Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

[Sabretooth]

First things first.

IMO, MM deserves a bit of credit for even attempting to answer the OP. Based on the history of truthers here, this is a Christmas freaking miracle.

Anyway...

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.

So far, so good. We all agree on how gravity works...

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

How so? We have two buildings with unique, but identical, structure. How can you compare the WTC towers and WTC7 to other construction?

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

I disagree. All three WTC buildings failed due to fire. The towers largely survived the impacts of the jets. Had the ensuing fires been extinguished, the WTC complex may still be standing today.

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

That's the question of the OP.

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?

The glaring difference here is the fact the fires were completely unchecked. So now we have unfought fires burning in buildings with unique construction. How is anyone to justify any expectations of how/when a collapse will initiate or what it will look like at this point?

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.

Ah. A well worded "first time ever" claim. Nice try.

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.

That ship sails two ways.

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.

Not really, no. Again, the WTC construction was unique to itself. You cannot compare a wooden structure to a steel-tube design. I'm sure you know this.

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

Who is claiming "equally-timed destructive patterns"?

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

They collapsed in a controlled demolition pattern.

No, they didn't. Different pieces of the structure failed at different points and different times. Global collapse didn't occur until all those broken pieces reached a critical failure.

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've circled right back to the "first time ever" claim. And, again, it's impossible to reference because of the uniqueness of the WTC.

1. Unique construction.
2. Unique circumstances (ie. fully loaded jets).
3. Unfought fires.
4. Damaged fire protection.

Each one of these points create a big old bag of unpredictability. There is no reference because this had never happened before. WTC is the reference point.

 

[Robrob]

First time ever = BS.

Here's a beam inside WTC5. How many times worse were the fires in WTC1,2 or 7?

 

[Mudcat]

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

Highlight mine. Don't think that word means what you think it means:

1

• a : of, relating to, or resembling a monolith : huge, massive
• b (1) : formed from a single crystal <a monolithic silicon chip> (2) : produced in or on a monolithic chip <a monolithic circuit>

2

• a : cast as a single piece <a monolithic concrete wall>
• b : formed or composed of material without joints or seams <a monolithic floor covering>
• c : consisting of or constituting a single unit

3

• a : constituting a massive undifferentiated and often rigid whole <a monolithic society>
• b : exhibiting or characterized by often rigidly fixed uniformity <monolithic party unity>

Which is the exact opposite of what I would call the Truther movement.

 

[ozeco41]

Highlight mine. Don't think that word means what you think it means:
Which is the exact opposite of what I would call the Truther movement.

You are agreeing with Red - take another look at what he says and the effect of the negative construction.

--- that said both Red and MM make a habit of targeting any loose bits of logic in a "debunkers" post and using that as a way to miss commenting on the main point of their opponents post. They are often correct in picking the loose logic. And they usually succeed in derailing the real issue.

Remember this is "asymmetric warfare" - truthers/trolls can say what they want in a post of multiple points and, provided one point is right they claim a win. Contrast if a "debunker" makes a multiple point post and any single one of the points is wrong, or even just a bit loose the truther/troll also claims victory.

The "playing field" certainly ain't level.

 

[Mudcat]

You are agreeing with Red - take another look at what he says and the effect of the negative construction.

They said "a monolithic movement", obviously describing the 'Truth movement', and I stand by what I said

 

[Travis]

Well it's wrong anyways because I don't think of the Truth movement as monolithic. And my question didn't imply any such belief. If I had asked for an "official Truth Movement pronouncement" that would be one thing. But, as it is, I'm just asking for the opinions of individual Truthers.

 

[RedIbis]

Well it's wrong anyways because I don't think of the Truth movement as monolithic. And my question didn't imply any such belief. If I had asked for an "official Truth Movement pronouncement" that would be one thing. But, as it is, I'm just asking for the opinions of individual Truthers.

And yet you said this:

And, perhaps, this can serve as a demonstration to others how hallow the movement is. That when I create these threads that give them golden opportunities to lay out their case they avoid it.

By your "logic" the movement is hollow because Truthers didn't respond to your thread. This is bizarre on several levels:
1) The assumption that jref is where all skeptics of the official 9/11 story hang out.
2) Answering or non-answering your thread reflects on the totality of that skepticism and
3) Asking a clearly disingenuous question and pretending like you care how Twoofers respond.

Again, MM answered your question when he correctly stated:

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.

So asking "how it should have looked" is clearly a trap (the bait of which no sensible person would take) since there cannot be any valid answer.

 

[DGM]

So asking "how it should have looked" is clearly a trap (the bait of which no sensible person would take) since there cannot be any valid answer.

Is it your opinion the "truth" movement should not use what the collapse looked like as evidence of demolition?

 

[Travis]

And yet you said this:



By your "logic" the movement is hollow because Truthers didn't respond to your thread. This is bizarre on several levels:
1) The assumption that jref is where all skeptics of the official 9/11 story hang out.
2) Answering or non-answering your thread reflects on the totality of that skepticism and
3) Asking a clearly disingenuous question and pretending like you care how Twoofers respond.

Again, MM answered your question when he correctly stated:


So asking "how it should have looked" is clearly a trap (the bait of which no sensible person would take) since there cannot be any valid answer.

