A question to our resident truthers about steel failures

[RedIbis]

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

And what was this science, math and physics based on? Data inputs? If you don't have physical evidence, your data inputs are merely hypothetical.

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.

You're committing the strawman fallacy. I didn't say what I thought the "truth" was, and you have not seen me argue CD in any threads.

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

What facts? NIST speculates what caused the collapse of WTC 7. Their assumed temps are possibilities without evidence, not facts.

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

You appear confused about the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

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

I just threw that in there since questioning 9/11 is often an excuse to call someone an anti-semite. I don't think you personally have done that, but you can't deny that it's done in this forum all the time.

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.

There's nothing stupid about being skeptical of NIST's WTC 7 collapse scenario. A cold skeptic would put little value in a hypothesis based on extraordinary occurence without any physical evidence to support.

 

[Carlos]

but this does not mean this is what happend at the WTC

But do you at least admit that it is a physically possible hypothesis? Yes or no?

especially since you have zero precedent for it happening, as NIST admits

Do you understand that fire in a building with the same characteristics of WTC7 is also something unprecedented?

 

[TJM]

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.

I can't speak for everyone, but for as I'm concerned, it isn't a matter of acceptance. It's a matter of rejecting alternate theories which are just silly. When someone comes up with a plausible alternate scenario, I'll be all ears.

 

[RedIbis]

But do you at least admit that it is a physically possible hypothesis? Yes or no?

Sure, lots of things are physically possible.

Do you understand that fire in a building with the same characteristics of WTC7 is also something unprecedented?

As would be anything. No two building fires are the same. No two murders are exactly the same, it doesn't mean we should simply accept unprecedented hypotheses without corresponding physical evidence.

 

[TruthersLie]

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

How is the quesiton 'stupid beyond belief?' I'm asking for you to clarify a position that doesn't make sense to me.

Can fire cause partial collapses of steel buildings?

if it is a yes.

why then can't fire cause a cascading series of partial collapses which leads to the full collapse of a steel framed building?

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

So then let me make sure I understand YOUR POV red.

1. a regular office fire can heat steel beams in construction to the point of structural failure, which can be either local failures or even global failures.

Is that correct?

 

[RedIbis]

So then let me make sure I understand YOUR POV red.

1. a regular office fire can heat steel beams in construction to the point of structural failure, which can be either local failures or even global failures.

Is that correct?

Just because something is possible does not mean it happened.

It's physically possible that January Jones woke up beside me this morning, delicately stroking my cheek, in a swoon recalling our last night's revelrie, but unfortunately, there's about as much physical evidence of that as supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis.

 

[triforcharity]

And what was this science, math and physics based on? Data inputs? If you don't have physical evidence, your data inputs are merely hypothetical.

Not when the data imputs are taken directly from blueprints and known configurations. You can also model with pretty reasonable accuracy (usually about 1-2%) what will happen. This gives you the most accurate conclusions.

You're committing the strawman fallacy. I didn't say what I thought the "truth" was, and you have not seen me argue CD in any threads.

I'm sorry, did I say anything about CD? I should have been more specific. Your should have been truthers, not you specifically. My apologies.

What facts? NIST speculates what caused the collapse of WTC 7. Their assumed temps are possibilities without evidence, not facts.

No, the temperatures are based on best guess of fuel loading. If you know what the fuel load is, you can again, use tests that will give you approximate temperatures. Again, this is usually accurate within 1-2%.

You appear confused about the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

I certainly do know. NIST's conclusions are the best hypothesis out there. Do truthers have one that matches all the known facts, and matches with the events of the day? No? Ok, so truthers have an untested theory.

I just threw that in there since questioning 9/11 is often an excuse to call someone an anti-semite. I don't think you personally have done that, but you can't deny that it's done in this forum all the time.

Hardly. It is when someone starts accusing the Jews of being behind 9/11 for one reason or another, and goes on rants about the evilness of Jews, that is usually when someone will be called out as an anti-semite.

And no, you have not seen me call anyone that. Moron? Most likely. Idiot? Yep. Liar? Hell yes. Terrorist sympathizer? Sure, a few times. MM being the one that I call that the most. But I usually stay out of arguments about religion, as it is not well known to me. I just don't care.

There's nothing stupid about being skeptical of NIST's WTC 7 collapse scenario. A cold skeptic would put little value in a hypothesis based on extraordinary occurence without any physical evidence to support.

But yet, we have many other things other than physical evidence.

Truthers on the other hand, have arguments from incredulity, and baseless speculation, along with lying and making **** up as they go. Ie: Thermite.

 

[TruthersLie]

Just because something is possible does not mean it happened.

It's physically possible that January Jones woke up beside me this morning, delicately stroking my cheek, in a swoon recalling our last night's revelrie, but unfortunately, there's about as much physical evidence of that as supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis.

Why do you try to dodge a simple question?

Do you agree that office fires can cause steel in the fire to weaken, and to even cause localized collapses?

yes or no.

 

[DGM]

Just because something is possible does not mean it happened.

It's physically possible that January Jones woke up beside me this morning, delicately stroking my cheek, in a swoon recalling our last night's revelrie, but unfortunately, there's about as much physical evidence of that as supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis.

No....I'm certain the January Jones thing didn't happen. If it did, your wife would have beat you to death and your post would never been made.


Sorry Man!

 

[RedIbis]

No....I'm certain the January Jones thing didn't happen. If it did, your wife would have beat you to death and your post would never been made.


Sorry Man!

I would have died happy.

 

[Carlos]

Sure, lots of things are physically possible.

Great!

As would be anything. No two building fires are the same. No two murders are exactly the same, it doesn't mean we should simply accept unprecedented hypotheses without corresponding physical evidence.

But the alternative hypothesis is also an unprecedented one without corresponding physical evidence.

I personally think the absence of precedence is not a good parameter to judge if a hypothesis is plausible or not in some situations such as the collapse due to fire, for example, which is a rather complex and involves many variables as:

The type of construction.

The materials used (concrete / steel / both).

The length of the spans.

Height and weight of the building.

Simultaneity of the fires.

Presence / absence of firefighters to control the fire.

Presence / absence of sprinklers in good working to control the fire.

The building capacity to remain stable when some parts of the structure fail.

Capacity of the structure to resist partial collapses preventing progressive collapses

et cætera.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'll respond to this since it's better to read it from the one who actually wrote it.

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

REDIBIS
This will be my second time clarifying something that should have been simple. This time I want you to read it THREE TIMES:

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 are thus specious

Truthers vlaim that BECAUSE OF THE FACT

Pay attention redibis: Truthers claim that BECAUSE no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed before due to fire...

Definition of because: By or for the cause that; on this account that; for the reason that.

It does not say: Truthers claim that no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed before due to fire

It says: Truthers claim that BECAUSE no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed before due to fire...

BECAUSE is a key word.

The end you cut out: and is thus specious

The sentence is broken up into two main parts
Truthers claim that

then I say the existing matter they take issue with:

No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire

Then I resume:
and is thus

Hence the response you ignored; truthers say that the lack of precedents as known is justification for saying the WTC collapses are suspicious. You wasted time nitpicking a post because you didn't read it, deal with it and move on.

I don't care if this was the first time in history a fire lead to a chain of events that resulted in collapse, as I've already made clear, it's a mute point. Unless you can provide an engineering justification for it with in-depth performance studies of the towers which definitively prove beyond a reasonable doubt they shouldn't have collapsed "the way they did" then offer it. But you guys apparently think everything is determined by whether it's happened before or not.

I shouldn't need to break this down this hard for something that was easy enough to understand by everyone else. I tried to be polite earlier by keeping my response simple and not hitting you with a wall of text but that obviously wasn't enough to settle in

If you don't have physical evidence, your data inputs are merely hypothetical.

As we have discussed already, steel property tables for example are not hypothetical. They are industry standards; in order for your argument to stand, the steel used in any one of the twin towers would have to be something other than the standards already documented from physical testing. What you're ridiculously asking of engineers is that they reinvent the wheel every time a new construction project begins, that's insane.

 

[alienentity]

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.

An obvious strawman. There was plenty of physical evidence. Not least of which were the numerous and extensive fires and the damage they caused.

The truther hypothesis has no hard evidence at all. It is based on speculation about technologies which may not even exist - and methods which have never been seen in history, but only imagined possible.

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

Apply skepticism to all ideas and you'll be less confused. The CD hypothesis doesn't fit because the evidence doesn't support it. The fire hypothesis is very well understood, and further (to great advantage over the CD hypothesis) doesn't require a huge, unseen conspiracy to place these hypothetical devices, without detection, and then somehow detonate them, without leaving any visible evidence on the steel recovered and examined.
Etc, etc..

Using Occam's Razor alone you must eliminate the almost-infinitely complex hypothesis in favour of the more verifiable and simple one. Even a skeptic can do that with training.

 

[RedIbis]

There was plenty of physical evidence.

Maybe, but NIST admits that it didn't access any of it to compose their collapse hypothesis.

 

[jaydeehess]

Maybe, but NIST admits that it didn't access any of it to compose their collapse hypothesis.

Back to this again...

There is an enormous amount of documentary evidence, the field of fire science engineering, the real world documentation of steel behaviour in office fires, and the FEA done by NIST..
OTOH the 9/11 conspiracists have a few loud noises that could have a myriad of causes , and a flawed dust sampling stidy (which each point if different directions) to bolster their contentions. There is no physical evidence worth a darn and little documentary evidence backing those contentions.

Sorry RedI, the weight of the evidence has the various contentions of the 9/11 conspiracists sinking fast.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Back to this again...

There is an enormous amount of documentary evidence, the field of fire science engineering, the real world documentation of steel behaviour in office fires, and the FEA done by NIST.

Redibis does not believe documentation of industry standard materials are evidence. Even if the construction materials are among the standard grades whose material properties are already known.

 

[Monza]

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.

Nice succinct summary, Carlos. This is absolutely correct.

 

[dc1971]

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).

Aaaaaaand once again, WTC7 DID NOT just collapse because of fire. There was structural damage, the building caught fire on several floors and burned for 7 hours. This eventually weakened several support columns that eventually led to it's collapse. You guys are still arguing this to this day and it's funny!

 

[RedIbis]

Aaaaaaand once again, WTC7 DID NOT just collapse because of fire. There was structural damage, the building caught fire on several floors and burned for 7 hours. This eventually weakened several support columns that eventually led to it's collapse. You guys are still arguing this to this day and it's funny!

Thankfully, NIST gives itself some wiggle room when it says:

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.

That "primarily" is about all that's keeping debunkers from accepting that NIST relies almost entirely on a fire theory.