9-11 Facts Movement

[rsalinger]

I'm sorry? The 1.5 level theatre with no central supporting columns whose roof collapsed after 3.5 hours of burning? That's your one example? Did the building collapse completely?

Changing the subject won't make your assertion correct. You may wish to actually ponder the fact that no one is claiming that the towers were brought down by fire. Rather the assertion is simply that one of the key proximate causes for the collapse initiation was the fires which burned unfought. The collapse itself was due to gravity. I have a feeling that this is an area which many in the truth movement don't quite get - that there are two different points about the collapses - the initiation and then the global failures.

 

[Lenbrazil]

Good idea. We can have T-Shirts like "9/11= outside job?"

Unfortunately that is already the preferred slogan of the "Israel did it" crowd.

 

[X]

Serious question:

Why even bother legitimizing the 9/11 Truth Movement by making a Facts Movement?


It's like making a Unicorns don't really exist movement to counter the claims of those who think they do.

Hammer down their arguments, expose their fraudulence and ignorance. Do it every time they make their absurd claims (or, given the frequency with which claims get recycled, direct them to the answers; it;'s not like they'll listen to you either way). But don't legitimize them by making it seem as though they warrant a counter-movement.

 

[sts60]

Um. No.

I'm saying that you got your very first fact wrong.

Fair enough. Well, the Kader Toy Factory trgedy is an example of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire. There are other examples of steel framed construction collapse as well. In any case, your apparent position that there are no examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire alone is simply not true.

The other point, IIRC - can't be bothered to look - was about black smoke. If you were claiming that thick black smoke means the fires in WTC buildings were "smoldering", going out, not very hot, or whatever, that's just sheer nonsense. I personally have seen very hot fires belching out black smoke; I've posted pictures of same elsewhere, but this rehash of long-debunked claims is too boring to go look.

 

[ergo]

Fair enough. Well, the Kader Toy Factory trgedy is an example of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire.

I'm guessing this probably has more relevance to the issue of sweatshop labour than to the issue of whether steel-framed highrises would collapse from fire.

The other point, IIRC - can't be bothered to look - was about black smoke. If you were claiming that thick black smoke means the fires in WTC buildings were "smoldering", going out, not very hot, or whatever, that's just sheer nonsense. I personally have seen very hot fires belching out black smoke; I've posted pictures of same elsewhere, but this rehash of long-debunked claims is too boring to go look.

I guess there are a few reasons why a fire would produce thick black smoke. Particularly, as someone pointed out, if it's burning synthetics and hydrocarbons. And also at the beginning of a fire. But, with the exception of the beginnings, we do not see heavy black smoke.

My point about smoke and fire is that, if all you're seeing for the duration of the event is smoke, with little sign of flames, and the activity, especially over a period of several hours, does not appear to be growing or spreading, then it's obviously not a raging fire. It appears to be mostly a smouldering one. This is certainly true for WTC7, and appears to be largely true for the towers.

 

[BigAl]

My point about smoke and fire is that, if all you're seeing for the duration of the event is smoke, with little sign of flames, and the activity, especially over a period of several hours, does not appear to be growing or spreading, then it's obviously not a raging fire. It appears to be mostly a smouldering one. This is certainly true for WTC7, and appears to be largely true for the towers.

The firemen at the scene say that there was sufficient fire to predict collapse and they were shown right when WTC7 did.

The firemen were right. You are wrong.

 

[sts60]

I'm guessing this probably has more relevance to the issue of sweatshop labour than to the issue of whether steel-framed highrises would collapse from fire.

You had said: # It is NOT impossible for steel-framed buildings to completely collapse from fire. We simply have no other examples of this.
Those buildings (Kader) were steel frame buildings. They caught fire and collapsed. Your claim that there are "no other examples" of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire is incorrect.

I guess there are a few reasons why a fire would produce thick black smoke. Particularly, as someone pointed out, if it's burning synthetics and hydrocarbons. And also at the beginning of a fire. But, with the exception of the beginnings, we do not see heavy black smoke.

My point about smoke and fire is that, if all you're seeing for the duration of the event is smoke, with little sign of flames, and the activity, especially over a period of several hours, does not appear to be growing or spreading, then it's obviously not a raging fire. It appears to be mostly a smouldering one. This is certainly true for WTC7, and appears to be largely true for the towers.

There were many floors with, as we firefighters would report, "heavy fire showing". That is why, in particular, FDNY expected WTC 7 to collapse, especially after watching the building come out of line with a transit. NYPD airborne observers also observed at least one of the Twin Towers buckling and tried to warn of imminent collapse.

Claims that no steel-framed buildings ever collapsed from fire alone, or that there was no heavy, widespread fire in WTC 1, 2, or 7, are demonstrably incorrect. And have been known to be so for years.

The bizarre pursuit of endlessly repeating such claims, while cycling through minor variations, strikes me as some sort of monomania. But I'm not a pyschologist, so maybe that's not the right term for it.

 

[ergo]

Claims that no steel-framed buildings ever collapsed from fire alone, or that there was no heavy, widespread fire in WTC 1, 2, or 7, are demonstrably incorrect. And have been known to be so for years.

Your movement has provided no evidence of such. Your claims are unsupported, unless you intend to leave it at the theatre whose roof caved in, and a shoddily built, four-storey Thai sweatshop catching on fire, the details of which you have not provided.

If these are your examples, I would suggest you find some better ones, because these just make you look silly.

There is no visual evidence of raging fires beyond short-lived portions of a couple of floors in WTC7. Your claims are unsupported.

 

[Thunder]

There is no visual evidence of raging fires beyond short-lived portions of a couple of floors in WTC7. Your claims are unsupported.

um..did you see all that smoke billowing from WTC 7?

where there's smoke, there's fire.

 

[alienentity]

Ergo's many claims have already been falsified by direct evidence.

No need to further entertain them if he attempts to recycle them.

His claims that steel buildings haven't failed due to fire have been proven false.
His claims that black smoke comes only from smouldering fires has been falsified a number of times.

He's going to try to shift the goalposts, but his points still fail. Nothing he can do apart from admit he was wrong and stop making the claims, or pretend they're still alive (they aren't).

 

[ergo]

Ergo's many claims have already been falsified by direct evidence.

No, they haven't.

His claims that steel buildings haven't failed due to fire have been proven false.

The claim originally is that no structural steel highrises (outside of WTC) have ever collapsed from fire alone. I expanded that claim in this thread to include low-rises as well.

If the shoddily built Thai sweatshop suffered complete collapse from its fire, then, strictly speaking, you have provided one example of a low rise, but not a very good one.

His claims that black smoke comes only from smouldering fires has been falsified a number of times.

This was not my claim.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The claim originally is that no structural steel highrises (outside of WTC) have ever collapsed from fire alone. I expanded that claim in this thread to include low-rises as well.

No modern steel frame highrise built with the same structural framing system as the WTC has ever been hit by a plane loaded with accelerants at cruising speed. No large steel frame building has ever had both its active and passive fire resistance crippled by the impact of a large projectile. There is no precedent of a large modern steel frame building ever having a fire ignited on multiple floors simultaneously through the use of thousands of gallons of accelerant.

No modern steel highrise has ever had its active fire protection systems crippled by the the collapse of another skyscraper one block away, destroying the water lines. No modern steel framed building has ever been allowed to burn unattended or rendered unreachable due to the collapse of another nearby building... etc etc

FACT: Aside from fire fighting and explosion fatalities, there has never been a multiple loss of life in a fully sprinklered building due to fire or smoke. Individual lives have been lost when the victim or his clothing or immediate surroundings became the source of the fire.

A National Fire Protection Association study for the years 1971-1975 found that approximately 20 lives are lost each year in this country in sprinklered buildings, as compared to approximately 4,000 per year in unsprinklered buildings. Some 68% of the lives lost in sprinklered buildings were due to explosions, and an additional 18% were due to the fact that the fire originated in an unsprinklered area of the building.
http://www.nfsa.org/info/fyi/sprfacts.html

See, we can play that game too ergo. Plenty of first times... The fact that they are "firsts" is utterly irrelevant given the engineering research that has lead to the rarity of these catastrophes. This "first in history" is a garbled weak argument and has been since its inception into the truth movement

No, they haven't.

