Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[TheRedWorm]

Even if you read just what Grizz quoted and what Grizz wrote in response, you would have seen the point. But you missed it, I don't know why...

 

[Disbelief]

Even if you read just what Grizz quoted and what Grizz wrote in response, you would have seen the point. But you missed it, I don't know why...

And he continues to argue about it instead of just saying he made a mistake and moving on. Odd.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Well, I didn't read your entire exchange.

...lul wut? You responded to it!!! It just started... Look I really don't care if you didn't recognize the point at least let me "try" to get bill smith to learn the on his own. I'd hate to ruin the suspense by spelling it out yet again to you before the poor guy has a chance to even respond...

 

[RedIbis]

...lul wut? You responded to it!!! It just started... Look I really don't care if you didn't recognize the point at least let me "try" to get bill smith to learn the on his own. I'd hate to ruin the suspense by spelling it out yet again to you before the poor guy has a chance to even respond...

Too bad, I'll ruin it for you. You were attempting to put Bill in a position where if he argues that the collapse hypothesis of WTC 7 could not have been from fire because it's never happened in history then since thermite has never been used to bring a bldg down then his argument fails by his own logic.

Your problem is that nanoenergetics have been discussed as a viable demolition material and yet as NIST reminds us fire has never brought down a steel framed high rise, so your argument fails because your analogy is invalid.

 

[Sabretooth]

Your problem is that nanoenergetics have been discussed as a viable demolition material

No, they have not. Only in truther-land.

and yet as NIST reminds us fire has never brought down a steel framed high rise, so your argument fails because your analogy is invalid.

Your problem is that you can't see past your own nose.

Your point here is wrong, as steel framed buildings have collapsed, at least in part, due to fire.

WTC7's total collapse was due to uncontrolled fires, nothing else.

 

[Fourbrick]

I haven't been shown any legitimate proof to the contrary. We are talking sustained flight...lots of people jumped off bridges, for those few moments, they took flight. Put them in a box while they do it, and call the box a plane.

TAM

You obviously didn't read it properly , Tam. It said "man made construction". You doubt that the Montgolfier Brothers flew in their man made balloon? You doubt that Otto Lilienthal flew in his "man made glider"?How about Samuel Langley and his catapulted "man made construction"?You can try to change what he said but he still gets no cigar.

 

[Disbelief]

You obviously didn't read it properly , Tam. It said "man made construction". You doubt that the Montgolfier Brothers flew in their man made balloon? You doubt that Otto Lilienthal flew in his "man made glider"?How about Samuel Langley and his catapulted "man made construction"?You can try to change what he said but he still gets no cigar.

Still means nothing in the context of the original argument. Maybe you should move this to the science forum if you want to continue the discussion about who was first in flight.

 

[jaydeehess]

Too bad, I'll ruin it for you. You were attempting to put Bill in a position where if he argues that the collapse hypothesis of WTC 7 could not have been from fire because it's never happened in history then since thermite has never been used to bring a bldg down then his argument fails by his own logic.

Bingo, end stop, finito

Your problem is that nanoenergetics have been discussed as a viable demolition material and yet as NIST reminds us fire has never brought down a steel framed high rise, so your argument fails because your analogy is invalid.

No, by your logic then since thermite HAS (supposedly) been discussed by demoitions companies, AND since fire engineering does not rule out the possibility of global collapse caused by fire alone, both arguements would be valid.

Here's the problems with your thermite contention though;

- no evidence of thermite having been loaded into the structures
- no visible evidence of thermite having been ignited in any structure(bright white lite)
- no evidence whatsoever that thermite will work to sever or sufficiently weaken heavy vertical columns. (In fact only NatGeo has even tried to do this and found it did not work. No one who has promoted this method of column failure during Sept 11/01 has even attempted such a thing let alone demonstrated it)

OTOH there is a huge body of evidence that demostrates that fire alone can and does cause steel structural members of all types to soften, buckle and fail. Many examples of this have been shown in the JREF forums including a few structures which did in fact suffer complete destruction (Kader Toy factory for eg.)

So while thermite severing of large columns remains a theoretical possibility, heat from common office fires weakening and causing to buckle and fail, steel structural members including columns, has been docuemented as having occured.
Now back to the "never happened before" contention. Since it is docuemented fact that common office fires can and have caused steel structural members to buckle and fail but there is no docuementation whatsoever that thermite has been used to caused vertical steel members to fail, the only thing that has never occured before is the thermite caused failure.

So you and bill will now cease using the 'never before' line?

Furthermore NIST's report does not require the columns to fail due to heat from office fires whereas those who have promoted thermite usage during Sept 11/01 do claim it was used to fail columns. In the NIST reports it is the failure of floor members that causes columns to be unbraced over several floors which in turn causes the columns to buckle through purely mechanical stresses.

 

[jaydeehess]

You obviously didn't read it properly , Tam. It said "man made construction". You doubt that the Montgolfier Brothers flew in their man made balloon? You doubt that Otto Lilienthal flew in his "man made glider"?How about Samuel Langley and his catapulted "man made construction"?You can try to change what he said but he still gets no cigar.

