Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

[000063]

...
WTC7 is the best case since fire was credited with the primary reason for its collapse.

So why should a fire-induced collapse of a steel-structured modern office tower look different from what actually happened?...

Wow. Can't even be consistent over two paragraphs. Fire was the main reason, not the only reason.

What set the fires, MM?

 

[000063]

Not only can you pose a question, you pose another extremely disingenuous one. MM already answered your question and provided the reasons why your OP and follow up is disingenuous.

It's rather hypocritical of you to call someone else a liar, Mr. "Larry made out like a bandit".

MM's claim that a heat induced structural collapse would not look like WTC7's collapse is not affirmative. He never actually says what it would look like, only what it "tends to be", and what it wouldn't look like (WTC7). It's like saying a cat tends to have four legs and a tail and not go "bark". Given that there are plenty of cats with three or less legs, and plenty of four legged animals that do not bark that aren't cats, this is useless.

 

[000063]

...Again, MM answered your question when he correctly stated:


So asking "how it should have looked" is clearly a trap (the bait of which no sensible person would take) since there cannot be any valid answer.

But...you just said that he already answered the question. If there is no valid answer, then his answer is not valid. And how can he say it didn't look like it was supposed to if there's nothing to compare it to?

 

[Miragememories]

"But...you just said that he already answered the question. If there is no valid answer, then his answer is not valid. And how can he say it didn't look like it was supposed to if there's nothing to compare it to?"

The OP; "Prove to me that the collapses did not look right...prove to me that a fire initiated structural failure collapse would look any different from what happened."

Yes the OP was intended as a trap.

So what I did was respond to the OP in the only manner I saw possible.

There are no proven examples of modern steel-structured office buildings being felled by fire.

But, just because we do not know what an unprecedented collapse would look like, does not mean that we cannot make some reasonable assumptions about what it CANNOT LOOK LIKE.

Thanks to the controlled demolition industry, we do know what other steel-structured building collapses look like using CD technology.

And there is a library of information available about the destructive behavior of fire.

There are many examples of large non-steel-structured buildings destroyed by fire.

Regardless of the uniqueness of the WTC building designs (not truly unique, I worked in an office tower in Toronto of similar construction), the contents of the floors can be validly compared to the floor contents of other buildings.
Perhaps in the case of those non-steel-structured buildings which completely collapsed from fire, you could argue their plastic content was lower.

In order to believe that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were high speed total collapses triggered by the ultimate effects of fire, it is necessary to accept that fire was able to far out perform controlled demolition technology.

WTC2 is of particular interest, in that 56 minutes after aircraft impact, it was supposedly induced by fire to perform a high speed collapse.

56 minutes for burning office furnishings to supposedly make the structural steel totally and rapidly fail.

Why I find this especially interesting, is that there was a long period where a heavy flow of molten steel was falling from a critical corner where the collapse was initiated.

10-20 seconds after this flow of molten steel ceased, the collapse began.

Coincidence?

I do not believe so.

The result of thermite and not ordinary fire?

Yes.

MM

 

[tsig]

Actually, demolition by "verinage" does procede from a point well above ground level, and is initiated without explosives. It even produces the same kind of ejecta as that seen in the collapses of the towers. Generally, it obeys the principles described by Bazant in his "crush-down,crush-up" theory. In fact, the only difference between the collapse of the towers and demolition by verinage is in how the collapse is initiated. In verinage, a system of levers is used to break pre-weakened load-bearing structures on several floors, allowing the upper block of the building to fall on the lower.

Obviously, a lot of people would have noticed the towers being rigged for verinage, and we can thus rule out that it was deliberately rigged for this procedure.

However, much of the strength of the core columns was compromised by the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires. When the loss of strength from heat caused the core columns to buckle, the resulting drop of the upper block initiated a verinage-like collapse of the rest of the structures.

They used nano verinage which has totally different properties than regular verinage and we can prove it was nano verinage because we have parts that look just like regular verinage.

 

[tsig]

The OP; "Prove to me that the collapses did not look right...prove to me that a fire initiated structural failure collapse would look any different from what happened."

Yes the OP was intended as a trap.

So what I did was respond to the OP in the only manner I saw possible.

There are no proven examples of modern steel-structured office buildings being felled by fire.