First time in history doesn't count... sorry to ruin your fun. Convince people with a believable engineering justification please or drop the argument

 

[twinstead]

I'm still reeling from the implications of nothing ever happening for the first time.

 

[ergo]

No modern steel frame highrise built with the same structural framing system as the WTC has ever been hit by a plane loaded with accelerants at cruising speed. No large steel frame building has ever had both its active and passive fire resistance crippled by the impact of a large projectile. There is no precedent of a large modern steel frame building ever having a fire ignited on multiple floors simultaneously through the use of thousands of gallons of accelerant.

With thousands of gallons of accelerant, we should have seen a fire more like the Plaza One Meridian in Philadelphia. We didn't.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the matter in discussion.

 

[carlitos]

More reading material found here - Special Pleading^WP (better link?)

ETA - and here Argument from Ignorance^WP

 

[alienentity]

Great examples of Ergo attempting to dodge his own claims when they are disproven;

1) 'It's not a very good example' (Kaden Toy factory) But it does falsify your claim.
2) 'a theatre whose roof caved in' (McCormick Place) But it does falsify your claim.
'This fast burning, high rate of heat production fire caused complete collapse of the building.'
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

I point to post #56 where Ergo writes that 'bedunkers' have 'no other examples of this'

The 'this' being 'steel-framed buildings to completely collapse from fire'

He has been shown several examples on record, and should simply admit that he is wrong. Why he persists in repeating these false claims is unknown.

 

[ergo]

Great examples of Ergo attempting to dodge his own claims when they are disproven;

1) 'It's not a very good example' (Kaden Toy factory) But it does falsify your claim.
2) 'a theatre whose roof caved in' (McCormick Place) But it does falsify your claim.
'This fast burning, high rate of heat production fire caused complete collapse of the building.'
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

I wonder why these examples don't show up in here. Probably because they're different structures. If you really, really want these two examples as your sole examples, you can have them. But then we will need to include the Empire State Building plane crash as an example of a steel-framed building that experienced a plane crash and fire, and did not collapse. Okay?

I point to post #56 where Ergo writes that 'bedunkers' have 'no other examples of this'

I maintain that you really don't. But your whining makes me want to give in, just to shut you up.

He has been shown several examples on record, and should simply admit that he is wrong. Why he persists in repeating these false claims is unknown.

You have shown me two dubious examples. Both of them theatres, for whatever reason. Neither of which had central steel supports. They apparently don't warrant mention in NIST's Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire. I wonder why.

 

[alienentity]

Again, you have the falsified claims of an anonymous internet Truther vs the statement of Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division, and a professional engineer:

'The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel."

Robert Berhinig

Source: IAEI Magazine Online

Why do anonymous internet Truthers (with unknown qualifications in these subjects) appoint themselves above actual experts in these fields? What level of arrogance does it take to allow someone to do this? I can't answer that question, of course, but leave it to the reader to ponder.

More from Berhinig..

Note his statement 'The ASTM E119 fire test method provides a comparative benchmark to measure the fire resistance of building assemblies. The fire test-chamber conditions specified by the ASTM E119 test are representative of a fully developed fire within most buildings. This fire condition does not and cannot replicate every fire situation. The hourly fire-resistive ratings based on an ASTM E119 test do not mean that a specific structure will remain intact for the indicated rating period.'

Just as the Titanic was designed to be very resistant to sinking, it was not unsinkable, as some claimed. Neither are all steel framed buildings 'uncollapsible' due to fires. Engineers know this.

Truthers deny this fact, precisely because it destroys their basic argument from incredulity, ie: 'It couldn't have happened'

Yes, it can happen. It does happen, and has happened numerous times, including on 9/11.

 

[ergo]

Yes, it can happen. It does happen, and has happened numerous times, including on 9/11.

No, it doesn't, and no, it hasn't. Your examples do not compare to the WTC.

 

[carlitos]

The McCormick Place building that collapsed was not a theater. It was a huge convention center. At the time it was built, they thought that a building being made of concrete and steel made it more or less fireproof. Heck, it might have been the "first time in history" that a steel-framed convention center collapsed due to fire.

You can listen to the fire alarm calls here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV_50YPqlFQ