The main point being made by TAM obviously escapes you.
The point is that at some point in history no man had ever taken flight but then one day a man did do so.
Thusly the 'never before' line of arguement is shown to carry no weight, it is a moot point.

Your argueing the minutia of who actually did fly first in no way validates the 'never before' arguement which was the contention TAM was addressing.

 

[Fourbrick]

The main point being made by TAM obviously escapes you.
The point is that at some point in history no man had ever taken flight but then one day a man did do so.
Thusly the 'never before' line of arguement is shown to carry no weight, it is a moot point.

Your argueing the minutia of who actually did fly first in no way validates the 'never before' arguement which was the contention TAM was addressing.

Not so. I was commenting on an incorrect statement. That was all.

 

[RedIbis]

No, they have not. Only in truther-land.



Your problem is that you can't see past your own nose.

Your point here is wrong, as steel framed buildings have collapsed, at least in part, due to fire.

You conveniently omitted the phrase, "high-rise." Even NIST admits no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed primarily from fire.

 

[Disbelief]

You conveniently omitted the phrase, "high-rise." Even NIST admits no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed primarily from fire.

Which proves that they can't, how?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You conveniently omitted the phrase, "high-rise." Even NIST admits no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed primarily from fire.

Firefighters around the US have witnessed buildings collapse from fires. You're not a firefighter nor do you understand Fire Science to make a judgement call based on pure unaltered BS from paranoid little inbreds who haven't a damn clue.

 

[Bell]

You conveniently omitted the phrase, "high-rise." Even NIST admits no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed primarily from fire.

And why exactly is that of any importance?

 

[jaydeehess]

Not so. I was commenting on an incorrect statement. That was all.

I assume that your response refers only to the first sentence of my post.

Fact remains that even if you were correcting the minor point(who flew first) that was not the point TAM was making and a further discussion of who flew first belongs not in this thread.
If you wish to discuss in more detail, that particular topic then take it to the science or history forums, and let's all move on please.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

OTOH there is a huge body of evidence that demostrates that fire alone can and does cause steel structural members of all types to soften, buckle and fail. Many examples of this have been shown in the JREF forums including a few structures which did in fact suffer complete destruction (Kader Toy factory for eg.)

Which illustrates another point I that should be drawn from my original. When the "no steel high rise has ever collapsed due to fire" issue is brought up all mention of the material's inherent weaknesses, and construction specs is strictly omitted.

On the other hand, if you try to make them confront the same line of thinking for thermite... well, you already get the point thanks to red:

Your problem is that nanoenergetics have been discussed as a viable demolition material and yet as NIST reminds us fire has never brought down a steel framed high rise, so your argument fails because your analogy is invalid.

BTW, red. The above is a repeat of your statement from December 2008. I find it strange when you still wonder why people call your argumentation selective and hypocritical. The analogy is perfectly justified. For example when you discussed the Columbia incident you explained that incidents of foam simply damaging - yet not causing the complete destruction of - the shuttle prior to the incident was a viable explanation for what happened. This requires that you take into consideration the destruction of smaller steel framed buildings as evidence that the scenario for the WTC was very real, yet almost two years later you refuse to do it anyway.

 

[Sabretooth]

You conveniently omitted the phrase, "high-rise." Even NIST admits no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed primarily from fire.

So, you're implying that it can't happen? That it's impossible that a building can structurally fail due to wild, uncontrolled fires?

So...by your logic as well...it is unnecessary to fire-proof steel buildings? Sprinkler systems are a waste of time?

Your logic is flawed.


ETA: removed comment about the Beijing Hotel collapsing due to fire...my error.

 

[jaydeehess]

You conveniently omitted the phrase, "high-rise." Even NIST admits no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed primarily from fire.

Which proves that they can't, how?

Why, because its never happened in the past that a high rise steel structure has collapsed completely due to fire alone and on Sept 11/01, one such structure did.
(see TAM's relevent point above)

The tower's collapses were aided of course by significant impact damge when the 100+ ton 450+mph aircraft rammed them.

Only WTC 7 collapsed due to fire induced damage alone. However all three structures share one commonality that persons who do not accept the common narritive of the events of 9/11/01 always brush aside. All three structures were long floor span structures. WTC7 was also assymettrically constructed with columns that had girders attached and no opposing girder on the other side of the column. WTC7's floor concrete was not anchored as well as it could have been to its beams. WTC7 also had a cantilever truss system that carried the bulk of the mass of 40 storeys above the pre-existing Con-Ed structure.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The Beijing Hotel collapsed due to fire...which was first? WTC7 or Beijing? Or was that brought down via CD as well?

Just a quibble... and maybe I'm missing the point? But if you're talking about the Mandarin Oriental it didn't collapse. It was effectively a complete loss, but the concrete frame it was structured on is what kept it standing. Don't give an easy target

 

[Sabretooth]

Just a quibble... and maybe I'm missing the point? But if you're talking about the Mandarin Oriental it didn't collapse. It was effectively a complete loss, but the concrete frame it was structured on is what kept it standing. Don't give an easy target

You are correct. I was trying to pull details from memory. Edited out my statement.