'What about building 7'?

[Sabretooth]

How can it cool? Once a fire has started and been extinguished the heat from it approaches infinity as you dion't actually need a fire to have heat. I am sure glad I got educated at the james randi educational forum.

Way to add something constructive to the forums!


Still waiting for your point to be made...do truthers even have points to be made?

 

[cooperman]

You should stop behaving like a spoiled child. It does not reflect well on people's opinions of you. That said, if you cared what people thought of you, you wouldn't be arguing the nonsense you are anyway.

TAM

What nonsense have I argued? I am currently trying to convince a bunch of critical thinkers that fire is hotter than not-fire. It really is that bad. I think I am doing a pretty good job in the face of utter abject dishonesty amd stupidity.

Do you see what I mean about post count? You keep directing completely pointless posts at me but because I am polite I respond. I think I need to streamline.

I made an awful error regarding newtons laws in another thread and the generallisimo immediately put me on his ignore list. Should I follow his lead?

 

[BigAl]

They don't, and I'm not sure why you would think they would, since they assert (without physical evidence, of course) that failures "occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 C (750 F), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."

Expansion starts at Degree number one.

Steel has lost about half it's strength at 750DegF.

 

[T.A.M.]

What nonsense have I argued? I am currently trying to convince a bunch of critical thinkers that fire is hotter than not-fire. It really is that bad. I think I am doing a pretty good job in the face of utter abject dishonesty amd stupidity.

Do you see what I mean about post count? You keep directing completely pointless posts at me but because I am polite I respond. I think I need to streamline.

I made an awful error regarding newtons laws in another thread and the generallisimo immediately put me on his ignore list. Should I follow his lead?

I have bolded your strawman inaccuracy.

You can do what you wish. You will likely self-destruct and get suspended and or banned in a matter of weeks anyway.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

What nonsense have I argued? I am currently trying to convince a bunch of critical thinkers that fire is hotter than not-fire.

Who questions said that ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

They don't, and I'm not sure why you would think they would, since they assert (without physical evidence, of course) that failures "occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 C (750 F), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."

Go ahead. Give us a more plausible mechanism, one for which there is physical evidence.

 

[cooperman]

I have bolded your strawman inaccuracy.

You can do what you wish. You will likely self-destruct and get suspended and or banned in a matter of weeks anyway.

TAM

And you seem to want that to happen, why?

As you have already seen I admit my mistakes and I do not think I have all the answers. I have learned a lot here already, most notably from Myriad who had more patience with me than I would have had.

My "fire or not-fire" was meant as a little comic hyperbole, but, be honest, if you look back through this thread you will see debunkers saying the most ridiculous things in order to ensure they cannot be wrong on even the smallest thing.

 

[uke2se]

Given that this was explained to you pages ago and you agreed with it, do you use this strawman because you don't actually understand it or do you use it because you're a dishonest person?

*cough*

 

[cooperman]

Go ahead. Give us a more plausible mechanism, one for which there is physical evidence.

How many times must I state that we do not need an alternate theory in order to show that the NIST one is wrong? We don't.

I consider controlled demolition to be more plausible than the NISt hypothesis. You will disagree, of course, but there it is.

 

[uke2se]

How many times must I state that we do not need an alternate theory in order to show that the NIST one is wrong? We don't.

I consider controlled demolition to be more plausible than the NISt hypothesis. You will disagree, of course, but there it is.

At least NIST has a hypothesis (it's actually a theory). You haven't got anything.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think part of it is NIST has worded it in such a way that the layperson, without the assumptions that professionals would make, would find misleading, or at minimum confusing.

In a nutshell, after reading this section of the report, I get the following cole's notes version...

1. Heat on numerous floors, led to expansion of the steel in many locations, especially on floors 8-14.
2. This expansion (and contraction) lead to a combination of weakening and sheering forces, that caused BREAKAGE of the connections etc...
3. These breakages led to the internal collapsing of numerous floors, but in particular a stretch of floors from the 13th down until the 5th floor.
4. The loss of these floors left column 79 unsupported for a span of 8-9 floors, which led to the buckling of column 79, which was the initiating event of the total collapse.

Anyone arguing the above, and if so, please clarify where I have got it wrong.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

And you seem to want that to happen, why?

As you have already seen I admit my mistakes and I do not think I have all the answers. I have learned a lot here already, most notably from Myriad who had more patience with me than I would have had.

My "fire or not-fire" was meant as a little comic hyperbole, but, be honest, if you look back through this thread you will see debunkers saying the most ridiculous things in order to ensure they cannot be wrong on even the smallest thing.

You are hung up on a something that has little to do with the point to be made. And you're cherry-picking posts to answer.

I asked why you distrust the NIST report and explanation of WTC7. Can you even realistically answer that question without using the disinfo from AE911T?

 

[T.A.M.]

And you seem to want that to happen, why?

As you have already seen I admit my mistakes and I do not think I have all the answers. I have learned a lot here already, most notably from Myriad who had more patience with me than I would have had.

My "fire or not-fire" was meant as a little comic hyperbole, but, be honest, if you look back through this thread you will see debunkers saying the most ridiculous things in order to ensure they cannot be wrong on even the smallest thing.

I don't want it to happen. If nothing, you (and others here recently) make it entertaining...I love to discuss and argue things. However, sometimes I do also enjoy poking fun.

glad you acknowledged it as hyperbole at least.


TAM

 

[BigAl]

My "fire or not-fire" was meant as a little comic hyperbole, but, be honest, if you look back through this thread you will see debunkers saying the most ridiculous things in order to ensure they cannot be wrong on even the smallest thing.

The effects of unfought fire on modern steel-framed buildings isn't a "small thing."

 

[uke2se]

You are hung up on a something that has little to do with the point to be made. And you're cherry-picking posts to answer.

I asked why you distrust the NIST report and explanation of WTC7. Can you even realistically answer that question without using the disinfo from AE911T?

Cherry picking is right. He doesn't seem to want to answer why he's strawmanning our argument now even though he agreed with it (or at least did not dispute it) several pages ago.

For reference, here's the post where he says he doesn't dispute that steel can get hotter even after the fire has gone out:

I am not disputing that the steel temperature might continue to rise. But the area above the fire will be cooler if the fire goes from 1000 degree flames to 600 degree embers.

As an example, I can hold my hand 2 inches above the coals on my barbecue for a good length of time quite comfortably. When it is first lit and flaming then I can't do it. The temperature is higher.

 

[Sabretooth]

How many times must I state that we do not need an alternate theory in order to show that the NIST one is wrong? We don't.

I consider controlled demolition to be more plausible than the NISt hypothesis. You will disagree, of course, but there it is.

Finally! After 12 ******* pages...but at least now we can move forward.

In the absence of anything that would suggest CD other than the building collapsing, why do you feel this way?

 

[T.A.M.]

How many times must I state that we do not need an alternate theory in order to show that the NIST one is wrong? We don't.

I consider controlled demolition to be more plausible than the NISt hypothesis. You will disagree, of course, but there it is.

But that is the rub of it.

You self admit that you hold a theory with NO EVIDENCE to back it up (come on, speculation and an occasional questionable witness is hardly proof) more likely then a theory that (A) makes sense, (B) takes into account all of the video and other evidence, and (C) is supported by computer modeling. How can you expect people to consider you seriously when you consider the former theory more plausible.

Argue the finer points of NISTs reports, yes I can see it being valid (although not helping, not really needed, and not effecting the theory in a substantial way) from a purist point of view, but supporting a ludicrous, evidenceless speculative theory in its place is just crazy and illogical.

TAM

 

[willhaven]

It's also assumed that it was applied properly when the building was constructed, and from what I've heard, this wasn't the case in some parts of the WTC complex.

Some of the fireproofing had flaked off and disintegrated before 9/11.

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

If the planes themselves didn't cause much of it to dislodge, some of it as already missing.

Also, this is in WTC 1 and 2. Not 7. Not entirely on topic, but could be applied to structural damage and the age of WTC 7 with similar fireproofing.

 

[BigAl]

How many times must I state that we do not need an alternate theory in order to show that the NIST one is wrong? We don't.

You need a theory that fits the evidence, the eyewitness reports and the science better that any other theory.

There are several theories out there for WTC7 but none of them have anything but unfought fire as the root cause.

The NIST report probably isn't perfect but its good and the best anyone can come up with and any of it's shortcomings are not fixed by adding man-made demolition which would conflict with the evidence, the eyewitness reports and the science.

 

[aggle-rithm]

How many times must I state that we do not need an alternate theory in order to show that the NIST one is wrong? We don't.

I seriously doubt that your primary goal is to show that NIST's theory is wrong. I think this is just the first step in clearing the way for your own theory.

The problem is, you don't have one. You may say, "controlled demolition", but that is hardly a theory. It doesn't fit the evidence, it doesn't explain anything, it introduces unnecessary entities, and it's anybody's guess what possible motive someone would have for carrying out such a crazy scheme.