Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

[Oystein]

Okay.

...prior to 9/11, only controlled demolitions have achieved the kind of collapse pattern exhibited by the collapse of WTC7?

There are no valid other examples, so we can only consider non-fire induced collapses, fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings, or accept the validity of pioneered computer models such as that produced by the NIST.
...
All of the references based on real examples point towards artificially induced collapse.

MM

Okay.

You are saying that all of the references based on real examples that we have are not valid.

Cool.


"All of the references" thus is equal to "no references".
You should have written the last sentence this way:

"All of the No references based on real examples point towards artificially induced collapse."

 

[beachnut]

...
Quick answer, gravity. ...

Which is proof for gravity collapse, and the primary mover in CD or fire damaged gravity collapse.

CD looks like a gravity collapse. Big failure on this one, you don't know physics.

...
What goes up eventually has to come down. ...

More evidence for a gravity collapse. What are you doing?

...
Whether it be from artificial means or natural decay over a long period of time. ...

? extra stuff.

...
Eventually gravity will have its way. ...

evidence for a gravity collapse.

...
The only thing that will be different is the pattern of the collapse. ...

The collapses on 911 were gravity, there was no control to it. If you had evidence for your claims you would have a Pulitzer, you don't have a Pulitzer.

...
WTC7 is the best case since fire was credited with the primary reason for its collapse. ...

Fires not fought.

...
So why should a fire-induced collapse of a steel-structured modern office tower look different from what actually happened? ...

They would each look the way they collapse, each would be different. WTC 7 was a unique design, it did not collapse like a controlled demolition, because there were no explosives, nothing was used but fire. You have delusions of explosives or thermite, which are idiotic claims based on nothing but lies and fantasy.

...
Given that in spite of the fact, that of the thousands of major fires that steel-structured office towers have faced, that prior to 9/11, only controlled demolitions have achieved the kind of collapse pattern exhibited by the collapse of WTC7? ...

You can't compare fought fires with fires not fought. You failed. Plus, no other building is like WTC 7. You should study the structure before you fail the badly. Fires in WTC 7 not fought, there was not water. Big fail.

...
There are no valid other examples, so we can only consider non-fire induced collapses, fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings, or accept the validity of pioneered computer models such as that produced by the NIST. ...

This makes no sense, but does show your anti-engineering anti-intellectual approach.

...
Since a computer model, regardless of how well designed, is fundamentally an attempt to make an educated approximation of reality, it loses credibility when attempting to mimic an unprecedented event with no valid historical corroboration. ...

You can't do engineering so you have to say models are not credible due to your own ignorance on engineering.

...
Since you reject non-fire induced collapse, such as controlled demolition, we can only look to the pattern of fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings. ...

Steel only structures have show failure in fire, you fail to acknowledge reality. False.

...
Well, those collapses tend to be piecemeal, as random fire distribution does not attack structural supports in a uniform, equally timed destructive pattern. ...

That is why the collapses on 911 were not like CD.

...
Clearly, the WTC Twin Towers and WTC7 did not collapse in a piecemeal pattern. ...

Not true, does not make sense. A false analogy based on speculation, not engineering.

...
They collapsed in a controlled demolition pattern. ...

No, WTC collapses were not in a controlled demolition pattern. A statement supported by your own delusions, and you have offer no models, no math, no physic, no engineering. Just talk. Got a paper on this BS you are pushing?

...
The only argument that exists to support a fire-induced collapse pattern is a pioneered computer model with no proven reference to backup the conclusions that are drawn from it. ...

Your anti-engineering side is showing. Prove the model is not valid. Where is your model? You use nothing to back your claim.

...
All of the references based on real examples point towards artificially induced collapse. ...

Physics, engineering, fire science, all point to gravity collapse. You have speculation, and can't show the physics to back up your claims. Fires were not fought in the WTC complex except for a few of the buildings, which were saved from total collapse.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/NYFDWTCfire.jpg

Steel fails in fire.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg

You need to bring an engineering model to prove your claims. Where is your model? Gravity is only support for a gravity collapse, you need to present evidence for what you claim did it. You did not say what caused the collapse. You wave you hands, and say controlled demolition.

Fire did it...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3-1-1.jpg

 

[Nursedan]

Are you guys still talking about this???

 

[minnemouse]

Are you guys still talking about this???

