Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

thanks.

They did add 'There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.'

Is that true?
 
stevemcqueen said:
thanks.

They did add 'There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.'

Is that true?
Click to expand...
As them how it contradicts the "official story". That's when the tap dancing really starts.
 
Last edited:
stevemcqueen said:
thanks.

They did add 'There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecedented occurrence that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.'

Is that true?
Click to expand...
The focus on WTC7 doesn't change anything of significance - except the evidence of why it collapsed was hidden. WTC7 is chosen by "truthers" because it is harder to disprove truther false claims with the evidence hidden. i.e. simply more dishonesty. It is partially true - selected bits of truth intended to tell a lie.

1) There is no "evidence that contradicts the official story" in any significant fact;
2) There was no "molten steel" - it is a lie put forward by conspiracy theorists;
3) "...and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires," is a standard pair of untruths or implied untruths also put forward by conspiracy theorists. Steel framed buildings are vulnerable to fire because steel weakens when heated. So they have fire resistant insulation AND fire fighting systems with a "fire rating" expressed in hours to a) allow occupants to escape AND b) allow fire fighting to commence. "only office fires" is a mendacious claim by CT's - the WTC 1 & 2 fires were large and instantly started over multiple floors. The WTC 7 fires were not fought - a deliberate choice given resource limitations [post the WTC1 & 2 fires and collapses;
4) Partly true that the three collapses were "a completely unprecedented occurrence..." They were the first, second and third times. Truthers claim things cannot happen a first time...
5) So the next bit is ridiculous for two reasons at least "...that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings." (a) If it is unprecedented it cannot be contradicted by precedent 'coz there ain't none. THEN (b) it is false anyway - what happened happened - whether or not it was different to other buildings.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
As them how it contradicts the "official story". That's when the tap dancing really starts.
Click to expand...
Good advice.

...stevemcqueen should also be aware that many persons come here relating claims by an alleged friend when they are really posting their own nonsense.
 
Last edited:
stevemcqueen said:
Apologies as I forgot to mention (rather importantly) that he was talking about WT7.
Click to expand...
Makes no difference other than details.

"Truthers" have never made a supportable prima facie claim - they play a debating trick of making a partial claim THEN demanding that "we" disprove it. Several dishonesties in that BEFORE we even get to the allegations of technical fact.

The main one is "reversed burden of proof" - who claims something has to prove it - not us have to disprove it. And they usually refuse to say what they are claiming so "we" have to guess WTF they are talking about. All part of the dishonesty of the so called "truth movement" - truth is the last thing most of them are interested in.

They prefer to "discuss" WTC 7 because the evidence is hidden - making it harder for us to "disprove" whatever nonsense they are alleging - usually CD.
 
Last edited:
stevemcqueen said:
thanks.

They did add 'There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.'

Is that true?
Click to expand...

Not sure how that relates to WTC7 as there is no evidence or report of molten steel specifically in the WTC 7 rubble.

Furthermore as per reports of molten steel, such reports can be shown to be relatively common for many large structural fires. Those reports are either correct or incorrect. If correct then it illustrates how molten steel is then relatively common in large structure fires. If those other reports are incorrect it points to the unreliability of reports of molten steel in large structure fires and indeed to the well known unreliability of witness reports.

In addition; IF there were the supposed rivers and pools of molten steel that were reported on then their later, re-solidified remains should have been in evidence. They are not.
 
Last edited:
stevemcqueen said:
thanks.

They did add 'There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on larg,.e buildings.'

Is that true?
Click to expand...

These points have been addressed above but it does bring up another issue.
That is: given that its been almost a dozen years since the event, why is it that the only complete story concerning the events of 9/11 is the one that truthers refer to as the "official story"? Why is there not even an attempt by any truther organization to describe the supposed demolitions that took place? Why is there no attempt to put together a full timeline of events that includes the hijackers, each aircraft, each of the three structures impacted? After near twelve years all we get are arguments about minute details and handwaving about how those details prove an unsupported claim.

Of course I am leaving aside the more ridiculous claims of no-planes, space-a-beams, holograms, and vic-sims.

In short, the truth movement seems to demand of official agencies, a level of minute detail of the events of the day that they themselves are completely unwilling, and apparently unable, to utilize in any alternative scenario they claim.

Perhaps your friend might wish to address this, or not, I'm just asking questions is all.
 
