A question to our resident truthers about steel failures

[alienentity]

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).

So, that means that a steelframe hirise cannot collapse totally due to fire?
Really?
Can you give some engineering reasons for that claim?

 

[Quad4_72]

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

You have addressed nothing in the OP. Here is one of the specific questions presented in the OP:

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?

What is your answer to this question? Additionally, what is your evidence to support your answer?

 

[Carlos]

It's scientifically proved that:

1 - Fire can cause the failure of structural elements.

a - Steel loses strength at high temperatures.​

b - The modulus of elasticity (or Young's modulus) of the steel is reduced under high temperature, consequently the structure becomes more deformable.​

c - Thermal expansion can shear bolts connections.​

2 - When one or more structural component fails there is a redistribution of the load. Due to this redistribution some elements may become overwhelmed and fail and then cause a new redistribution of the load.

3 - The collapse of a single floor can cause the collapse of floors below. This is because building structures in most cases are not designed to resist the effects of vertical dynamic loads.

If you disagree that a building may collapse due to fire then you disagree with the science.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Nice quotemine. Even had the elipses and everything.

 

[triforcharity]

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).

Caracas Tower was not a steel framed building. Go back and try again.

ETA:

 

[Carlos]

I will start calling truthers "science deniers"

 

[SkepticGuy]

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

Wow, that jerking-knee must cause a lot of damage with whatever is on your table at the time.

I was merely responding to this question, "is there a third option I am missing?" An option which is in the wild and provides a collapse explanation that doesn't require extraordinary events -- such as rigged explosives.

And I'm certain every construction project in NYC has always been on the up-and-up with no sparing of expense for the highest-quality materials from the most reputable suppliers. (@@)



BTW: I believe the buildings were felled by aircraft, piloted at high-speed by terrorists, from the resulting kinetic energy at impact and residual fires.

 

[Dave Rogers]

And I'm certain every construction project in NYC has always been on the up-and-up with no sparing of expense for the highest-quality materials from the most reputable suppliers. (@@)

It certainly seems possible to me that some aspects of the WTC construction - most notably the fireproofing - may have been skimped on a little, so that some of the money intended for materials procurement could be re-routed elsewhere. I don't think anything's proven, but it's many orders of magnitude more plausible than silent C4 or instant thermite.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Nice quotemine. Even had the elipses and everything.

The quote was from Grizzly, and the elipses to keep the part that is claimed by NIST. This is actually the responsible way to handle such a response.

Yours was a biased jumping of the gun.

 

[RedIbis]

You have addressed nothing in the OP. Here is one of the specific questions presented in the OP:



What is your answer to this question? Additionally, what is your evidence to support your answer?

The question is stupid beyond belief, and besides, what's a truther? Of course steel can be heated to the point where it weakens.

 

[triforcharity]

The quote was from Grizzly, and the elipses to keep the part that is claimed by NIST. This is actually the responsible way to handle such a response.

Yours was a biased jumping of the gun.

Incorrect. When you left out "and is thus specious." you changed the meaning of his sentence. That is the TEXTBOOK definition of a quitemine.

And I jump no guns. Mine are all secured properly. Thanks.

 

[Quad4_72]

The question is stupid beyond belief, and besides, what's a truther? Of course steel can be heated to the point where it weakens.

You have dodged the question I see. I would expect nothing less from you. Here is the question again presented in it's entirety:

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?

Bolding mine. What is your answer red? No dodging this time please.

 

[RedIbis]

Incorrect. When you left out "and is thus specious." you changed the meaning of his sentence. That is the TEXTBOOK definition of a quitemine.

And I jump no guns. Mine are all secured properly. Thanks.

I'm not going to spend too much time breaking this down for you but since NIST did not consider their own theory specious, I left it out. The rest is exactly as NIST explains and not just a twoofie claim.

NIST has published this claim and you didn't correct Grizzly when he attributed it to Twoofies.

 

[RedIbis]

You have dodged the question I see. I would expect nothing less from you. Here is the question again presented in it's entirety:


Bolding mine. What is your answer red? No dodging this time please.

The question is wholly stupid. I said of course steel can be heated to the point where it can weaken the steel. It's even conceivable that heat can weaken steel to the point where it causes global collapse ...

... but this does not mean this is what happend at the WTC
, especially since you have zero precedent for it happening, as NIST admits.

You should be concerned I have to map this out for you.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm not going to spend too much time breaking this down for you but since NIST did not consider their own theory specious, I left it out. The rest is exactly as NIST explains and not just a twoofie claim.

NIST has published this claim and you didn't correct Grizzly when he attributed it to Twoofies.

Because I understood exactly what Grizzly was saying.

He was saying that truthers claim that because no steel framed highrise has collapsed from fire alone, and there is no precedent, that it is specious.

It is NOT NIST's claim that it is suspicious, it is truthers that claim it is specious.

You left it out to make it seem that he was saying that Truthers made the claim about no precedent, when it is the specious part that truthers claim.

 

[alienentity]

The question is wholly stupid. I said of course steel can be heated to the point where it can weaken the steel. It's even conceivable that heat can weaken steel to the point where it causes global collapse ...

... but this does not mean this is what happend at the WTC
, especially since you have zero precedent for it happening, as NIST admits.

You should be concerned I have to map this out for you.

More to the point, why is it not possible or even probable that the WTC fires were the cause of the collapses.

btw, you should avoid relying on the logical fallacy that, since something is unprecedented, that has a bearing on physics. You have employed this fallacy in your statement 'but this does not mean this is what happend at the WTC, especially since you have zero precedent for it happening, as NIST admits'

I don't suppose you'd recognize the many levels of irony in the statement, either....oh well.

 

[RedIbis]

Because I understood exactly what Grizzly was saying.

He was saying that truthers claim that because no steel framed highrise has collapsed from fire alone, and there is no precedent, that it is specious.

It is NOT NIST's claim that it is suspicious, it is truthers that claim it is specious.

You left it out to make it seem that he was saying that Truthers made the claim about no precedent, when it is the specious part that truthers claim.

Ahh, now I get it. When NIST claims that no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed from fire and have no physical evidence to back up their hypothetical collapse scenario, this is entirely accepted by so-called skeptics and debunkers.

When Twoofilious twoofies claim that such a theory is suspicious because it is unprecendeted and does not have any physical evidence in support, this is fundamental twoofism and mental illness.

I'll admit it can be confusing parsing the logic of debunkers. But to make sure I have this absolutely right let me make it even simpler:

Never happened before and no physical evidence = perfectly acceptable, if not downright conclusive.

Being skeptical and questioning said hypothesis, which is both unprecedented and unsupported by physical evidence = stupidity, mental illness, and anti-semitism.

Now I got it?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

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

I've actually not heard this either. But, if I may theorize myself, that may simply be a misinterpretation of Dr. Astaneh-Asl's comments on the Twin Towers approved deviations from existing standards. Here's what he's on record as ssaying:

As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says.

The design contains at least 10 unusual elements, he says. For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a "bearing wall" system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design, he says, adding that in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick. And he says the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as "yield strength") in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings.

As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings. His model clearly shows that in the initial fight between the plane and the building's exterior, the plane won, easily breaching the structure.

"It's like a soda can hit with a pencil," says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. "It was so easy that the plane went in without any damage and took the thousands of gallons of jet fuel in."

The structural innovations meant the developers saved money because they could use less steel, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl.

...

He sounds exasperated by what has come to be the accepted wisdom among engineers: that there was nothing wrong with the buildings. "I cannot see why the entire profession has agreed to sit in this convenient seat of saying that there is nothing wrong with our work," he says.

Source: http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html

It's the sentence "... That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design" that leaps out at me in regards to this charge. I can see someone innocently and honestly misinterpreting that - especially if they read it out of context - as meaning that the steel was "substandard", instead of simply meeting a different approved standard^*.

Anyway, that's simply a possible explaination in my mind, so don't take it as gospel. But with all that gets misinterpreted - or in too many cases with conspiratorial haymaking, deliberately distorted - I can see something like this that's a subtle point getting changed into such a charge.
_____

*Yes, it was a different approved standard; the context around his statement "... violations of practice and code" is that the designers went to the NYC government to get certian deviations from standard practice/existing code approved. Those changes are laid out in one of the NIST subreports. That context must be known, else someone will think Astaneh-Asl is charging that the designers and builders ignored "practice and code". That's not what happened; the good professor's campaign is so fierce because those "violations", as he calls it, were approved by authoritative bodies.

 

[triforcharity]

Ahh, now I get it. When NIST claims that no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed from fire and have no physical evidence to back up their hypothetical collapse scenario, this is entirely accepted by so-called skeptics and debunkers.

When you have science, math, physics, and other known facts to go along with it, yes.

When Twoofilious twoofies claim that such a theory is suspicious because it is unprecendeted and does not have any physical evidence in support, this is fundamental twoofism and mental illness.

No, not at all. When you believe someone that has failed to provide any math, science, physics, or any known facts, and you take that as truth, that is when it becomes unbelievable.

PS. Nice strawman.

I'll admit it can be confusing parsing the logic of debunkers.

Im sorry that facts, math, science, and physics confuse you.

But to make sure I have this absolutely right let me make it even simpler:

Never happened before and no physical evidence = perfectly acceptable, if not downright conclusive.

Yes, when you have math, facts, physics, and science to back it up, sure.

Being skeptical and questioning said hypothesis, which is both unprecedented and unsupported by physical evidence = stupidity, mental illness, and anti-semitism.

Now I got it?

Now where do you get this anti-semitism from? Nowhere in this thread is this even discussed. Nice strawman. Again.

No, it becomes stupid when you believe something that doesn't match the known facts (Footprint anyone?) doesn't have a lick of math to back it up, nor physics, and uses quotemines and other garbage, to try to present their version of the "Truth". That is when it becomes stupid.

 

[Carlos]

RedIbis

A controlled demolition of a skyscraper by using hightech or even conventional explosives is also an unprecedented event.

A controlled demolition of an occupied building where the explosives were planted without anyone noticing is also an unprecedented event.

However, I do not see you (nor any other truther) showing any skepticism about this such hypothesis.