Now, now, Nursedan - I think that Travis is just trying to give the twoofers their 8.975.884.631st chance to claim tha twoof backed up by facts. Sadly - I think this HUGE effort is kinda futile

 

[Carlos]

Okay.
The only thing that will be different is the pattern of the collapse.

WTC7 is the best case since fire was credited with the primary reason for its collapse.

So why should a fire-induced collapse of a steel-structured modern office tower look different from what actually happened?

Given that in spite of the fact, that of the thousands of major fires that steel-structured office towers have faced, that prior to 9/11, only controlled demolitions have achieved the kind of collapse pattern exhibited by the collapse of WTC7?

No.
There's no thousands of major fires on steel-structured skyscraper. I would say only several examples, and none of them has totally collapsed.

So, we have no example of fire-induced total collapse of a steel-structured skyscraper to make any kind of comparison about the pattern of collapse.

There are no valid other examples, so we can only consider non-fire induced collapses, fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings, or accept the validity of pioneered computer models such as that produced by the NIST.

I cannot say if NIST computer model is reliable or not, but, knowing structural engineering, I can say that at least the mechanics of collapse described by NIST and their conclusions are plausibles and make sense.

For me that's enough to say we don't need any (preposterous) conspiracy theory to explain the WTC7 episode.

 

[Carlos]

Since a computer model, regardless of how well designed, is fundamentally an attempt to make an educated approximation of reality, it loses credibility when attempting to mimic an unprecedented event with no valid historical corroboration. ...

A well designed and calibrated computer model is perhaps the best way to study things like the behavior of structures in fire conditions or the mechanism of collapse.

Keep in mind it's designed by engineers, using engineering knowledges, which the results are obtained by math.

It's like an competent engineer using his knowledge in engineering to solve an engineering problem. The difference is the fact the computer do all the maths (that would be humanly impossible) and show the results graphically as well.

Seriously, it's more usefull than compare with several random examples of different structures, different fires and different circunstances.

What is more reliable, a building designed based on calculations and engineering expertise or a building designed based on what was seen in random different other buildings?

 

[minnemouse]

I really dont understand the CT´ers confusion that the towers didnt act according to their beliefs. As statistic goes; all 110+ floor sky scrapers that were hit by 140 ton planes collapsed a 100% the same way. Period.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So to summarize for the readers from the response given to the OP:

- The collapse externally looks similar to a controlled demolition in some aspects

- prior to 9/11, only controlled demolitions have achieved the kind of collapse pattern exhibited by the collapse of WTC7.

- Lack of precedent of previous collapses in buildings of "similar" construction materials.

- Limiting case precedents are invalid

- Validity of pioneered computer models is suspect

- Structural supports were "attacked" in a "uniform, equally timed destructive pattern".

- "WTC Twin Towers and WTC7 did not collapse in a piecemeal pattern"
They collapsed in a controlled demolition pattern.

-----------------

Maybe redibis would like to comment on the summarized points outlined by MM. Would he like to add to these? I can address (AKA link to existing answers) them after a few more people make their outlined points.

If MM has any questions regarding my wording in summarizing his points I'll be happy to clarify. But I think since we have one other respondent in the same position to answer the OP, this would be a good opportunity to leave behind the label derail and get to something that's on topic.

 

[DGM]

So to summarize for the readers from the response given to the OP:

You forgot one of the most important.

• If a layman believes something is suspicious, it will remain so and important until the scientific community explains it to the laymen on their terms. Failure to do so is proof the layman's suspicions are correct.

 

[tsig]

Okay.

Quick answer, gravity.

What goes up eventually has to come down.

Whether it be from artificial means or natural decay over a long period of time.

Eventually gravity will have its way.

The only thing that will be different is the pattern of the collapse.

WTC7 is the best case since fire was credited with the primary reason for its collapse.

So why should a fire-induced collapse of a steel-structured modern office tower look different from what actually happened?

Given that in spite of the fact, that of the thousands of major fires that steel-structured office towers have faced, that prior to 9/11, only controlled demolitions have achieved the kind of collapse pattern exhibited by the collapse of WTC7?

There are no valid other examples, so we can only consider non-fire induced collapses, fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings, or accept the validity of pioneered computer models such as that produced by the NIST.

Since a computer model, regardless of how well designed, is fundamentally an attempt to make an educated approximation of reality, it loses credibility when attempting to mimic an unprecedented event with no valid historical corroboration.

Since you reject non-fire induced collapse, such as controlled demolition, we can only look to the pattern of fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings.

Well, those collapses tend to be piecemeal, as random fire distribution does not attack structural supports in a uniform, equally timed destructive pattern.

Clearly, the WTC Twin Towers and WTC7 did not collapse in a piecemeal pattern.

They collapsed in a controlled demolition pattern.
The only argument that exists to support a fire-induced collapse pattern is a pioneered computer model with no proven reference to backup the conclusions that are drawn from it.

All of the references based on real examples point towards artificially induced collapse.

MM

No, CD's do not spew debris over several city blocks.

 

[Robrob]

No, CD's do not spew debris over several city blocks.

Monumental super duper conspiracy ninjas place tons of explosives in a building to secretly bring it down without anyone knowing but forget to aim the blasts inward? It's the "Conspiracy that Couldn't Shoot Straight."

 

[timhau]

A well designed and calibrated computer model is perhaps the best way to study things like the behavior of structures in fire conditions or the mechanism of collapse.

It's either well designed and calibrated computer models, or cardboard boxes.

 

[OCaptain]

Okay.

Quick answer, gravity.

What goes up eventually has to come down.

Whether it be from artificial means or natural decay over a long period of time.

Eventually gravity will have its way.

The only thing that will be different is the pattern of the collapse.

WTC7 is the best case since fire was credited with the primary reason for its collapse.

So why should a fire-induced collapse of a steel-structured modern office tower look different from what actually happened?

Given that in spite of the fact, that of the thousands of major fires that steel-structured office towers have faced, that prior to 9/11, only controlled demolitions have achieved the kind of collapse pattern exhibited by the collapse of WTC7?

There are no valid other examples, so we can only consider non-fire induced collapses, fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings, or accept the validity of pioneered computer models such as that produced by the NIST.

Since a computer model, regardless of how well designed, is fundamentally an attempt to make an educated approximation of reality, it loses credibility when attempting to mimic an unprecedented event with no valid historical corroboration.

Since you reject non-fire induced collapse, such as controlled demolition, we can only look to the pattern of fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings.

Well, those collapses tend to be piecemeal, as random fire distribution does not attack structural supports in a uniform, equally timed destructive pattern.

Clearly, the WTC Twin Towers and WTC7 did not collapse in a piecemeal pattern.

They collapsed in a controlled demolition pattern.

The only argument that exists to support a fire-induced collapse pattern is a pioneered computer model with no proven reference to backup the conclusions that are drawn from it.

All of the references based on real examples point towards artificially induced collapse.

MM

You are wrong. Controlled demolitions do not collapse from the top down.

Please show us one that does or recant.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No, CD's do not spew debris over several city blocks.

Thats because they are carried out by experts with the specific intention of not damaging surrounding properties. Fire is not so fussy.

 

[NoahFence]

You are wrong. Controlled demolitions do not collapse from the top down.

Please show us one that does or recant.

Emphasis mine....

That'll never happen.

Ever.

Truthers are far too dishonest for that.

 

[tsig]

You are wrong. Controlled demolitions do not collapse from the top down.

Please show us one that does or recant.

Emphasis mine....

That'll never happen.

Ever.

Truthers are far too dishonest for that.

Truthers will read 'recant' as a challenge to post their cant again.

 

[Travis]

Okay, MM you at least gave an answer.

Can I pose a question?

If the buildings did suffer a heat induced structural failure what do you think such a collapse would look like?

 

[RedIbis]

Okay, MM you at least gave an answer.

Can I pose a question?

If the buildings did suffer a heat induced structural failure what do you think such a collapse would look like?

Not only can you pose a question, you pose another extremely disingenuous one. MM already answered your question and provided the reasons why your OP and follow up is disingenuous.

 

[Travis]

Not only can you pose a question, you pose another extremely disingenuous one. MM already answered your question and provided the reasons why your OP and follow up is disingenuous.

The only description MM offered was "piecemeal" which is a bit vague. I would like an elaboration.

And how is this disingenuous?

 

[Sabretooth]

Not only can you pose a question, you pose another extremely disingenuous one. MM already answered your question and provided the reasons why your OP and follow up is disingenuous.

What is with you? You keep jumping in here with these lame objections like some half-witted lawyer who knows he has lost his case. He asked a valid question based on the data MM gave in his post.

MM says the collapses didn't look right...so now the question is; how should they look?

Perhaps you should learn the definition of disingenuous.