Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[newton3376]

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.

I think I see the source of your confusion....

You seem to think that the fire got so hot it caused global collapse.....silly truther...it wasnt the fire that caused global collapse, although it contributed to the initiation.

Perhaps you should learn what the proposed collapse mechanism is from initiation to complete collapse....once you have learned that...cmon back.

I'd recommend starting with NIST and a few of Bazants papers...there are others but those are a great start.

And to think....all this time you have been a truther simply because of your errors and misunderstandings...

I'm glad we could clear those up for ya

Now run along....you have some reading to do.....

 

[RedIbis]

A lie told by depriving something of its context; Worthy of a "Family Values" Republican, I have to say.

What context changes the following statement?

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.

 

[RedIbis]

I think I see the source of your confusion....

You seem to think that the fire got so hot it caused global collapse.....silly truther...it wasnt the fire that caused global collapse, although it contributed to the initiation.

Perhaps you should learn what the proposed collapse mechanism is from initiation to complete collapse....once you have learned that...cmon back.

I'd recommend starting with NIST and a few of Bazants papers...there are others but those are a great start.

And to think....all this time you have been a truther simply because of your errors and misunderstandings...

I'm glad we could clear those up for ya

Now run along....you have some reading to do.....

I understand quite well. WTC 7 in particular, is the first time that fire-induced thermal expansion (not the first time thermal expansion occurs, mind you) causes column failure and the first time that a single column failure causes global collapse.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and neither you nor NIST has that evidence.

 

[BigAl]

What context changes the following statement?

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.

Yup. So what?

 

[BenBurch]

Yup. So what?

Yes, not a controversial statement. What is he objecting to?

 

[Seymour Butz]

I understand quite well. WTC 7 in particular, is the first time that fire-induced thermal expansion (not the first time thermal expansion occurs, mind you) causes column failure and the first time that a single column failure causes global collapse.
.

You can't even get this right.

1-Thermal expansion caused girder failure.

2-Girder failure caused floor failure, which then caused IT to fail, several times over.

3-Unbraced column failed, transferring loads and pulling down yet more bracing floors, which fell onto others below and failed them.

4-Resulting in more unbraced columns, which led to a repeat of #3 across the core, resulting in a somewhat hollow shell.

5- Ext columns are now unbraced, and they start failing also, resulting in the global collapse of the shell.


Saying that thermal expansion caused a column to fail is oh-so-easy to extend your delusions, but it is also inaccurate.

 

[funk de fino]

I understand quite well. WTC 7 in particular, is the first time that fire-induced thermal expansion (not the first time thermal expansion occurs, mind you) causes column failure and the first time that a single column failure causes global collapse.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and neither you nor NIST has that evidence.

IIRC NIST said if they removed that column the building would have collapsed. Fires or no fires.

That an otherwise sane seeming person is reduced to the first time in history arguments usually seen used by the doughnuts at Loose Change et al, is quite sad.

Do you agree NIST did what they could with what they had? Any other hypothesis is even more out there.

 

[RedIbis]

You can't even get this right.

1-Thermal expansion caused girder failure.

2-Girder failure caused floor failure, which then caused IT to fail, several times over.

3-Unbraced column failed, transferring loads and pulling down yet more bracing floors, which fell onto others below and failed them.

4-Resulting in more unbraced columns, which led to a repeat of #3 across the core, resulting in a somewhat hollow shell.

5- Ext columns are now unbraced, and they start failing also, resulting in the global collapse of the shell.


Saying that thermal expansion caused a column to fail is oh-so-easy to extend your delusions, but it is also inaccurate.

You do realize I'm referring to WTC 7, right?

 

[funk de fino]

You do realize I'm referring to WTC 7, right?

I cannot believe you posted that so I am quoting it in case you try and edit it.

 

[dtugg]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and neither you nor NIST has that evidence.

What's your evidence that the NWO blew up WTC7?

 

[Seymour Butz]

You do realize I'm referring to WTC 7, right?

Yup.

Saying that thermal expansion caused a column to fail is an oh-so-easy way to extend your delusions, but it is also inaccurate.

A long unbraced length caused the first column to fail.

 

[Seymour Butz]

What's your evidence that the NWO blew up WTC7?

Aparently, the evidence proving cd is cuz Larry "made out like a bandit".

Talk about non sequiters....

 

[RedIbis]

Aparently, the evidence proving cd is cuz Larry "made out like a bandit".

Talk about non sequiters....

Indeed.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Indeed.

So my making a obvious joke at your obvious refusal to answer the "Larry" question, and thefore implying that no one will ever get an answer to THIS question absolves you of answering either?

No surprise there. Dog bites man....

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Or not....

see what I mean?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Before happening twice in one day on 9/11, when has a steel, high rise ever been hit at high speed by a fully fuelled airliner?

Before happening on 9/11, when has a steel, high rise ever been set on fire simultaneously on multiple floors by the collapse of a burning high rise right next to it?

Dave

 

[grandmastershek]

Indeed.

I am glad to see Red that you are finally admitting that your arguments do not logically follow.

Secondly, before and after the sinking of the Titanic, no cruise ship has ever been sunk due to icebergs. People heard explosions. Someone referred to what looked like the side of building hitting the ship. It was reported as unsinkable. The only possible conclusion based on truther reasoning is that a large building laced with explosives in the middle of the Atlantic was the true cause of the sinking of the Titanic. Be sure to support a new independent investigation Red.

 

[funk de fino]

Yup.

Saying that thermal expansion caused a column to fail is an oh-so-easy way to extend your delusions, but it is also inaccurate.

A long unbraced length caused the first column to fail.

Yet again proving that Red Ibis has not read the report he lambasts. It doesn't get any better.

 

[jaydeehess]

You can't even get this right.

1-Thermal expansion caused girder failure.

2-Girder failure caused floor failure, which then caused IT to fail, several times over.

3-Unbraced column failed, transferring loads and pulling down yet more bracing floors, which fell onto others below and failed them.

4-Resulting in more unbraced columns, which led to a repeat of #3 across the core, resulting in a somewhat hollow shell.

5- Ext columns are now unbraced, and they start failing also, resulting in the global collapse of the shell.


Saying that thermal expansion caused a column to fail is oh-so-easy to extend your delusions, but it is also inaccurate.

You do realize I'm referring to WTC 7, right?

You realize that he was too, right?

Fact is that this is the first instance of an unfought large scale office fire in an all steel long span structure with floor beams placed assymettrically. (all of which contributed to the failure of col 79 and subsequent global failure)

Your out-of-context quoting and hyperbolic statements become more obvious with ever post. Keep writing.

 

[jaydeehess]

,,, and to educate RedI about the towers,,,,,,
This is the first time that an all steel tube-in-tube, long span high rise has been hit by a fast, large airliner and also the first instance of a multifloor widespread office fire developing within seconds due to the presence of 10,000 gallons of liquid acellerant.