Last edited:
stevemcqueen said:
thanks.

They did add 'There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.'

Is that true?
Click to expand...

Check this out: 'Police unable to locate drivers who escaped tunnel fire
The Daily Journal (San Mateo County), October 15, 2007

As the highway reopened early Monday, investigators worked to identify vehicles, some of which were reduced to molten steel in the fire's intense heat.'

Reports of molten steel are surprisingly common from eyewitnesses. Go figure.
It really doesn't tell you much, certainly you wouldn't think thermite was used in car fires, right?

As to your statement
stevemcqueen said:
'a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.'
Click to expand...
That's hyperbole. Not proof of anything, I'm afraid. There's no problem with some incredulity, as in 'what happened? I don't understand!'
The problem is that conspiracy theorists inject an imagined conspiracy into the incredulity, as in: 'I don't understand how this could have happened unless it were by conspiracy and controlled demolition'.
That really says more about the conspiracy- theorist than the event itself.
 
Alienentity you aren't suggesting a standard reasoning of " I can't understand it therefore hidden conspiracy, therefore shadow government bent of global rule, population control and population reduction through fear", are you?
 
Ahhh there is a confusion in the listing of energy output as illustrated by this passage.
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.chem/2006-05/msg00210.html

In a general way, the thermite reaction is the reduction of
a metal oxide by a reactive metal leading to the oxide of
the reductant and to the metal from the reduced oxide. The
prototype reaction, also the commercially and technically
most important, is the following:


8AI + 3Fe3O -> 4AI2O3 + 9Fe + 795 kcal (exothermic)


The heat output of this reaction per gram of reactants is
0.87 kcal/g or 3.7 kcal/cm3 (theoretical) and must be called
moderate, both on a weight or actual volume basis (the
density of the unconsolidated mixture, the form in which the
material is used, is about 2 g/cm3). The heat output is a
little higher for the reaction


2AI + Fe203 -> Al2O3 + 2Fe + 203 kcalI (exothermic)


which yields 0.95 kcal/g.
Click to expand...

Note the difference between the chemical equation caloric output and the same thing given as per gram.( its been quite a while since I took chemistry but I gather that the larger number, 795 kcal, is the energy released if each quantity in the equation refetrs to the number of mol of each substance)

For reference 0.95 kcal/g = 3.97 kj/g which agrees with beachnut's reference's numbers.

So, according to the info I found gasoline has greater than ten times the heat output by mass, than does thermite. So for those who find beachnut's style ,, difficult do not have to take his word for it. IOW his numbers have been confirmed by a little more research that could have been accomplished by those not predisposed to accept his research.

I admit it took me a while but eventually, voila, effort gave results.

It should be obvious then, that to utilize therm?te to keep a rubble pile hot one must employ a very large quantity of that material. Even to heat a large quantity of office structural material, then insulate it very well to reduce heat loss requires a very large quantity of therm?te. However one notes how we arrive at the temperature of the hot spots illustrated in the USG's survey. Those are not underground temps, those are temps at the surface and are small in area. In other words these are the temperatures of the gasses escaping through venting. Thus the represent a loss of heat from the rubble pile. We certainly cannot have the near perfect insulation that would be required in the scenario David suggests, that of a quantity of molten metal staying hot for weeks, or that quantity of material has to be enormous. The later is simply not supported by any evidence at all.
However, the continued combustion of hydrocarbon fuels would supply continuous heat, allowing for a heat loss through convective gasses at the vents. In the WTC towers we have a parking garage containing a ready source of oils, alcohols, and gasoline, as well as solid materials that will breakdown into volatile materials(rubber, foam, plastic), and WTC7 contained a crushed electric substation with it attendant transformer oils.

Furthermore, had therm?te been used to sever columns its attendant molten metals somehow managed to reside solely deep within the rubble. This is quite odd and at no time does any proponent of this theory describe how it was arranged for the molten steel to be undetected on the surface. Of course it was apparently undetectable as resolidified blobs when dug up later as well.

The claim that continued high temps in the rubble indicates therm?te use to bring the standing structures down is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
stevemcqueen said:
A friend of mine said if fire can bring down a steel building why arent demolition experts using fire to demolish buildings, saving money , man power , riggers RDX etc...

Is their a logical answer to that?
Click to expand...

