• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

Before happening three times in one day on 9/11, when has a steel, high rise ever collapsed due to fire?
 
RedIbis said:
Before happening three times in one day on 9/11, when has a steel, high rise ever collapsed due to fire?
Click to expand...

Many steel buildings have collapsed before and since, as you well know.

Thousands of them.

Prior to this, however, there was never a tall building of this sort of construction involved in so extensive a fire which was un-fought for so long. Unless you can show me one, and you already know you cannot, you are full of "stuff."

The fact that something happens for the first time does not mean that it did not happen.

Prior to July 20, 1969, I defy you to show me a man traveling to the surface of the moon on a mere rocket.
 
If it didn't happen before, does that mean it couldn't happen?

Seriously, even if it had never happened before, why does that mean it could not happen?

Were there other things that happened prior to the collapse that may have contributed?
 
BenBurch said:
Many steel buildings have collapsed before and since, as you well know.

Thousands of them.

Prior to this, however, there was never a tall building of this sort of construction involved in so extensive a fire which was un-fought for so long. Unless you can show me one, and you already know you cannot, you are full of "stuff."

The fact that something happens for the first time does not mean that it did not happen.

Prior to July 20, 1969, I defy you to show me a man traveling to the surface of the moon on a mere rocket.
Click to expand...

You simply cannot produce a single steel framed high rise before or after 9/11 that collapsed due to fire. What's in this 9 pages of "debunking" stems from your misleading thread title. Nobody doubts that steel can fail in a hydrocarbon fire. It's the fact that a hydrocarbon fire cannot heat the steel hot enough or long enough to make an entire bldg globally collapse.

Nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that the fires in the Towers, let alone WTC 7 ever got hot enough to make the bldg globally collapse.
 
RedIbis said:
You simply cannot produce a single steel framed high rise before or after 9/11 that collapsed due to fire. What's in this 9 pages of "debunking" stems from your misleading thread title. Nobody doubts that steel can fail in a hydrocarbon fire. It's the fact that a hydrocarbon fire cannot heat the steel hot enough or long enough to make an entire bldg globally collapse.

Nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that the fires in the Towers, let alone WTC 7 ever got hot enough to make the bldg globally collapse.
Click to expand...

Show me ONE of like construction and similar scale that had so extensive a fire, and where the fire was un-fought,

Just One.

If you aren't a liar, you will have an example ready for me in moments.
 
RedIbis said:
You simply cannot produce a single steel framed high rise before or after 9/11 that collapsed due to fire. What's in this 9 pages of "debunking" stems from your misleading thread title. Nobody doubts that steel can fail in a hydrocarbon fire. It's the fact that a hydrocarbon fire cannot heat the steel hot enough or long enough to make an entire bldg globally collapse.

Nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that the fires in the Towers, let alone WTC 7 ever got hot enough to make the bldg globally collapse.
Click to expand...

(Bolding mine)
You make this assertion. Where is this proven to be a fact? Because it hadn't happened before? That's not proof it CANNOT happen. It's only proof that it HAD NOT happened. Two very different things.
 
RedIbis said:
You simply cannot produce a single steel framed high rise before or after 9/11 that collapsed due to fire. What's in this 9 pages of "debunking" stems from your misleading thread title. Nobody doubts that steel can fail in a hydrocarbon fire. It's the fact that a hydrocarbon fire cannot heat the steel hot enough or long enough to make an entire bldg globally collapse.

Nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that the fires in the Towers, let alone WTC 7 ever got hot enough to make the bldg globally collapse.
Click to expand...

why don't all those books and video sellers and priests of the 9/11 church put together some of the money they earned with their religion and put together a team and go the same way NIST went and prove that it cant happen. All those experts of AE9/11 could sit together and compile the best ever seen FEA model of WTC7 maybe even the towers. and finally prove it can't happen?
 
RedIbis said:
You simply cannot produce a single steel framed high rise before or after 9/11 that collapsed due to fire.
Click to expand...

Find us a steel high-rise fire in which the fire department didn't fight the fire. (Other than WTC 1/2/7.)

What's in this 9 pages of "debunking" stems from your misleading thread title. Nobody doubts that steel can fail in a hydrocarbon fire. It's the fact that a hydrocarbon fire cannot heat the steel hot enough or long enough to make an entire bldg globally collapse.
Click to expand...

