A question to our resident truthers about steel failures

[TruthersLie]

We often hear from truthers who swear that the idea of the steel weakening and then the buildings (wtc1, 2 and 7) collapsing is just not possible. Yet we have numerous examples from other building fires that unprotected steeel, and even fireproofed steel can and will fail during regular fires.

I'm trying really hard to not try to create a strawman argument here, so work with me.

My question is this, as truthers do you believe that steel can't be heated to a temperature where it is capable of weakening to the point of collapsing in an office fire?

If that is a YES, how do you explain the collapses inside of wtc5 and 6 due to office fires?

How do you explain the collapse of two floors in the caracas towers fire in 2004?

How do you explain the collapse of the steel structure on the madrid towers?

Or do you accept that steel can get hot enough in an office fire to cause partial collapses?

(is there a third option I am missing?)

If you agree with the principle of fire causing a partial collapse, what is then stopping multiple partial collapses from then causing a global collapse?

 

[SkepticGuy]

(is there a third option I am missing?)

Sub-standard steel having a weaker tolerance to heat than intended in the original structural engineering plans/specifications.


I recall (have no links) several stories of a few years back that had shown that the steel substructure of the towers utilized a quality of steel less than what was specified (potentially due to organized-crime influence in the supplier)... and was a possible contributing factor to the weakening from heat.

 

[triforcharity]

I've HEARD that theory, but have seen no evidence of it.

 

[TruthersLie]

Sub-standard steel having a weaker tolerance to heat than intended in the original structural engineering plans/specifications.


I recall (have no links) several stories of a few years back that had shown that the steel substructure of the towers utilized a quality of steel less than what was specified (potentially due to organized-crime influence in the supplier)... and was a possible contributing factor to the weakening from heat.

Ok. That is a possibility. it reminds me of the rivet theory from the titanic (that the rivets were made with below grade steel and then fractured when struck by the iceberg).

But then wouldn't that just decrease the time the steel beams would take to heat significantly and then fail?

 

[Carlos]

Some truthers think to bring down a building with 50 floors and 2000 columns is necessary that the fire weakens all 2000 columns.

 

[dafydd]

Bit of a waste of time,the resident truthers know nothing about steel failure.

 

[Macgyver1968]

bit of a waste of time,the resident truthers know nothing everything about steel failure.

ftfy.

 

[triforcharity]

Ok. That is a possibility. it reminds me of the rivet theory from the titanic (that the rivets were made with below grade steel and then fractured when struck by the iceberg).

But then wouldn't that just decrease the time the steel beams would take to heat significantly and then fail?

Possibly, just depends on how far blow the recommended grade they went.

But, I am no engineer.....

 

[Seymour Butz]

Sub-standard steel having a weaker tolerance to heat than intended in the original structural engineering plans/specifications.


I recall (have no links) several stories of a few years back that had shown that the steel substructure of the towers utilized a quality of steel less than what was specified (potentially due to organized-crime influence in the supplier)... and was a possible contributing factor to the weakening from heat.

Well, this is what happens when one owns a conspiracy chat site. You end up actually believing what troofers write.

Steel was tested before it was welded up into columns.

NIST tested a LOT of the steel collected. All were found to be above specs, and even were able to document instances where the supplier substituted higher grade - higher ksi - steel than what was called for.

And besides, most of the steel used in the columns came from Japan, IIRC, so if there was organized crime involved, they would be the first to throw a monkey wrench into getting steel from out of the country, so that they could infiltrate any new operations in the US.

Absolute drivel. Go back home to the loony bin.

 

[RedIbis]

I'm trying really hard to not try to create a strawman argument here, so work with me.

Keep trying. Nearly the entire OP is strawman fallacy, assumption and hyperbole.

What is it about this forum that comples people to question "truthers" without any sincere desire to begin a legitimate discussion?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Keep trying. Nearly the entire OP is strawman fallacy, assumption and hyperbole.

What is it about this forum that comples people to question "truthers" without any sincere desire to begin a legitimate discussion?

Dodge much RedIbis?

So it's ok for you Truthers to question us, but we can't question you people?!
This isn't Nazi Germany!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

We often hear from truthers who swear that the idea of the steel weakening and then the buildings (wtc1, 2 and 7) collapsing is just not possible. Yet we have numerous examples from other building fires that unprotected steeel, and even fireproofed steel can and will fail during regular fires.<snipped for brevity>

Before you start being called out for creating strawman arguments (which I know is not your intention) I think this should be clarified:

Truthers claim that because no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed before due to fire, the collapse of the WTC has no relevant precedent, and is thus specious.

A good question to ask them is what technical analysis are they able to provide to substantiate that the collapse should be impossible for the WTC. Building analyses are performance based, because they are rarely built the same and thus no universal standard can be applied. For example a building like the madrid tower that was built using reiforced concrete is not expected to perform in the same manner as a building made of steel. A building using a traditional column grid will not distribute and support loads in the same manner as a building using a tube-tube design, etc

Better yet; ask why they think applying a universal standard which is pitifully lazy in the first place will answer any of their underlying questions. Because that is exactly the story they try to pull. Good luck getting an answer to that though

 

[RedIbis]

Truthers claim that because no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed before due to fire, the collapse of the WTC has no relevant precedent[...]

It's not the mythical twoofers who make this claim, it's NIST.

 

[twinstead]

It's not the mythical twoofers who make this claim, it's NIST.

And yet, no legitimate engineering or structural engineering community from anywhere on Earth claims that the buildings could not have collapsed the way the NIST says it did.

Why do you think that is?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It's not the mythical twoofers who make this claim, it's NIST.

RedIBis,

I don't know if you've read the entire NIST report, but NIST was making suggestions for fire proofing buildings in the future. I don't know why you think that NIST is "hiding" anything?!

Think about this:

If fire didn't cause the collapses, then how did the explosive charges remain safe in a 1,500 - 2,000*F fire without going off?

How come none of the witnesses aren't explosive experts, since you claim that they heard explosions & why didn't any of them become deaf from the explosions?

You see RediBis, you have a problem with reason.

 

[TruthersLie]

Keep trying. Nearly the entire OP is strawman fallacy, assumption and hyperbole.

What is it about this forum that comples people to question "truthers" without any sincere desire to begin a legitimate discussion?

Red.

did you notice the part where I was saying I didn't want to make it a strawman argument?

if you have a way to help clarify the topic, I'd greatly appreciate it.

No really.

We constantly hear from the schwinn by twoofing that the towers couldn't possibly collapse, 1st time in history, etc... each of those claims are based on some belief system that it is impossible.

I just want to know what this belief system is, that is why I am asking, and why I said if there are more possibilities please provide them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's not the mythical twoofers who make this claim, it's NIST.

What I was was saying, is that it is truthers who make a big deal out of such a fact to state that the collapses are suspicious. I shouldn't need to explain a point that was obvious in my other post. If you believe that to be in error then please clarify.

 

[George 152]

We had a fire in a steel framed school Gymnasium a while back.
Guess what happened to the steel frame
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/large-blaze-rongotai-college-3985847/video

 

[Quiproquo]

I remember gazing up at the fire in the Caracas tower back in 2004.

There has been between 400 to 500 fires in high rise steel frame buildings. Total collapses: ZERO (except WTC 7, of course).

 

[A W Smith]

I remember gazing up at the fire in the Caracas tower back in 2004.

There has been between 400 to 500 fires in high rise steel frame buildings. Total collapses: ZERO (except WTC 7, of course).

I remember gazing upon my television screen just moments ago. Watching an episode of "The Exploders". One of their projects was a high rise steel and concrete structure in lagos Nigeria that suffered a fire two years ago. Two days after the fire about one third floor area of 8 or 9 floors near the top had fully collapsed. And it wasn't even hit by an aircraft.


Call to perfection logical fallacy of "did not suffer global collapse"claim coming in
5 4 3 2 1