• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

Grizzly Bear said:
The claim itself is actually true; the conclusion truthers draw from this though is false. I could get specific about how fire protection (both passive and active mechanisms) helped with this success but bardamu's argument fails at the point where he contends that if something hasn't happened before it it cannot ever happen in the first place. There's also plenty of past examples where fire has caused the partial collapse of structures; however truthers have a tendency to be horribly inept at figuring out how the structural framing systems, and materials of construction, had roles in determining how significant the damage from such failures were. You will likely never have this kind of conversation with one seeing as how individuals like red, and Bardamu like to avoid these issue like the bubonic plague
Click to expand...

Avoid what? NIST is quite clear that the collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall bldg collapsing primarily due to fires.
 
RedIbis said:
Avoid what? NIST is quite clear that the collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall bldg collapsing primarily due to fires.
Click to expand...
To rational people that proves that the fire codes mandating fireproofing, sprinklers, fire doors, fire-rated drywall, etc etc are indeed necessary. And that even with all that in place fires need to be fought, or very bad things happen, as WTC 7 shows.

What does it mean to you RedIbis?
 
WildCat said:
To rational people that proves that the fire codes mandating fireproofing, sprinklers, fire doors, fire-rated drywall, etc etc are indeed necessary. And that even with all that in place fires need to be fought, or very bad things happen, as WTC 7 shows.

What does it mean to you RedIbis?
Click to expand...

So when other tall bldgs experienced fires that were unfought, the bldg collapsed? Or are you just making an assumption that this is what would happen?
 
RedIbis said:
So when other tall bldgs experienced fires that were unfought, the bldg collapsed? Or are you just making an assumption that this is what would happen?
Click to expand...
You seem to be having trouble spotting some important sentences. Here Does hilighting them help?
Grizzly Bear said:
There's also plenty of past examples where fire has caused the partial collapse of structures; however truthers have a tendency to be horribly inept at figuring out how the structural framing systems, and materials of construction, had roles in determining how significant the damage from such failures were. You will likely never have this kind of conversation with one seeing as how individuals like red, and Bardamu like to avoid these issue like the bubonic plague
Click to expand...

Perhaps that wasn't enough? Here I'll make the text easier to read:

Grizzly Bear said:
There's also plenty of past examples where fire has caused the partial collapse of structures; however truthers have a tendency to be horribly inept at figuring out how the structural framing systems, and materials of construction, had roles in determining how significant the damage from such failures were. You will likely never have this kind of conversation with one seeing as how individuals like red, and Bardamu like to avoid these issue like the bubonic plague
Click to expand...

Or maybe I should also isolate it to make it easier still:

figuring out how the structural framing systems, and materials of construction, had roles in determining how significant the damage from such failures were.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
You seem to be having trouble spotting some important sentences. Here Does hilighting them help?


Perhaps that wasn't enough? Here I'll make the text easier to read:



Or maybe I should also isolate it to make it easier still:

figuring out how the structural framing systems, and materials of construction, had roles in determining how significant the damage from such failures were.
Click to expand...

I asked a very straightforward question, you reposted your convoluted nonsense.
 
RedIbis said:
I asked a very straightforward question, you reposted your convoluted nonsense.
Click to expand...
You have your answer. If you think the construction materials and the structural framing systems have nothing to do with the severity of a collapse event within a building, or that the discussion of it is convoluted nonsense then you're in no position to be entering this debate. You just proved my earlier post correct. Discussing the most important issues with you, like this one is impossible; it flies over your head.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
You have your answer. If you think the construction materials and the structural framing systems having nothing to do with the severity of a collapse event within a building is convuluted nonsense then you're in no position to be entering this debate. You just proved my earlier post correct. Discussing the most important issues with you, like this one is impossible; it flies over your head.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it's the Arrogance and IgnoranceTM quality so many 9/11 CTists possess.
 
RedIbis said:
So when other tall bldgs experienced fires that were unfought, the bldg collapsed? Or are you just making an assumption that this is what would happen?
Click to expand...

To add to Grizzly's response, you can also turn this typical truther pretzel logic on itself:

There are examples of controlled demolitions which have failed (there's a really funny one where the entire building rolls upside down).

Using Truther Logic, if one had only seen one of these unsuccessful demolitions, you could argue that all buildings would behave the same way.
Of course it's not true in either case - Not all demolitions are identical: neither the methods nor the buildings are identical, so they do not behave the same way. Some work, others don't.

The favorite truther examples, like the Madrid building, are NOT the same kinds of structures that the WTC buildings were. There is no reason to expect them to behave in an identical way.

Red, are you listening?

Severe fires in tall steel-frame buildings are fairly rare, which makes for a small sample size, and finding a comparative sample for the WTC buildings is impossible - they were unique designs, and suffered unique damage.

If, by some fluke, another building with identical construction to WTC7 was somehow compromised in exactly the same way and DIDN'T collapse, then we'd have something concrete to go on. But we don't.

For those reasons alone, Red, your argument fails. It is an overly-simplistic idea, based on inadequate data. It is a faulty generalization.

Truthers, as believers in any number of conspiracy theories, tend to conflate those conspiracies together thinking that the pattern overrides the individual circumstances. So you get the progression; The Pearl Harbour attack MAY have been a LIHOP/the JFK assassination MAY have been a deeper conspiracy/George W Bush mislead the public about WMD's in Iraq, therefore he must have planned the 9/11 attacks or been part of a conspiracy to carry them out (LIHOP/MIHOP).

The problem is, none of those conspiracy allegations are proven, they're all conjecture....except for the part about Bush misleading the public about Iraq.

My truther colleague is all hot and bothered about the 'Global Warming Swindle' these days. So when you try to talk about WTC, he just replies, 'they're lying about global warming too!!'. And on it goes....
 
RedIbis said:
So when other tall bldgs experienced fires that were unfought, the bldg collapsed? Or are you just making an assumption that this is what would happen?
Click to expand...

Fires in buildings built to modern code have working sprinklers that limit the fire down until the firemen show up.

The codes limit the fire to the floor it's on.

Until 9/11, I know of no modern building fire that went unfought.

Do you?
 
alienentity said:
My truther colleague is all hot and bothered about the 'Global Warming Swindle' these days. So when you try to talk about WTC, he just replies, 'they're lying about global warming too!!'. And on it goes....
Click to expand...

Get him to show his contradictory stance.

Ask him... "Is FOX news and the rest of the media controlled by the government who carried out 911?"

When he says yes, then ask him why FOX news and the Bush administration are also Global Warming deniers... just like him...
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The claim itself is actually true; the conclusion truthers draw from this though is false. I could get specific about how fire protection (both passive and active mechanisms) helped with this success but bardamu's argument fails at the point where he contends that if something hasn't happened before it it cannot ever happen in the first place. There's also plenty of past examples where fire has caused the partial collapse of structures; however truthers have a tendency to be horribly inept at figuring out how the structural framing systems, and materials of construction, had roles in determining how significant the damage from such failures were. You will likely never have this kind of conversation with one seeing as how individuals like red, and Bardamu like to avoid these issue like the bubonic plague
Click to expand...

We were talking about burden of proof, not whether something can or can't happen a first time. By arguing that the particular conditions were out of the ordinary, you're accepting that the event itself was extraordinary, which means the burden of proof is on you.
 
twinstead said:
See. There you go again. Dude, this is a lie, and you're using it as some kind of evidence of your position. It's DISHONEST. And I will guess the next post will be "then show me", even though you've been shown a dozen times before. It never ends.
Click to expand...

Here's what NIST say:

"The collapse of WTC 7 was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."

Are you saying I'm dishonest because I didn't specify total collapse?
 
bardamu said:
We were talking about burden of proof, not whether something can or can't happen a first time. By arguing that the particular conditions were out of the ordinary, you're accepting that the event itself was extraordinary, which means the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

I'm going to let you read a little history Bard.

My hometown (Johnstown, PA) had 3 major floods (1889, 1936 and 1977). Those floods were caused by rain storms, the worst of the floods was on May 31, 1889, when a rain storm over Kentucky made its way to the Allegheny Mountains. A earthern man-made dam was located 14 miles upstream off the Little Conemaugh River, it was known as the South Fork Dam or Lake Conemaugh. The rain that fell that day caused the lake to exceed the top of the dam, over-flowing the breast in the center. But there was a flaw in the dams design when it was rebuilt before 1889, its center was made out of rocks, hay & manure, the center was 3 feet lower than it should've been and they discarded the discharge pipes that could lower the water in the lake.

Those flaws in the dam combined with the rain storm made it a disaster that was waiting to happen. And the disaster that would happen is archived in the history books as being one of the first disasters in American history. 2,200 people died in the flood, 99 whole families wiped out! It was the "9/11" of its day in 1889.

Seeing that all 3 Towers on 9/11 were designed differently and the resulting failures at any key locations within the Towers from the fires and the planes impacts caused the buildings to collapse.

Rain storms caused my hometown to flood.

Combination of plane impacts and fires resulted in 3 Towers to collapse.

You have to look at the design of things and find their weak points. If you can't do that then you're a lost cause!

Sorry if I was going in depth with my hometowns history, but dammit it all to hell, if we don't learn from history we're doomed to repeat it.

Please, do yourself and all of us a favor Bard, read up on history before assuming anything that you believe from people who haven't read history.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
We were talking about burden of proof, not whether something can or can't happen a first time. By arguing that the particular conditions were out of the ordinary, you're accepting that the event itself was extraordinary, which means the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

You seem to be conflating "rare (event)" and "intellectually extraordinary (claim)" That two skycrapers where impacted by commercial airliners and subsequently collapsed after burning for an hour or so, are, thank god, rare events. However, the collapses are not intellectually unexpected. That a rare event A is followed by another rare event B does not imply that the claim "A caused B" is an extraordinary claim, as you seem to suggest. The claim "the population of Hiroshima suffered from radiation positioning as a consequence of an atomic bomb being dropped on the city" is not an extraordinary claim, au contraire, even though nuclear bombings and radiation poisoning of entire populations are, thank heavens, extraordinary events.

The claim that the collapse of the towers must be attributed to other causes than structural damage and the fires is therefore the (intellectually) extraordinary claim that needs, extraordinary, proof.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
We were talking about burden of proof, not whether something can or can't happen a first time. By arguing that the particular conditions were out of the ordinary, you're accepting that the event itself was extraordinary, which means the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
So are you suggesting that NIST should write a report?:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom