improper one ignores differences between buildings, and that would be shallow and erroneous thinking.
Recall the conclusion that Arup came to about the Twin Towers (I know most of the discussion so far is on Tower 7, but this still applies): They are of the opinion that the main towers would have collapsed from the extent of the fires alone, even in the absence of fireproofing dislodgement and impact damage. Whether they're correct or not is a matter where experts can legitimately differ, but the point is that this engineering firm has concluded that the design of the main towers was susceptible to complete failure from the fires alone. They didn't allow themselves to be mired by the misapplied fact that skyscrapers had not collapsed prior to 9/11 due to fire; they instead analyzed the case on it's own merits. The same thing applies to 7 World Trade: It is improper to simply say that skyscrapers have never failed due to thermal expansion effects and thus write off the explantion of 7's collapse. It is correct to study what the interplay between elements of the structure were in the face of fires and damage from falling debris. And this is what NIST did.
The ultimate point here is that it is openly erroneous to impugn the notion of thermal expansion contributing to WTC 7's failure. First of all, that was only one of the failures that contributed to the collapse. Second, it's a well known phenomenon who's effects are well documented. Third, its contribution to the collapse also depends on the susceptibility of the building's design to progressive collapse from failures induced by the expansion. None of that is dependent on whether the building is a skyscraper or not, and all of it is derived from study of past fires. It is not a thesis built out of thin air, and it is exceptionally ignorant to treat it as incorrect or unapplicable.
The fact that some structures collapse from fire and others do not are directly attributable to differences in design. Arup's Susan Lamont addressed this exact issue in her thesis, modeling two similar but not exactly identical structures performance in identical fires. Simple issues, such as distances between columns and therefore span lengths can make the difference between a structure standing or collapsing. Simply stating that skyscrapers have never collapsed in the past due to fire is a demonstration of complete ignorance of the fire-structural response knowledge accumulated over the years. A proper appraisal considers design elements. An improper one ignores differences between buildings, and that would be shallow and erroneous thinking.
Recall the conclusion that Arup came to about the Twin Towers (I know most of the discussion so far is on Tower 7, but this still applies): They are of the opinion that the main towers would have collapsed from the extent of the fires alone, even in the absence of fireproofing dislodgement and impact damage. Whether they're correct or not is a matter where experts can legitimately differ, but the point is that this engineering firm has concluded that the design of the main towers was susceptible to complete failure from the fires alone. They didn't allow themselves to be mired by the misapplied fact that skyscrapers had not collapsed prior to 9/11 due to fire; they instead analyzed the case on it's own merits. The same thing applies to 7 World Trade: It is improper to simply say that skyscrapers have never failed due to thermal expansion effects and thus write off the explantion of 7's collapse. It is correct to study what the interplay between elements of the structure were in the face of fires and damage from falling debris. And this is what NIST did.
The ultimate point here is that it is openly erroneous to impugn the notion of thermal expansion contributing to WTC 7's failure. First of all, that was only one of the failures that contributed to the collapse. Second, it's a well known phenomenon who's effects are well documented. Third, its contribution to the collapse also depends on the susceptibility of the building's design to progressive collapse from failures induced by the expansion. None of that is dependent on whether the building is a skyscraper or not, and all of it is derived from study of past fires. It is not a thesis built out of thin air, and it is exceptionally ignorant to treat it as incorrect or unapplicable.
TokenMac
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 432
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 10,906
Hey, what about barbeque grills, why don't they melt and collapse? Ever think about that? Something tells me you have. lol
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
Ahhhh. I see you missed where I said that the part remaining standing was concrete. Apples and oranges. That steel portion of the building did completely collapse without an airplane or debris hitting it, and wonder of wonders it did so straight down. Why golly gee it's almost within its own footprint too. Will wonders never cease?
I didn't miss what you said. You missed most of the picture.
"portion" the operative term there. Not complete. And after how many hours? Keep wondering but pretending not to. Good for you.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Or serial numbers
Ya know what I mean, debunker?
Serial numbers from Lowes
Is that what you're saying?
Why am I double spacing?
I doesn't make sense.
UnLoved?
Help me?
Please?