Gage: Hell No I Ain't Reading Mackey's White Paper

[ergo]

Here are shek's "three highrise buildings."

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Conveniently Mysteriously labeled "building 1, 2, 3....

 

[ergo]

Not so mysteriously, brazen. But if it's gettin your spidey senses tingling, go ahead and share the mystery with us. ..

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Not so mysteriously, brazen. But if it's gettin your spidey senses tingling, go ahead and share the mystery with us. ..

I think the mystery is with your comments, ergo.

I thought the truthiness argument was that Steel never fails, and that steel-framed buildings never fail due to fire. Why does the difference in heights (110 stories / Twin Towers, 47 stories WTC 7, 4 stories Kader Toy factory) matter at all?

The very site your posted image originally came from, CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE, says the following:

The Building’s Structural Integrity

Probably the most notable difference between the Triangle and Kader fires is the effect they had on the structural integrity of the buildings involved. Even though the Triangle fire gutted the top three floors of the ten-storey factory building, the building remained structurally intact. The Kader buildings, on the other hand, collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.
...
Had the buildings’ structural steel members been fireproofed, the buildings might not have collapsed.

This rather handily disproves the truther claim that

...never before or after 9/11 has any similar steel-framed building ever collapsed because of fire

[Source]

Before replying with your usual or or , please consider this: the planes' impacts blew the insulation off of beams in the Twin Towers, and the un-fought fires in WTC 7 burned far longer than the beams were designed to resist, so the buildings essentially collapsed because of insulation / fireproofing failure. Just like the Kader buildings.

 

[000063]

We could start one called Ergomania...the disorder where you will paint yourself into a corner and pretend no paint nor a corner even exists..

FTFY

Or Femr2mania, where you pretend that the corner doesn't exist because he didn't refer to what house he was in.

If that was the case, don't you think they would probably say "75' above street level"??

Possibly. But that's a subjective question, and has more to do with officialese than questions of fact. You moved the goalposts. Steel-framed building bought down by fire. You did not specify "high rise building" until that criteria was met.

As long as you're using the "first time in history" canard, then please provide examples of any buildings over 30-stories bought down by CD. Ever. Of course, I have little doubt you'll ignore this and go right back to sneering at debunkers about things you're wrong about, like sundials and the US Naval Observatory.

 

[ergo]

I thought the truthiness argument was that Steel never fails, and that steel-framed buildings never fail due to fire. Why does the difference in heights (110 stories / Twin Towers, 47 stories WTC 7, 4 stories Kader Toy factory) matter at all?

Yes, this was the original purpose of the Kader factory argument. It served its purpose. We now know that at least one other building, a four-storey third-world sweatshop built with unprotected perimeter steel framing and little consideration for safety did collapse after a brief fire. The extent of the destruction does not seem to be documented in much detail, and for some reason there are few pictures of the aftermath. NIST didn't even bother including it in its historical survey. Fire "completely destroys" lots of buildings without causing them to collapse. We know that the Kader building did collapse at least partially, but I'm not sure we've seen that it was a total collapse.

But if it was, that is fine. You can have that, as I've said before. It was not a "progressive collapse". It was not a massive skyscraper with a central steel-framed core. The fires did not start on the upper floors (see "it was not a progressive collapse"). The buildings were full of unsafely stored high combustibles. It was not a highrise. And my guess is, when it did collapse, it collapsed the way buildings collapse, and not like something sinking into quicksand.

I'm probably missing the most obvious point here, but suffice to say that there is no other comparison to be made here.

 

[ergo]

I .have little doubt you'll ignore this and go right back to sneering at debunkers about things you're wrong about, like sundials and the US Naval Observatory.

Hey, I have nothing against sundials. Whatever works for 9/11 bedunkery...