But, just because we do not know what an unprecedented collapse would look like, does not mean that we cannot make some reasonable assumptions about what it CANNOT LOOK LIKE.

Thanks to the controlled demolition industry, we do know what other steel-structured building collapses look like using CD technology. And there is a library of information available about the destructive behavior of fire.

There are many examples of large non-steel-structured buildings destroyed by fire.

Regardless of the uniqueness of the WTC building designs (not truly unique, I worked in an office tower in Toronto of similar construction), the contents of the floors can be validly compared to the floor contents of other buildings.
Perhaps in the case of those non-steel-structured buildings which completely collapsed from fire, you could argue their plastic content was lower.

In order to believe that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were high speed total collapses triggered by the ultimate effects of fire, it is necessary to accept that fire was able to far out perform controlled demolition technology.

WTC2 is of particular interest, in that 56 minutes after aircraft impact, it was supposedly induced by fire to perform a high speed collapse.

56 minutes for burning office furnishings to supposedly make the structural steel totally and rapidly fail.

Why I find this especially interesting, is that there was a long period where a heavy flow of molten steel was falling from a critical corner where the collapse was initiated.

10-20 seconds after this flow of molten steel ceased, the collapse began.

Coincidence?

I do not believe so.

The result of thermite and not ordinary fire?

Yes.

MM

Then it should be easy to show us a video of another demolition of a 110 story building that looked like WTC1&2.

 

[NoahFence]

Thanks to the controlled demolition industry, we do know what other steel-structured building collapses look like using CD technology.

And NONE of them look like what happened on 9/11.

Un-Freakin-Real.

In order to believe that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were high speed total collapses triggered by the ultimate effects of fire, it is necessary to accept that fire was able to far out perform controlled demolition technology.

Which is, of course, entirely possible. Especially when the fires aren't fought for 7 hours.

WTC2 is of particular interest, in that 56 minutes after aircraft impact, it was supposedly induced by fire to perform a high speed collapse.

56 minutes for burning office furnishings to supposedly make the WEAKENED structural steel totally and rapidly fail.

Ftfy

Why I find this especially interesting, is that there was a long period where a heavy flow of molten steel was falling from a critical corner where the collapse was initiated.

10-20 seconds after this flow of molten steel ceased, the collapse began.

Which fits perfectly with the premise that the floors were sagging due to the steel being WEAKENED.

I'm not very well versed on architecture or engineering, but even I knew what caused the collapses, before they were even finished collapsing. A hair over 10 years later and I've yet to be proven wrong. In fact, I've been proven right by people far, far smarter than you and I.

The result of thermite and not ordinary fire?

Yes.

MM

Lie.
Thermite doesn't burn nearly that long. It burns on the order of seconds, not minutes or hours. You know this. Why lie?

 

[twinstead]

And yet, still no answer to what it SHOULD have looked like if it wasn't a CD.

 

[NoahFence]

There's only 2 ways a building CAN collapse, isn't there?

Straight down, or at an angle.

WTC 7 collapsed at an angle, albeit not a very steep one, but it did.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The op answer is pretty simple; a nonCD collapse will not have explosive remnants or blast trauma in locations consistent with initiating a collapse in a prescribed path. A controlled demolition will. External appearances of a total collapse may or may not look the same between the two.

The WTC collapses weren't controlled, much less "unconventionally"

 

[RedIbis]

And yet, still no answer to what it SHOULD have looked like if it wasn't a CD.

How about upright.

 

[DGM]

How about upright.

Good one!

Now, why would that be?

 

[Robrob]

There are no proven examples of modern steel-structured office buildings being felled by fire.

Your lack of knowledge isn't exactly our fault is it?

In order to believe that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were high speed total collapses triggered by the ultimate effects of fire, it is necessary to accept that fire was able to far out perform controlled demolition technology.

"High speed?" Facts not in evidence.

WTC2 is of particular interest, in that 56 minutes after aircraft impact, it was supposedly induced by fire to perform a high speed collapse.

56 minutes for burning office furnishings to supposedly make the structural steel totally and rapidly fail.

Sharpshooter fallacy. If it fell five minutes or five hours after impact you'd be suspicious of that too.

Why I find this especially interesting, is that there was a long period where a heavy flow of molten steel was falling from a critical corner where the collapse was initiated.

10-20 seconds after this flow of molten steel ceased, the collapse began..

More sharpshooter fallacy.

Coincidence?

I do not believe so.

The result of thermite and not ordinary fire?

Yes.

MM

So, based on no evidence you "believe" a random flow of "something" has relevance to the collapse of the WTC?

1) How do you know it was "molten steel?"

2) If the WTC1 and 7 didn't have a flow of "molten steel" how did they collapse?

3) Based on no evidence you leap to a conclusion it was "thermite?"

 

[beachnut]

... There are no proven examples of modern steel-structured office buildings being felled by fire.

... MM

False statement.

Should read;
There are examples of fires fought and the steel structured office building did not collapse globally.

There are three examples of steel frame office building which collapsed globally due to FIRES NOT FOUGHT.

The only thing you can say about 911, it was the first time major skyscraper fires were not fought due to terrorist acts, which disabled the fire control system in each WTC tower, and disabled the water for WTC 7 because of the global collapse of the towers with kinetic energy from the collapse grater than 250 tons of TNT, like being bomb by over 250 2,000 pound bombs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYjY3UqE1t0 62.5 times this! Join reality expose 911 truth as morons and frauds with lies.

You lost this orange and apple argument. Better luck with your next delusional claim of thermite made up by an insane cold fusion failure.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Why I find this especially interesting, is that there was a long period where a heavy flow of molten steel was falling from a critical corner where the collapse was initiated.

Baseless assertion. something fell from that corner, There is no evidence that it was steel.

Stop the lying MM.

 

[NoahFence]

...and plenty of evidence that it wasn't.

 

[Miragememories]

"...There are no proven examples of modern steel-structured office buildings being felled by fire...

WTC2 is of particular interest, in that 56 minutes after aircraft impact, it was supposedly induced by fire to perform a high speed collapse.

56 minutes for burning office furnishings to supposedly make the structural steel totally and rapidly fail.

Why I find this especially interesting, is that there was a long period where a heavy flow of molten steel was falling from a critical corner where the collapse was initiated.

10-20 seconds after this flow of molten steel ceased, the collapse began...."

"...Should read;
There are examples of fires fought and the steel structured office building did not collapse globally.

There are three examples of steel frame office building which collapsed globally due to FIRES NOT FOUGHT..."

Wishful thinking.

Not even close.

These are your idea of steel-structured building fires that were fought and thus saved from collapse?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/madrid_burning.jpg
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/mandarin_oriental_1.jpg

If any steel-structured building should have collapsed from fire they definitely should.

But they didn't.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/madrid_skyscraper.jpg
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/mandarin_oriental_2.jpg

MM

 

[Disbelief]

Did MM really just show pics of:

1) A reinforced steel building where all of the unreinforced steel collapse

and

2) A building built AFTER 9/11 with the safety guidelines learned from the collapses utilized?

 

[LashL]

Regardless of the uniqueness of the WTC building designs (not truly unique, I worked in an office tower in Toronto of similar construction),

No, you didn't. We went through all of this back in 2007, remember? You couldn't even accurately describe the building you claimed to work in, never mind its age, the number of floors it had (you claimed to have been in the 22nd storey stairwell of an 18 storey building), or the building next door that you claimed was its 'twin tower' - which turned out to be a 6 storey building that you were 'positive' was built at the same time but which turned out to have been built 15 years later - let alone provide any evidence whatsoever about its construction being 'similar' to the WTC towers. As I recall, the extent of your evidence that the building you worked in was 'similar' to the WTC towers was that someone once told you in passing in 1972 that it was of 'suspension design' or something to that effect.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If any steel-structured building should have collapsed from fire they definitely should.

MM please explain why these buildings should definitely have collapsed just because the WTC towers did (I'll ignore the fact that most of the steelwork on the Windsor tower did collapse)

Given the small sample size of only 5 buildings (really only 4 because WTC 1 and 2 were essentially the same) and the wide variety in size and design thats seems a very bold statement to make. To have done so you must have carried a detailed study of the designs and considerable calculations. Do you mind if we check this work to see if you have made any errors? Its possible you made some faulty assumptions