A building fails one piece at a time.

Nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that the fires in the Towers, let alone WTC 7 ever got hot enough to make the bldg globally collapse.
Click to expand...

All fire burns at essentially the same temperature.
 
Last edited:
Without wanting to add to the bludgeoning too much I'd just like to mention that a year and a half ago despite the columbia incident having no prior precedent Redibis stated via a wikipedia excerpt that because Styrofoam had caused damage to other spacecraft it was a viable explanation for the shuttle Columbia's break up and that there was no such conspiracy. In the last year and a half he's been intermittently reminded of his statement being the opposite of his views on the WTC, but he refuses to acknowledge it.

Short version... the discussion's not going anywhere.

If anybody needs a refresher here's the original exchange. Perhaps Red will finally address this year and a half old mystery of logical flip flops.

RedIbis said:
Titanic - still on the ocean floor, and as anyone can see for themselves, the hull is badly buckled.
Hindenburg - I didn't see it mentioned in this thread and what would even be the point of bringing it up?
Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

These analogies all fail. Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.
Click to expand...


Grizzly Bear said:
I find your position rather hypocritical, given that for the space shuttle analogy:

- you appear to look at precedents in which foam break off has occurred but up until the Columbia incident had never fatally damaged the shuttle...

Why are you unable to apply the same form of analysis of the buildings?
Click to expand...



Or not....

I've honestly gotta wonder what makes the Columbia incident so special as to not be a conspiracy to you red... i mean after all you can't point out a single incident before or after February 1, 2003 of a piece of foam causing global disintegration of a shuttle in reentry. Wouldn't the logic applied here to the trade centers be screaming conspiracy right about now for Columbia?
 
Last edited:
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it doesn't hurt to check up on 'Automotive Fires'. Recommended read; "Metallurgical Investigation into an Automotive Fire"
Part of what is described in the above link, on a specific example, tells us that the Al melted close to the passenger's seat, indicating a temperature of 648 degrees celsius at that location. The steel braiding, which was above a portion of the fuel line tubing in the engine-compartment, had melted at one end. This would indicates temperatures around 1535 degrees Celsius.
And furthermore, there was copper wiring close to the engine valve cover that showed grain-boundary degradation, and this indicates temperatures up to some 1370 degrees Celsius.

Plastic and gasoline, whooda thunk it? ;)
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
You simply cannot produce a single steel framed high rise before or after 9/11 that collapsed due to fire. What's in this 9 pages of "debunking" stems from your misleading thread title. Nobody doubts that steel can fail in a hydrocarbon fire. It's the fact that a hydrocarbon fire cannot heat the steel hot enough or long enough to make an entire bldg globally collapse.
Click to expand...

Thats a lie right there.

Nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that the fires in the Towers, let alone WTC 7 ever got hot enough to make the bldg globally collapse.
Click to expand...

That another lie.
 
Heres a building that went on fire across from my work. The fire was fought but it did not stop the steel frame collapsing. The building no longer exists. The only reason the columns on the left did not pull in worse is because they were tied to a bricks and mortar wall.



Hydrocarbon fire with normal household and office items for fuel. Hydrocarbon fires reach 1100 degrees C easily.
 
RedIbis said:
Yeah, taken almost word for word from NIST.
Click to expand...
Yet another dishonest trick, more dishonest cherry picking.

Sure it is, Only if you just cherry pick out a few words or a line, out of a 10,000 page report and purposely and dishonestly leave out a ton of other information and context.

All 911 traitors ever seem to do is lie, in an attempt to deceive and manipulate people into buying their crazy delusions. Which is so transparent because these tricks and sneaky tactics are not even new or original to their cult.

Not to mention that after all these years since 911, and after all the time you have been on this forum Redibis, and this is still all you can resort too, the same old, tired and old programmed regurgitated tricks and lies. How sad and pathetic for you and for the 911 traitor cult.
 
RedIbis should've quit a long time ago. I mean why in God's name would he continue to ramble on like a fool? Is it because he's been fooled by the fools from the 9/11 TM? Or is it because he failed in school? Or is it that he's acting out his agressions towards normal people rather than face the U.S. Government? What has he got to hide?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom