Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[SabreTruthTiger]

What's the matter? Can't refute the facts? ROFL!

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

wrong, they don't reach those temperatures unless there's a powerful accelerant involved. No modern steel structured building has ever collapsed from fires. They never reach that temperature. Could you please provide details on the building in the photograph or links to provide proof?

 

[funk de fino]

What's the matter? Can't refute the facts? ROFL!

I just did. Care to refute my destruction of your first false claim? Instead of chuckling like a clown?

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you it was the the other post

 

[Mancman]

OK, time to prove and I mean PROVE 911 was demolition and an inside job.

Fire weakening steel: Kerosine fires in real world conditions or dirty burns such as 911 produce temperatures not exceeding 700F, no way near enough to weaken structural steel designed to resist 5 times their weight, especially when combined with the fact that steel has a high thermal conductivity and would draw heat away rapidly. Also the fact that the aluminium cladding was not even deformed proves the fires were not hot enough.

I'll just knock one of your stray balls out of the park even though I think you're a troll. If I wanted to annoy the debunkers here I'd post the same long debunked nonsense that you did with a similar air of unwarranted arrogance.

Here's some aluminium facade with an inverted V effect due to melting in the fire:

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Any links or proof at all is a start

 

[TexasJack]

Gee, I wonder who it is this time.

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Hmm, who's arrogant? That is probably distortion from the initial explosion

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

There is no refuting that the kerosine fires in dirty burns are only ever 500-700 F Steel has extremely high thermal conduction properties and would have drawn heat away quickly. The fact that people wer standing in the gash just before the tower collpased and the smoke had been black for a while with very little flame visible shows that the steel had cooled substantially, thus steel weakened by heat could not have caused the collapse

 

[WildCat]

These facts are IRREFUTABLE! Why is there a debate??!!!

Because to most reasonable people they are easily refutable. And to trained engineers they are laughable.

This is why no truther has managed to get these "irrefutable" facts published in a peer-reviewed engineering journal 8 years after 9/11.

Facts and science do not support the truther's claims. All theye is ignorance, lies, and appeals to emotion.

 

[stateofgrace]

Hmm, who's arrogant? That is probably distortion from the initial explosion

Initial explosion ?

So how did all the preplanted explosives survive this initial explosion ?

 

[funk de fino]

wrong, they don't reach those temperatures unless there's a powerful accelerant involved. No modern steel structured building has ever collapsed from fires. They never reach that temperature. Could you please provide details on the building in the photograph or links to provide proof?

Thats a lie and it is refuted by fire experts, forensic examiners, and the Cardington steel tests. Normal household fires can reach temps approx 1100 deg C.

That warehouse was a steel framed warehouse across the street from my work which caught fire. it stored household goods and office equipment. It was fought by firefighters but the steel frame collapsed. It had to be destroyed and a new building is now in its place. I took that photo.

Here is a case study from the windsor tower. Look at the buckled steel.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

Scroll down to 4.3.3 to see the data from the British steel tests

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

 

[BigAl]

wrong, they don't reach those temperatures unless there's a powerful accelerant involved. No modern steel structured building has ever collapsed from fires. They never reach that temperature. Could you please provide details on the building in the photograph or links to provide proof?

Here are a bunch of steel structues that collapses die to simple fires. I'm sorry for the ugly format, it's a work-in-progress for a web page.

January of 1997 -- the $15 million dollar Sight and Sound Theater in Lancaster
County, Pa collapsed due to fire. <br> <br>

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf <br> <br>


Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire <br>
By: Jesse Beitel and Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E. <br> <br>
http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153 <br>

On Jan 16, 1967, the steel roof of the McCormick Place in Chicago
collapsed due to fire <br> <br>



Enigma Business Park fire <br> <br>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandwor...s/2006/11/03/malvern_fire_video_feature.shtml
<br> <br>

Dutch fire <br> <br>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaK5YVVaRCo
<br> <br>

------------ <br> <br>

September/October 2002 <br> <br>

Bridge Rebuilt on the Fast Track <br>
by Timothy Barkley and Gary Strasburg <br>

When a crash occurs on a main travel artery, it can back up traffic for
miles-causing a chain reaction affecting every route in the vicinity. If the
incident occurs at an interchange of three major highways and destroys a
well-traveled bridge, transportation officials have the makings of a major
congestion emergency. <br> <br>

This exact scenario occurred at the junction of Interstates 65, 20,and 59 in
downtown Birmingham, AL, on Saturday, January 5, 2002. At approximately 10 a.m., a
gasoline tanker truck hit the I-65 Southbound bridge. Fire and heat caused the steel
girders to sag up to 3 meters (10 feet) on one side. The interchange was engulfed in
smoke that filled the skyline, visible to motorists and residents of the city.
<br><br>

------------------------------------------------------------------- <br>

Steel building collapsses due to fire. <br><br>

http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jun/20/mourning_heroes/ <br><br>

Mourning 9 heroes <br>
By Noah Haglund (Contact), Nadine Parks (Contact), Glenn Smith (Contact)
The Post and Courier <br>
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 <br><br>


'Fearless' Charleston firefighters 'will never be forgotten,' Riley says Capt. Ralph
Linderman of the St. Andrews Fire Department said the blaze was the hottest he could
recall in three decades of firefighting. "That fire bent steel like a wet noodle,"
he said. <br><br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_Sofa_Super_Store_fire <br>
<br><br>
---------------- <br>

(04-29) 12:51 PDT -- A huge ball of fire from an exploding gasoline tanker melted
steel and caused an overpass in the MacArthur Maze near the East Bay end of the Bay
Bridge to collapse onto the roadway below early Sunday, virtually ensuring major
traffic problems for weeks to come. <br><br>

The tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline, was heading from a
refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger Road, in Oakland, shortly
before 4 a.m. when it crashed. <br><br>

Engineers not connected to the incident said the steel underbelly of the I-580
overpass seems to have heated to a sufficient temperature to bend -- and that
movement pulled the roadbed off its supports. <br><br>

"It was so much engulfed in flames, it was hard to see the freeway itself,"
Rodriguez told KCBS radio. "It was scary because, you know, it's metal and
cement... You could see the freeway drooping. It looked like plastic melted. It was
unbelievable. It was bent and finally it just fell and we saw it hit the ground."
<br><br>


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
<br><br>

------------------------------- <br><br>


1989 FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES DETOURS <br>
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-78_NJ/ <br>

FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES DETOURS: In the early morning hours of August 7, 1989, a
multiple-alarm fire at an illegal garbage dump underneath I-78 near Newark Airport
caused heavy damage to the freeway overpass. The source of the fire was a mound of
trash 25 feet tall and hundreds of yards long consisting of scrap wood, plastics
and paper. The heat of the fire buckled the ten-inch concrete surface and melted steel support beams, and the resulting weight shifts from the highway (which had sagged nearly a foot) <br><br>

 

[Mancman]

Hmm, who's arrogant? That is probably distortion from the initial explosion

And this inverted V effect just so happens to be present above the fierce fire, yet is absent above the non burning portion even though the explosion ripped through this entire side of WTC2? Gee, I guess that twoof science for you.

You know truth movement engineer Charles Pagelow says it takes temperatures of 700 C to break windows (and mistakenly claims none were broken). WTC1 lost over 1000 windows during the fire. Maybe you could explain that for us?

 

[funk de fino]

I suggest someone also reads this paper and looks at the teperatures in the household tests.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/feh5/pdfs/FEH_pdf_pp078.pdf

More than 700 deg F as claimed

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

They could have been shielded from heat but detonated by an internal receiver, some may have gone off anyway it was a big fireball.

 

[funk de fino]

There is no refuting that the kerosine fires in dirty burns are only ever 500-700 F Steel has extremely high thermal conduction properties and would have drawn heat away quickly. The fact that people wer standing in the gash just before the tower collpased and the smoke had been black for a while with very little flame visible shows that the steel had cooled substantially, thus steel weakened by heat could not have caused the collapse

It was not kerosine fires. Stop making false claims.

 

[Dave Rogers]

OK, time to prove and I mean PROVE 911 was demolition and an inside job.

I think everything you have to say is well known. Let's take it one point at a time.

Fire weakening steel: Kerosine fires in real world conditions or dirty burns such as 911 produce temperatures not exceeding 700F,

The kerosene burned away in about 10 minutes. It was the building contents fire that produced temperatures sufficiently high to weaken the steel. Thermal modelling of the fires agrees with all the physical data that could be collected, and the susceptibility of steel to weakening in fire is well known, with numerous examples of fire-induced collapse of steel structures.

no way near enough to weaken structural steel designed to resist 5 times their weight,

This is a gross overestimate of the safety margin of the structure. Our resident structural engineers can give more information, but realistic numbers are 3 times or less. A building design to support 5x service loads would be rejected on grounds of unnecessary excess cost.

especially when combined with the fact that steel has a high thermal conductivity and would draw heat away rapidly.

The thermal conductivity of steel is not particularly high, and localised heating of steel in building fires is again a well-known and understood phenomenon. The thermal conductivity was included in the modelling of the structures that predicted heat-induced weakening and collapse.

Also the fact that the aluminium cladding was not even deformed proves the fires were not hot enough.

Cite, please. We know that the external columns were seen to bow inwards for several minutes before collapse initiation, and this included deformation of the aluminium cladding. This is too vague a point to address without additional information.

Speed of collapse: The collapses themselves violate the law of conservation of momentum.

No, they don't. Several people, including myself, have done the conservation of momentum calculation as part of a full determination of the expected collapse time, and found that it results in a collapse time within the bounds of observation.

There is no way that all the solid structural steel columns and supports, especially all the ones below the impacts unaffected by fire would offer no resistance to produce near freefall speed without demolition.

The buildings didn't collapse at a speed particularly near freefall. Calculations of the collapse time, using realistic values for the column resistance, give results within the error margin of the observed collapse times. This has been known for at least the last couple of years. I suggest you google Gregory Urich's work on the matter, which the Journal of 9/11 Studies refused to publish without advancing any plausible justification.

The official pancaking story has been abandoned as it obviously attempts to treat the collapse as a floor by floor scenario when the load bearing distribution obviously involves the entire frame.

This is simply wrong. The FEMA theory of pancake collapse initiation was superseded by NIST's theory of collapse initiation due to pull-in forces from sagging floor trusses. Once collapse had initiated, it progressed downwards as expected, and it is trivially obvious that this would involve some kind of floor-by-floor progression.

The steel structures are built to withstand 5 times the load above them, the minimal kinetic energy acquired by a floor failing(of which there is no logical reason anyway) would not come close to approaching the load bearing limit.

Again, a 5x safety margin is unsubstantiated. The minimum kinetic energy acquired by the upper block falling through the height of one storey has been found in all calculations free from embarrassing errors to be well in excess of the capacity of an intact floor to resist, and the floors in the region immediately below collapse initiation were already seriously damaged.

Any impact tremors from collapse are distributed throughout the frame and would be inconsequential.

Which is irrelevant.

The negation of the toppling effect: Localised damage caused by a plane impact would lead to a structural inequality, thus the top section would topple like a tree falling toward the cut, this is observed to begin happening in the south tower collapse.

And the north tower collapse.

However, as it is the gravitational force or downward pressure from the toppling upper section enabling it to topple, it’s uneven base acting as a pivot / fulcrum against the lower section, then the more the top section forces against the lower section, the more the toppling would continue and it would fall off to the side.

The rate of rotation depends on how long the fulcrum survives. Since, as the top section begins to rotate, its centre of gravity must move sideways, it will therefore exert a lateral force on the fulcrum, which is composed of columns which are not capable of resisting large lateral forces. The fulcrum would be expected therefore to collapse before any significant lateral movement of the centre of gravity was possible. As for falling off to the side, this was impossible for the North Tower; the upper block was sufficiently short that its centre of gravity could not reach a position outside the footprint of the tower for any rotation about any axis within the footprint. For the South Tower, a rotation of greater than 40 degrees about a central axis would have been needed for the CG of the upper block to lie outside the tower's footprint, and there simply wasn't any way the fulcrum could survive that long.

But the top of the lower section explodes away downward, the pivot/fulcrum pressure is released and the top section ceases toppling and falls straight down proving that gravitational pressure of the top mass did not cause the collapse.

All of which is expected from the fact that the fulcrum is being stressed in a direction in which it has very little resistance, and hence breaks very quickly. Once the fulcrum is gone, there's nothing left to cause the top block to move laterally, so straight down is the only direction it can possibly fall.

Symmetric collapse: symmetric, even collapse is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, this is impossible in a natural collapse as even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.

There were no symmetric collapses on 9/11. You yourself admitted that WTC2 rotated. WTC1's rotation has been observed and measured from videos. Even WTC7 rotated as it fell, despite the contrary claims of the truth movement.

These facts are IRREFUTABLE! Why is there a debate??!!!

Wrong, they are all fully and repeatedly refuted. But your question is apt; when the long-discredited canards you've put forward are all the truth movement has to offer, why is there still a debate? The answer is that, other than here, mostly there isn't; the truth movement has long been effectively ignored, and that state of affairs is unlikely to change.

Oh I know why, there are a lot of government-paid bloggers here with the fallacious official story facts sheet in front of them.

I always find it amusing when people try to convince me of assertions against myself that I know not to be true. However strongly you may try to argue the point, I remain fully aware that I am not paid by any government to post here, and that I have no official fact sheet to refer to.

Now lets' see if any of you can refute the proof without resorting to hurling abuse, calling me a conspiracy theorist thinking that constitutes an argument, or illogically appealing to the memories of the dead.

Let's see. Yes, refuted it. No, didn't do any of those other things. No doubt you'll be extremely happy that I replied this way, right?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hmm, who's arrogant? That is probably distortion from the initial explosion

How does an internal explosion distort the structure inwards?

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

They could have been shielded from heat but detonated by an internal receiver, some may have gone off anyway it was a big fireball.

How could those receivers work when the firefighter radios did not?