I have not yet heard nor have I yet conceived in my own head any valid reason that the collapses didn't look right. That doesn't mean someone else can't come up with something to convince me.

Heck I once didn't believe in global warming but enough people brought me the scientific thinking on the matter that I couldn't deny it.

 

[DGM]

Heck I once didn't believe in global warming but enough people brought me the scientific thinking on the matter that I couldn't deny it.

I live in NewEngland. So far this year, we've had less than 3" of snow*. Global warming...........bring it on


* I know this has nothing to do with global warming, besides I live several hundred feet above sea level.

 

[twinstead]

Is it your opinion the "truth" movement should not use what the collapse looked like as evidence of demolition?

Well that would suck because that's just about all they have.

 

[DGM]

Well that would suck because that's just about all they have.

True. Unless my reading of MM's post is way off (that Red agreed with), this is the implication.

 

[ozeco41]

They said "a monolithic movement", obviously describing the 'Truth movement', and I stand by what I said

"They" (RedIbis actually) did not say that with the meaning you are imputing. Intentional or not you are "quote mining" to reverse the meaning which Red intended and Travis correcty understood. Travis read it right - see his response immediately following yours.

Well it's wrong anyways because I don't think of the Truth movement as monolithic. And my question didn't imply any such belief....

Meanwhile RedIbis continues his tactic of picking holes in loose logic (or logic which he can represent as "loose" ) just one example:

Again, MM answered your question when he correctly stated:

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.

So asking "how it should have looked" is clearly a trap (the bait of which no sensible person would take) since there cannot be any valid answer.

well I won't comment of the accusation of "trap" but:
1) MM didn't answer the question;
2) He (MM) is only "correct" if we take a narrow pedantic reading of his claim and remain within that claim. (i.e. limit the allowable bases of "proof" to "examples".); AND
3) MM's claim is a false dichotomy packaged within a strawman. So it is not "correct"

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There's a reason behind what I said earlier about not posting threads I thought would wind up being rhetorical. We've seen the same standard answers on this stuff for years, they're no more answers than they were 7, 8, or 9 years ago. Is anything shocking about the answers given or the measures taken to derail it? Nope.

I don't want to put the OP down for making a legitimate effort of sorts to get people to answers the apparent question, but personally after seeing these claims for nearly four years I don't really need to ask, they've flashed it across my face for that entire period; it's hardly a mystery.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Again, MM answered your question when he correctly stated:


So asking "how it should have looked" is clearly a trap (the bait of which no sensible person would take) since there cannot be any valid answer.

Nonsense, it would be possible to get a pretty good idea how a particular building would look like if it failed in a particular way. The failure of the WTC towers has been well described and the building design is well known. Now unless you can show that what it looked like did not match what it "should" have looked like (and in my opinion it did) then you have no case.

The floors were weakened by the blast and then the subsequent fires to the point where one floor fell on the one below.
The floors pancaked down, forcing large quantities of air out at high speed and blowing out other windows further down the structure. The Sides failed at the continuous seams (the corners) and peeled out and away, and the central core lasted the longest until its height to width ratio exceeded it bucking point and/or damage caused by the pancaked floors weakened it to the point it too failed. Since the buildings were on fire at the time some of the debris and air blast was hot and started other fires in the surrounding buildings. The top sections fell apart as the bolted joints were weaker than the panels themselves and could not resist the "racking" affect when the building below then no longer supported them evenly.

To this engineer, it looked just like it should have.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Does the forum really need another disingenuous thread calling out "Truthers"?

It's just asking for evidence to see if truthers have discovered anything tangible and compelling to back up their arguments. Either you do or you don't...It's that simple.

 

[Robrob]

So asking "how it should have looked" is clearly a trap (the bait of which no sensible person would take) since there cannot be any valid answer.

OK, if there's "no valid answer" how it should have looked then how can you claim it didn't look right?

 

[ozeco41]

OK, if there's "no valid answer" how it should have looked then how can you claim it didn't look right?

Checkmate in one!

 

[leftysergeant]

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

Please show us one that does or recant.

Actually, demolition by "verinage" does procede from a point well above ground level, and is initiated without explosives. It even produces the same kind of ejecta as that seen in the collapses of the towers. Generally, it obeys the principles described by Bazant in his "crush-down,crush-up" theory. In fact, the only difference between the collapse of the towers and demolition by verinage is in how the collapse is initiated. In verinage, a system of levers is used to break pre-weakened load-bearing structures on several floors, allowing the upper block of the building to fall on the lower.

Obviously, a lot of people would have noticed the towers being rigged for verinage, and we can thus rule out that it was deliberately rigged for this procedure.

However, much of the strength of the core columns was compromised by the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires. When the loss of strength from heat caused the core columns to buckle, the resulting drop of the upper block initiated a verinage-like collapse of the rest of the structures.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Now the Hollywood collapses are done by special effects firms who don't need what they put on film to have any connection to reality. They just want what "looks cool" and that's why they have all sorts of things regarding building collapses that have no regard for physics. Heck they do that with everything. That's why their explosions are all giant fireballs and tornadoes are harmless to movie stars but fatal to everything else.

You mean rear-end collisions with Ford Pintos didn't look like this?

http://youtu.be/dT0J0rcJTLo

Well blow me down!

Fitz