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Yes, this was the original purpose of the Kader factory argument. It served its purpose. We now know that at least one other building, a four-storey third-world sweatshop built with unprotected perimeter steel framing and little consideration for safety did collapse after a brief fire. The extent of the destruction does not seem to be documented in much detail, and for some reason there are few pictures of the aftermath. NIST didn't even bother including it in its historical survey. Fire "completely destroys" lots of buildings without causing them to collapse. We know that the Kader building did collapse at least partially, but I'm not sure we've seen that it was a total collapse.

...

So, you agree fire can cause a steel-framed structure to collapse? That's a good start, ergo! Now, if we could just have some more small steps, one at a time, you can do it, let's go!

 

[grandmastershek]

Here are shek's "three highrise buildings."

[qimg]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Kader.jpg[/qimg]

LOL! I guess you needed a few days to convince yourself you actually had an argument, then cite something that yet again refutes your claim.

 

[grandmastershek]

Edited by loss leader: 

Removed a quote attributed to one poster but changed so severely that the original quote could not be found.

Not only do you fail to read your own sources, but even when I puree and spoon feed it to you in little bits.

Not to mention you keep claiming its 1 building. If that were the case it would make it even more progressive since both the oddly named buildings 2 & 3 collapsed later. Either way you're wrong.

But if you want me to give you a building where the exact same thing happened on 9/11, no I can't. Even though for some weird reason you keep talking about how their different, then you must recognize different causes and circumstances result in different results. Yet you oddly seem to want an exact replication.

Do not edit another user's quotes without making your changes open and obvious. This is a matter of civility.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: loss leader

 

[000063]

Hey, I have nothing against sundials. Whatever works for 9/11 bedunkery...

It's possible to determine the time of day given several known factors, such as the height of the object and the position of the sun. Or just the position of the sun, really, and a list of positions. It's a perfectly valid technique, similar to the basic principle of a sundial, and has been used for longer than either of us have been alive.

But please, keep sneering and posting absolutely no factual evidence to debunk it.

 

[ergo]

Why the lies Ergo?

What am I "lying" about? Do you understand what is meant by progressive collapse? Are you trying to claim that the Kader factory progressively collapsed??

But if you want me to give you a building where the exact same thing happened on 9/11, no I can't. Even though for some weird reason you keep talking about how their different, then you must recognize different causes and circumstances result in different results. Yet you oddly seem to want an exact replication.

That's actually a misunderstanding of your own making that you are labouring under. My claim, as is the claim in general, is that no steel-framed highrises have ever suffered global (i.e., total) collapse from fire prior to or since 9/11.

This is a point that seems to need re-clarification for you folks on a frequent basis. For reasons I cannot fathom, you keep getting it wrong.

 

[000063]

That's actually a misunderstanding of your own making that you are labouring under. My claim, as is the claim in general, is that no steel-framed highrises have ever suffered global (i.e., total) collapse from fire prior to or since 9/11.

This is a point that seems to need re-clarification for you folks on a frequent basis. For reasons I cannot fathom, you keep getting it wrong.

And our point is that even were your point true, it's entirely irrelevant. As I pointed out, no building, steel-framed or otherwise, over 30 stories has ever been bought down by controlled demolition. I am using broader terms than yours, and I get the same results. If CD in buildings that size is unprecedented, and a fire-driven collapse is also unprecedented, then clearly "unprecedented" cannot be used to support either the official story or any sort of Truther CD theory. In other words, it's useless as evidence. It's an Argument from Ignorance.

Not to mention that WTC 1,2, and 3 were not bought down in by fire alone. Nope. Not the official story's claim. 1,2: Plane impact and fire. 7: Debris damage and mostly fire. Your insistence on referring to fire alone as the cause of the official story's progressive collapse, no matter how many times you've been corrected, is a common Truther straw man. It's at best a misconception, at worst an outright lie. I lean toward the latter.

Frankly, there were so many unique circumstances that looking for an exact or near-exact precedent or repetition of the collapses is pointless. Your parents didn't have you before you were born, nor after, barring some sort of cloning arrangement, yet clearly you exist.