Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?

[Sivan Kurzberg]

As much as you like to try to pin me down as someone who isn't new to the 9/11 truth&conspiracy scene I can't help but admire how you've taken such an interest in me.

I've seen some of beachnut's old posts when I've used the search function - you know, the function that searches old posts.

Or maybe it was the 14,000 plus postings. jeez

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

yes it caused a part of the building to collapse.

[qimg]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3880/flickrvahidg.jpg[/qimg]

5.) The TU Delft building reportedly started burning around 9.30 in the morning. Around 13.30 an explosion was reported - it still took to 16.30 for only part of the building to collapse.
[ sources: www.soggen.nl..., www.nu.nl... and nos.nl... ]

What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire highrise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour.

 

[TJM]

What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire highrise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour.

Airplanes.

 

[Carlos]

yes it caused a part of the building to collapse.

[qimg]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3880/flickrvahidg.jpg[/qimg]

So, if fire caused structural failures in that building why this would not be possible in World Trade Center?

Look, the point here is the possibility of a fire causing the collapse of part of the structure.

5.)Around 13.30 an explosion was reported.

Yes, like the WTC.

 

[BigAl]

What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire highrise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour.

There never was and never will be a building like WTC1/2.

• tube-in-tube structural design unique to WTC1/2 and shown to be subject to truss failure in fire.
• effectively no fireproofing
• no working fire sprinkler system
• hit by 140 tons of aircraft at 450MPH.
• Resulting structural damage
• Local floor overload from the tons of aircraft debris
• thousands of gallons of fuel ignited on many inside the building
• resulting hour of fire
• No firefighting effort possible.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Airplanes.

The buildings took the impacts and remained standing because of great structural redundancy in the WTC design. If it was the impacts the buildings would have fell immediately. It was the fire in your official version that caused the buildings to collapse, including WTC7 that was not hit by a plane. Fire does not bring on sudden global collapse of a high rise complete in a matter of seconds. There is only one thing ever proven to be able to do that and it's not an office fire.

 

[cantonear1968]

You are even feistier now. I thought the blue pill was a chill pill

1) One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped quoted moderated content

You could have just given the link from where you copied and pasted this response:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

You didn't have to re-print the whole thing, with no accreditation given, and pretend it was your own.

 

[BigAl]

The buildings took the impacts and remained standing because of great structural redundancy in the WTC design. If it was the impacts the buildings would have fell immediately. It was the fire in your official version that caused the buildings to collapse, including WTC7 that was not hit by a plane. Fire does not bring on sudden global collapse of a high rise complete in a matter of seconds. There is only one thing ever proven to be able to do that and it's not an office fire.

One of the designers says it was the fuel and the resulting fire:

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)

And all of this, too:

• tube-in-tube structural design unique to WTC1/2 and shown to be subject to truss failure in fire.
• effectively no fireproofing
• no working fire sprinkler system
• hit by 140 tons of aircraft at 450MPH.
• Resulting structural damage
• Local floor overload from the tons of aircraft debris
• thousands of gallons of fuel ignited on many floors inside the building
• resulting hour of fire
• No firefighting effort possible.

 

[cantonear1968]

What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire highrise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour.

But that doesn't address the question. Arguing something couldn't happen because it has never happened is a cop out. I can argue that it COULDN'T be a controlled demolition because there has never before been a controlled demolition of a 110 story building in a top down collapse and that has as much validity as your argument.

So please try answering the specifics of the question at hand.

 

[Carlos]

Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though.

What was the temperature on the floors on fire?

This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated?

It does not seem obvious to you that fire-protection was removed with a blast of that magnitude?

Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure?

What "sudden rapid global collapse" is?

Do you really think that nothing happened in the structure before the total collapse?

 

[TJM]

There is only one thing ever proven to be able to do that and it's not an office fire.

Now there is, but that directly conflicts with truther belief #332: Nothing ever happens for the first time.

 

[triforcharity]

The buildings took the impacts and remained standing because of great structural redundancy in the WTC design. If it was the impacts the buildings would have fell immediately. It was the fire in your official version that caused the buildings to collapse, including WTC7 that was not hit by a plane. Fire does not bring on sudden global collapse of a high rise complete in a matter of seconds. There is only one thing ever proven to be able to do that and it's not an office fire.

Strawman argument.

This is not what happened.

1&2 WTC were hit with airplanes. This alone did not cause the collapse of the towers. It was a combination of the plane impacts, AND the ensuing fire over 5+ floors.

Without the impact, there would be no fire.


Sorry about your fail, again.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

There never was and never will be a building like WTC1/2.

Tube in tube design is not that unusual.

[*]tube-in-tube structural design unique to WTC1/2 and shown to be subject to truss failure in fire.

The WTC design made it stronger than other high rise buildings. The design is what's credited with the WTC buildings being able to take the plane impacts. This does not help your case.

[*]effectively no fireproofing

Speculation never exactly equated as to how and how much.

[*]no working fire sprinkler system

Sprinkler systems in the tower are thought to be damaged on the floors of the impacts based on NIST calculations. This is speculation not proven. We know the sprinklers were working on other floors from witness statements of water running down the stairs. Any assertions about what was going on on the impact floors is pure speculation. The towers survived a fire in the seventies without a sprinkler. Still we are only talking about one hour on a few floors that it needed to survive.

[*]hit by 140 tons of aircraft at 450MPH.

All of which the building took and remained standing. WTC7 didn't even need this in your OCT to collapse.

[*]Resulting structural damage

All of which the building took and remained standing.

[*]Local floor overload from the tons of aircraft debris

You hardly have any plane left in PA and at the Pentagon, but now all of a sudden the plane debris is overloading the tower floors? In your so called raging inferno no less. I guess the aluminum should have survived what you claim the steel didn't. Yeah right.

[*]thousands of gallons of fuel ignited on many inside the building

Most of which burnt up outside the building not to mention the fireball you are all clamoring about around here all the time. The rest burnt up in a matter of minutes according to your OCT. The building still stood.

[*]resulting hour of fire

Not very long at all.

[*]No firefighting effort possible.

That's because of the unusual and fast way it fell. Usually they have a lot more time to put out a skyscraper fire on a upper floor. In fact one firefighter was calling his buddies to come up with a hose. He didn't think anything was going to fall.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

You could have just given the link from where you copied and pasted this response:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

You didn't have to re-print the whole thing, with no accreditation given, and pretend it was your own.

I wasn't pretending that it was my own work. I linked to the reference site within the wall of copied text. I don't expect debunkers to click on links or youtubes for that matter. That's why I used copy/paste.

From the new version of the un-debunked series:
Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes
Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast
The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses
WTC Collapse
WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery
South Tower Should Have Toppled
I'm sure you can debate some of the information in these youtubes. I suggest people do their own research.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I didn't make these youtubes

 

[Zep]

Oh are we here with this again? Shall I get some popcorn?

 

[TJM]

Sprinkler systems in the tower are thought to be damaged on the floors of the impacts based on NIST calculations. This is speculation not proven. We know the sprinklers were working on other floors from witness statements of water running down the stairs. Any assertions about what was going on on the impact floors is pure speculation. The towers survived a fire in the seventies without a sprinkler. Still we are only talking about one hour on a few floors that it needed to survive.

The sprinkler mains were ruptured with the airplane impacts. We knows this because fires burned right up to their collapses, obviously no water was being put on the fires. Ruptured sprinkler lines, domestic plumbing lines, non-potable water lines could all be sources of water seen on the lower floors. Bottom line was there was no water getting where it was needed most.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Whether or not the impact floors and everything above it should have remained standing is one thing.

Proving that the failure of certain structural parts of this impact zone caused the sudden global collapse of the entire structure in a matter of seconds is a whole different animal that NIST never even attempts to tackle. And debunkers never ever come close to proving this fantasy type of collapse in any way shape or form.

Time for my wings and more NFL! Later.

 

[triforcharity]

I wasn't pretending that it was my own work. I linked to the reference site within the wall of copied text. I don't expect debunkers to click on links or youtubes for that matter. That's why I used copy/paste.

From the new version of the un-debunked series:
Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes
Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast
The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses
WTC Collapse
WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery
South Tower Should Have Toppled
I'm sure you can debate some of the information in these youtubes. I suggest people do their own research.

Wow, a bunch of YouTube videos!! Great!!

Now, how about you and the rest of the dolts from 911truth start getting papers published in respectable journals showing that NIST wrong.

You would be the first.

I recommend the following journals:

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Journal of Fire Sciences

Journal of Applied Fire Sciences

Internation Association of Fire Safety Science

Any of the ASCE journals.
(they can be found here http://www.asce.org/PPLContent.aspx?id=17273 )

Journal of Engineering Research

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention


Take your pick. Any of those would be more than happy to look at your paper, then offer an honest critique of it.

 

[T.A.M.]

youtube...the National Enquirer of the truth movement.

TAM

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I believe there is a reason why it has taken a while for everything to be published. The timing has to be right for a case as huge as this one.