Circularity of the "never happened before" argument

[jaydeehess]

Concerning WTC 7 and my (and many other's) marathon with Christopher 7
I incorporated 1337's thoughts.
http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3483978&postcount=4374

there is the bald fact that each of the collapsed buildings also suffered physical damage before the fires began. In fact WTC 7 was evacuated several hours before it actually collapsed partially because of the concern that it was going to. Concern about the stability of the structure was raised shortly after the collapse of WTC 1. Then the fires went to work on the structure.

Chris's point of contention is mainly that the collapse would not have proceeded exactly as NIST sets out in the preliminary report. It may very well not have and THAT is precisley the reason they stated that more research needed to be done.
Chris also claims definitatively that fire could not reduce the strength of the large columns enough to cause them to fail yet in that completely ignores or minimizes the effect that the debris damage to the structure would have had. In all previous fires, in buildings that start out intact, the load on heated members would be just as designed. That simply cannot be said to have been the case in any of the WTC structures.
Chris states that certain things have never occured before and when shown them to have he ups the ante to include new parameters. The end result of such an arguement would be to state that no identical building to WTC 7 has ever collapsed due to fire. This means that the contention, "this has never happened before" is warrented by the criteria that an identical building to WTC 7 has never collapsed before so WTC 7 could not have collapsed. That is the definition of circular reasoning.

<<snip>>

We do not have an identical building to WTC 7 to compare to. We do however have the Windsor and the towers that we can take certain lessons from as well as the many examples of other steel structures that have suffered complete collapse even with no prior physical damage, such as the Kader Toy factory.

Has it never happened before? Not exactly as occured in Manhattan on Sept 11/01, but other incidents point to a confluence of insults to the structures involved being able to cause it to happen. The frank fact of these cases is that the events that caused the collapses of 3 of the WTC structures have never come together before. What is also shown is that other WTC structures that suffered similar or worse debris damage and or similar fires did not collapse but were so badly damaged that they had to be pulled down. That they were considered too dangerous to even enter to place explosives in them. They were, basically in danger of collapsing spontaneously many days/weeks after Sept. 11/01. This is also true of the Windsor despite its robust concrete core columns.

 

[jaydeehess]

The steel portion collapsed after hours of an inferno.

The steel building that was wtc2 collapsed after 56 minutes.

A tree will survive having a large chunk of wood take out of it. It will also survive having a second large chunk taken out of it. It will continue to survive these whacks from an axe and one can they remove fully half the diameter of the trunk and leave that tree standing. However if the wind comes up it is quite likely to fail catastrophically and fall over (please do not behave like a proverbial fish in a barrel and state that it does not fall through itself).

By your reasoning the tree, since it survived the original structure insult of the axe blows, should have been able to withstand the second insult of the wind load.

 

[Tippit]

Yup, for everything there is a first time. The first occurrence of anything falsifies the claim that X could not happen.

No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time. Some things are clearly beyond the realm of physical possibility, and some things that are less well understood can be labeled unlikely.

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one. It brings with it a host of new questions as to safety, and new methods of demolition. The idea that steel buildings can't collapse from fire is subject to much uncertainty it seems, but we seem to have a basic understanding of both the properties of fire and steel under certain conditions, based on empirical, physical constraints. This is probably enough to warrant at least an eyebrow being raised as to what happened on 9/11.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

 

[rwguinn]

No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time. Some things are clearly beyond the realm of physical possibility, and some things that are less well understood can be labeled unlikely.

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one. It brings with it a host of new questions as to safety, and new methods of demolition. The idea that steel buildings can't collapse from fire is subject to much uncertainty it seems, but we seem to have a basic understanding of both the properties of fire and steel under certain conditions, based on empirical, physical constraints. This is probably enough to warrant at least an eyebrow being raised as to what happened on 9/11.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

the cue sack is not only empty, it is non-existent

 

[beachnut]

Meanwhile, the twoofers - after six years of research - still don't even have a friggin' narrative.

No evidence, just talk. It is amazing they ignore the 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT KE events at the towers. And the jet fuel, the heat of 315 tons of TNT. They also ignore the effectively zero firefighting due to damage. Unlike all the buildings which they present as their failed logic fires, which all were fought successfully, except for the those high-rise buildings that were too weak to use ever again. Faulty logic, zero knowledge on 9/11 add up to 9/11 truth cult of fact less ideas.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

You seem to be forgetting the "controlled" part of controlled demolition. CD firms are paid well not to bring down a building, but to bring it down and not cause billions of dollars of damage to adjacent property. People like you always forget about that.

Edit: I have to wonder what the liability insurance premiums for taking down a building in NYC would be. If it was legal.

 

[GStan]

No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time. Some things are clearly beyond the realm of physical possibility, and some things that are less well understood can be labeled unlikely.

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one. It brings with it a host of new questions as to safety, and new methods of demolition. The idea that steel buildings can't collapse from fire is subject to much uncertainty it seems, but we seem to have a basic understanding of both the properties of fire and steel under certain conditions, based on empirical, physical constraints. This is probably enough to warrant at least an eyebrow being raised as to what happened on 9/11.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

My bolding. Undoubtedly, the liability of damages to surrounding buildings from such uncontrolled controlled demolitions will adversely impact that same bottom line.

Plus, they'll have to buy a 767 to crash into the building for each new demolition contract. I hear they are quite expensive. Your claim is rejected.

 

[Corsair 115]

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

That should be a few carefully set HUGE fires along with SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE IMPACT OF LARGE AIRLINERS MOVING AT HIGH RATES OF SPEED.

 

[CHF]

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

Yeah and don't forget to tell them about the plane impacts....oh and make sure that all the buildings that are demolished with this technique have the same design as the WTC towers (no concrete supports).

Oh and don't forget to tell those in the CD indistry that it also involves destroying most of the neighbourhood in the process.

 

[soylent]

No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time.

Relativistic mass of a proton can indeed be far higher than the relativistic mass of lawrencium.

It's entirely possible that something like hydrogen-263(which has a higher rest mass than a common isotope of lawrencium) can exists for a brief instant between the core and solid crust of a neutron star where big globs of neutrons are possible.

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one.

Windsor tower.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

Controlled being the key word. Wouldn't want to cause billions in damage to nearby buildings would we?

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Tippit
No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time.
Relativistic mass of a proton can indeed be far higher than the relativistic mass of lawrencium.

It's entirely possible that something like hydrogen-263(which has a higher rest mass than a common isotope of lawrencium) can exists for a brief instant between the core and solid crust of a neutron star where big globs of neutrons are possible.

Perhaps it should read that "an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, in any frame of reference in which Newtonian physics predominates." That would nicely incorporate the space and time elements of September 11/2001 in which the events we are speaking of occured.

 

[Beerina]

The idea that metal weakens when heated is hardly a new one. It preceeds Jesus walking the earth by millenia.

In any case, IIRC, the progressive collapse was deliberately designed into the WTC so that, should it start to collapse, it would fall straight down rather than tipping over and compounding the disaster.

Thus I would not rely on heating and softening metal as a general method of inducing the destruction of buildings. Even in this case, designed for it, one of the two towers' collapse had the top dozen floors or so tip over and fall off the building.

And on top of all that, explosions would guarantee all support structures fail at the same (or proper) moments, which mere heating would not allow.

 

[Newtons Bit]

In any case, IIRC, the progressive collapse was deliberately designed into the WTC so that, should it start to collapse, it would fall straight down rather than tipping over and compounding the disaster.

Like hell it was.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one.

Absolutely false. You are making a fool of yourself.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

If I were a demolition contractor and I wanted to destroy a building the same size and type as WTC7, in the same manner as WTC7 was destroyed, I would need to spend 2 to 3 billion (I have NO idea how much a WTC class skyscraper would cost today, so I'm making a wild guess) dollars building a 110 storey tower across the street from it. Then I would need to buy a 200 million dollar airliner to smash into the newly built tower, knocking it into the building I was contracted to destroy.

So I've spent 2.2 billion+ dollars destroying a 50ish storey office building.

Where is my profit margin in all that, Tip?

 

[jaydeehess]

The idea that metal weakens when heated is hardly a new one. It preceeds Jesus walking the earth by millenia.

Quite true

In any case, IIRC, the progressive collapse was deliberately designed into the WTC so that, should it start to collapse, it would fall straight down rather than tipping over and compounding the disaster.

Preposterous and utterly wrong.

Thus I would not rely on heating and softening metal as a general method of inducing the destruction of buildings.

Good call, wrong reason.

Even in this case, designed for it, one of the two towers' collapse had the top dozen floors or so tip over and fall off the building.

Really???????

And on top of all that, explosions would guarantee all support structures fail at the same (or proper) moments, which mere heating would not allow.

Now all you need do is definitivly illustrate that explosves were used.

 

[stilicho]

It would seem that the whole entire official version of events regarding 9/11 is what has the fixation with the “first time things have ever happened”. In fact without a strong belief of coincidence, a strong willingness for suspension of disbelief, and there’s a “first time for everything” mentality the official version wouldn't fly at all. If the official version was the Wright brother’s plane it would have crashed and burned without ever getting off the ground killing both of them. It’s that lame. It's that much of a disaster.

You are aware that some engineers did try to recreate the Wright brothers' flight in a replica, on its hundredth anniversary, and it didn't fly. Given that "evidence", are you so certain now that the Wright brothers' attempt didn't end in disaster?

 

[Tippit]

That should be a few carefully set HUGE fires along with SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE IMPACT OF LARGE AIRLINERS MOVING AT HIGH RATES OF SPEED.

And the flight number of the airliner that hit WTC 7 was?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And the flight number of the airliner that hit WTC 7 was?

Why in God's name do you truthers keep saying that? No plane hit WTC 7, huge chunks of the main towers did!

Good God... Just how dishonest is it to keep asking that question, knowing full well where the damage to WTC 7 came from?

 

[jaydeehess]

And the flight number of the airliner that hit WTC 7 was?

WTC1, it wasn't moving as fast as Flt 11 or 175, but consisted of denser and heavier material.

Was that so hard?

 

[johnny karate]

And the flight number of the airliner that hit WTC 7 was?

Tippit, many, many firefighters have gone on record as witnesses to the extent of damage of WTC7 suffered from falling debris. Even more importantly, in six years not a single one of them has come forward to express the slightest bit of doubt or suspicion regarding this aspect of the official story.

If the conspiracy theory you support is true, how do you account for this?