Because burning plastic, paper, computers, rugs, insulation, curtains, tons of paper causes a lot of smoke, and hazardous chemicals.

It is not true. You gut the building selling all the stuff you can reuse. Wallboard can be crushed up and used as a soil additive - $$$
Etc, etc, etc.

So burning up a building is not a good idea, the results, like the WTC spread junk all over the place.

A CD is used by removing most the building, and then pre-cutting, and using explosives, engineering the collapse to minimize the damage to the area.

There would be no fuel left in a CD building to burn, you would have to bring in tons of wood or paper, or plastic to burn long enough to weaken the steel, when all you need is a tiny amount of explosives to do the same thing.

I don't know of any building in the world made out of wood or steel which could survive to be used again. BTW, 911 truth has no idea what totaled means, and if a building is standing after fire, they think it can be used, and have no clue they are never used again. Many examples 911 truth can't bring up due to ignorance and it would ruin their delusional fantasy of an inside job.

All of 911 truth claims are nonsense. Knowledge and simple research destroys all 911 truth fantasy - and only a grade school education is needed to earn these skills and tools for critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
stevemcqueen said:
thanks.

They did add 'There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.'

Is that true?
Click to expand...
Short answer: No, it's not true.

Longer answer: Cherry picking terms and conflating "unknown metal, previously liquid, now cooled solid" with "steel, liquid molten 1,200 degrees" is a predictable CT meme.

"Office fires" have an average heat index of ~1,000 degrees. Steel softens and loses the majority of its structural integrity at a much lower temperature. Liquid pools are not required to explain building collapse.

Ask your "friend" what other incidences of tube frame construction, struck by aircraft and suffering a hour of out of control fire he knows of?
 
stevemcqueen said:
thanks.

They did add 'There is evidence that contradicts the official story and that is the presence of molten steel, and the uniform collapse of a steel framed building from only office fires, a completely unprecendented occurance that is contradicted by all other incidents of fire damage on large buildings.'

Is that true?
Click to expand...

That is the silly side of 911 truth. They have all this evidence, but they never produce what would be Pulitzer Prize winning evidence of the biggest cover-up in history. Instead, 911 truth claims are the dumbest lies in history, based on nothing. 911 truth evidence is nothing but talk.

If they give you the evidence they have been hiding for 12 years, please get in touch with me and we can team with a newspaper to earn a big Pulitzer. Have "They" give you the evidence now, let us be famous now.

Ask "They" why they make up dumbed down lies about 911. Is one friend equal to "They"? Does he believe the idiotic lies from 911 truth, or is he exposing 911 truth as CT nuts with no evidence.

Ask "They" how they got their information; Internet? lol

Everything on the Internet is true... Get your degree today in woo, at Google U - and don't forget to see Google U play in the Toilet Bowl February 30th... on the Internet.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
what would be Pulitzer Prize winning evidence of the biggest cover-up in history.
Click to expand...

The most ludicrous CT argument of all; "establishment cover-up" for nearly anything from cures for cancer to 911.

As if there was a research scientist in the world who wouldn't give his left testicle to be the discoverer of a cure or any journalist on the face of the planet wouldn't shoot their grandmother to be the next Woodward & Bernstein?
 
Robrob said:
The most ludicrous CT argument of all; "establishment cover-up" for nearly anything from cures for cancer to 911.

As if there was a research scientist in the world who wouldn't give his left testicle to be the discoverer of a cure or any journalist on the face of the planet wouldn't shoot their grandmother to be the next Woodward & Bernstein?
Click to expand...
errr....

IMO - and hearsay evidence - I cannot speak from direct personal experience - but surely a significant proportion of research scientists are not equipped with testicles? Either left or right.


:runaway
 
ozeco41 said:
errr....

IMO - and hearsay evidence - I cannot speak from direct personal experience - but surely a significant proportion of research scientists are not equipped with testicles? Either left or right.

:runaway
Click to expand...
True. I suppose an amended colloquialism might be "would give his or her left reproductive gland" although that lacks the same punch.

;)
 
Thanks everyone.

their response about molten steel.

'it doesn't matter if it can be linked specifically to WTC 1, 2, or 7 , there shouldn't be molten steel ANYWHERE in the rubble of the WTC or any of the basements. Molten steel = temps too high for fires. Simples

Where did it come from ?'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom