A question to our resident truthers about steel failures

[Grizzly Bear]

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

There's a big difference between engineering explanations and "first time in history = impossibility" arguments. The former is objective, the latter is biased uneducated opinion.

 

[dc1971]

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

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

Well the building was on fire so that doesn't necessarily make it a THEORY!

 

[RedIbis]

There's a big difference between engineering explanations and "first time in history = impossibility" arguments. The former is objective, the latter is biased uneducated opinion.

Where did I say it was impossible?

 

[RedIbis]

Well the building was on fire so that doesn't necessarily make it a THEORY!

True, it's less than a theory, merely a hypothesis because without physical evidence it cannot be conclusively determined that the fire caused the collapse.

 

[dc1971]

True, it's less than a theory, merely a hypothesis because without physical evidence it cannot be conclusively determined that the fire caused the collapse.

Yet there was physical evidence!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Guess rather than making another scathing remark, the thread is perfect for comparing two opposing "theories."

Outlined below is how competent engineers look at the collapse and the "first time in history":

Examine all local fire codes to see if the building in question met all of them sufficiently at the time of construction. If the building meets code, then you can generally rule out incompetence on the part of architects, engineers and all others responsible for the construction of the building on-site

Examine where the collapse initiated and determine if failure of any particular part of the building that was affected by the fire to see what the removal of said part would do to the building. This usually requires an in-depth model that uses studies of the building's structural build and material grades along with observations of the event put together.

In other words we would study the circumstances of the fire (in this case), and how the building was constructed (what materials, what structural systems, did it meet codes??). This helps engineers establish where the collapse started, and what effect the known, documented conditions played in contributing to it.

The truther method:
No building has ever collapsed completely, symmetrically, only due to fire. We've seen buildings collapsed with explosives however, thousands of times. We will ignore all partial collapse examples AND small buildings, and treat every large building as the same, the construction and materials are not important, only whether or not they collapsed

If people hear explosions, we ignore the fires altogether, and assume bombs must have been planted. Afterall we've only seen large buildings collapse on a regular basis due to the implanting of explosives.

Fire can't harm steel so we'll ignore it as a culprit

Industry standard tables offering extensive, documentation on building materials are useless, and therefore models must be faked, always. If you can't rebuild the towers exactly at full scale, then you have no physical evidence, and no proof that it happened the way you hypothesize.


First one to point out the mistakes of the truther research methods gets a cookie.

 

[RedIbis]

Yet there was physical evidence!

Unless you have a misconception about what physical evidence is, as others have proven in this forum, you simply don't realize that NIST did not use physical evidence when composing their collapse hypothesis for WTC 7.

Hard to believe, I know, but true.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Where did I say it was impossible?

The argument in its unsimplified mantra is that in order to "prove" something, it should be reproducible. Since there no precedent of a large building collapsing, (or rather more appropriately due to fire initiating it), and rebuilding exact replicas of the WTC is out of the question, "truthers" believe the existing conclusion that fire was responsible in the WTC events are "not proven."

Rather than going the competent route and examining code compliance, construction methods and materials, event circumstances, material specs, modeling, study of partial collapse events and figuring out why results were dissimilar and the like, you would rather say that it's "unproven" on the grounds of a lack of physical evidence, or say, that "many buildings are known to collapse when explosives are planted in them" as some members put it. In fact you have rejected several venues that are used in professional practice which are applied before a building is ever erected, material tables and calculations not only based on real samples, but proven methods. You will of course, predictably nitpick my posts without reading it properly, as I've had to deal with twice already in this very thread.

[EDIT: What I understood this thread to be about was for those claiming it's not proven, to offer some if not all of those areas - examining code compliance, construction methods and materials, event circumstances, material specs, modeling, study of partial collapse events and figuring out why results were dissimilar and the like - to justify such claims as "the collapse theory remains unproven." Nobody seems to want to give it shot. On this this forum it's somewhat understandable given the head wind that some "truthers" have to deal with just by supporting CD, etc theories, but groups like AE911truth whom avoid these issues like the plague, whos activities are not influenced by JREF have no excuses.

 

[RedIbis]

The argument in its unsimplified mantra is that in order to "prove" something, it should be reproducible. Since there no precedent of a large building collapsing, (or rather more appropriately due to fire initiating it), and rebuilding exact replicas of the WTC is out of the question, "truthers" believe the existing conclusion that fire was responsible in the WTC events are "not proven."

Rather than going the competent route and examining code compliance, construction methods and materials, event circumstances, material specs, modeling, study of partial collapse events and figuring out why results were dissimilar and the like, you would rather say that it's "unproven" on the grounds of a lack of physical evidence, or say, that "many buildings are known to collapse when explosives are planted in them" as some members put it. In fact you have rejected several venues that are used in professional practice which are applied before a building is ever erected, material tables and calculations not only based on real samples, but proven methods. You will of course, predictably nitpick my posts without reading it properly, as I've had to deal with twice already in this very thread.

[EDIT: What I understood this thread to be about was for those claiming it's not proven, to offer some if not all of those areas - examining code compliance, construction methods and materials, event circumstances, material specs, modeling, study of partial collapse events and figuring out why results were dissimilar and the like - to justify such claims as "the collapse theory remains unproven." Nobody seems to want to give it shot. On this this forum it's somewhat understandable given the head wind that some "truthers" have to deal with just by supporting CD, etc theories, but groups like AE911truth whom avoid these issues like the plague, whos activities are not influenced by JREF have no excuses.

That's a really long winded way of saying that you have no example of my saying it was impossible.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That's a really long winded way of saying that you have no example of my saying it was impossible.

Star Wars translation:

Stormtrooper: Let me see your identification.

Obi-Wan: [with a small wave of his hand] You don't need to see his identification.

Stormtrooper: We don't need to see his identification.

Obi-Wan: These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Stormtrooper: These aren't the droids we're looking for.

Obi-Wan: He can go about his business.

Stormtrooper: You can go about your business.

Obi-Wan: Move along.

Stormtrooper: Move along... move along.

Handwave all you like RedIbis, it's getting you no where fast!

 

[dafydd]

True, it's less than a theory, merely a hypothesis because without physical evidence it cannot be conclusively determined that the fire caused the collapse.

But it can be ruled out that the collapse was caused by the evil government planting explosives,faking plane crashes,faking passenger lists and bribing the NYFD.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Is there steel with weaker tolerance to heat?

What kind of steel would that be?
The guys who sell wood products might claim all steel products are inferior when exposed to high heat, and they are right! Steel fails in fire!

But steel at normal temperatures has properties which wood does not. But the problem with heat is why steel is insulated, to give everyone time to leave the building before the steel fails.

You recall several lies, stories made up out of ignorance. Are you gullible or promoting the woo at your web site again?

What are the goals of NIST’s investigation of the World Trade Center disaster?
The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The investigation will serve as the basis for:

• improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
• improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
• revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and
• improved public safety.

NIST found no evidence to support the lies you recall. BTW, the buildings would have failed if the proper steel was not used, and most likely would have collapsed a few years after being constructed if it stood at all. The impacts of the jets on 911 verified the strength of the steel. Studies after 911 also verified the steel was up to specification¹.

1... if you don't trust NIST, then there are many independent studies to choose from.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That's a really long winded way of saying that you have no example of my saying it was impossible.

Putting yourself in a grey area is specifically how you roll. By rejecting the generally accepted events and having zero evidence of any CD you must inherently accept that neither the fire-induced collapse conclusion, nor the controlled demolition conclusions have merit. All I did in my "long winded response" was ensure that there was no mistake between what you "claim" and how it gets interpreted, and that the difference between the two is negligible.

 

[JAStewart]

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

They probably think that you need to take away someone's toes, feet, ankle, shin, knee and thigh to knock them over.

I'd personally take out the knee.

 

[Grassy Knowlington]

Is there steel with weaker tolerance to heat?

Steel fails in fire!

But surely this photo just demonstrates controlled demolition and a cover up - the wood clearly shows evidence of the use of super-termite.