Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[jaydeehess]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE&feature

Well I didn't see any molten metal.

Perhaps he could pinpoint where it can be seen ?

Neither did I. I heard people speak of molten steel but I have also seen reports of molten steel in others fires.
I may sound like a broken record here but these reports MUST either illustrate that molten steel does occur in large fires, or that reports of molten steel are erroneous and unreliable.
The video also has people reporting various temperatures none of which are high enough to melt steel.

In the video here though, all they are talking about is the rubble pile fires. We had a thread in this forum that posed the scenario to truthers that we simply accept their claim, sans evidence, that molten steel existed in the rubble hot areas. The question then was to tie this to anything occurring within the standing structures. Not a single one came up with a full response. ONE proposed that the dust was trickling down to the hot spots keeping it hot enough to melt steel. It was fantastical but also required an enormous quantity of thermite 'leftover' to be present in all the dust which itself then requires an even greater amount to have been present in the towers. So much so that hiding it before ignition would be difficult enough but hiding this enormous blazing white burning thermite would be even harder.

 

[jaydeehess]

The vast majority of Truthers spend the vast majority of their efforts on pointing to imagined "flaws" in the "official story." For some reason, this is in place of simply providing evidence to support the own POV. Their argument, if not X therefore Y is fallacious.

Which is the biggest flaw in trutherdom. So far no one has provided a timeline of events that is as complete as that for the so called official record.
Instead they take minute details, such as reports of molten steel, accept these reports as gospel, literal truth, claim that only a high temp incendiary such as therm?the could melt steel, assume an unexplained demolition via therm?the.

The logic flaws along the way as numerous and fatal to the scenario. Nor do truthers address the many questions begged at every level.

 

[Spanx]

Just out of interest, how long would anyone expect a steel toe cap boot to last on molten steel ?

 

[ozeco41]

Just out of interest, how long would anyone expect a steel toe cap boot to last on molten steel ?

Fractions of a second till charring>>flames - depending somewhat on how the contact was made.

 

[Spanx]

Fractions of a second till charring>>flames - depending somewhat on how the contact was made.

I'd go for that.

It makes you wonder why truthers would want to show the clip about the boots lasting about three hours at 1100 degrees on the rubble pile

 

[jaydeehess]

The steel toe component might be recognizable for some minutes but the leather or fabric uppers and sole would be on fire upon contact and burn away in likely less than a minute, leaving behind a mostly carbon residue and combustion gasses

 

[jaydeehess]

That assumes the toe is steel, some are high impact fiberglass.

 

[ozeco41]

The steel toe component might be recognizable for some minutes but the leather or fabric uppers and sole would be on fire upon contact and burn away in likely less than a minute, leaving behind a mostly carbon residue and combustion gasses

You wouldn't want to be wearing the boot.

The worst exhibit I remember seeing in the "Safety Officers" collection was a rubber knee boot.

Central to the foot area - just behind the toe cap region - a centrally located circular hole about 2.5" dia through top and bottom of boot.

The boot had been worn by a man who stood under the base of a vertical shaft giving entry to a tunnel.

Some one had dropped a 2"ID steel scaffold tube vertically down the shaft.

 

[stevemcqueen]

Well here's his response.

It seems that most posters believe the official story of the collapse of WTC7 because of the so called "proof" offered by the NIST computer generated theory of progressive collapse. This is continually being offered up as absolute proof there was no possibity of CD ( I only see it as "proof of a possibility , but thats not the point here)

Genuine questions

Given that the total collapse of a steel building was unprecented and unquestionably resembles a CD , did you believe it was due to fire before the report came out , if so , why ?

Why did you believe the story between the years 2001 and 2008 before the report was even published? What "proof" did you have then ?

Surely if you believed it collapsed due to fire between those years , you were believing something on no evidence whatsover but merely believing what you were told.

 

[Spanx]

Well here's his response.

It seems that most posters believe the official story of the collapse of WTC7 because of the so called "proof" offered by the NIST computer generated theory of progressive collapse. This is continually being offered up as absolute proof there was no possibity of CD ( I only see it as "proof of a possibility , but thats not the point here)

Genuine questions

Given that the total collapse of a steel building was unprecented and unquestionably resembles a CD , did you believe it was due to fire before the report came out , if so , why ?

Why did you believe the story between the years 2001 and 2008 before the report was even published? What "proof" did you have then ?

Surely if you believed it collapsed due to fire between those years , you were believing something on no evidence whatsover but merely believing what you were told.

Looks like he has gone off the molten steel trail and the only evidence he had was a YouTube video

 

[ozeco41]

Well here's his response.

Steve - I presume that you are on top of his nonsense but here are my brief comments.

Overall he commits multiple sins of truther illogic. Two big errors the first one being that he confuses objectives -"Explain the collapse" conflated with "NIST was wrong". The facts of the three big collapses do not depend on NIST whether NIST was right or wrong. The second one is related - he presumes that like him we debunkers cannot think and only believe what we are told. Taint so. The third one is that his logic is arse about and the fourth one is his concept of "belief" (And I cannot count to "two" )

It seems that most posters believe the official story of the collapse of WTC7

Well I don't know about his field of "most posters" but members here on JREF - including me - follow the scientific method. Prima facie the twin towers fell following and as a result of aircraft impact damage; resulting fires; further accumulating damage from fires leading to a cascade failure of the "impact and fire zone" from which "global collapse was inevitable". WTC7 fell as a result of fire damage started by debris from Twin Tower collapse and the resulting deliberate choice to not fight fires - consequence of resource limitations. So those are the prima facie causes. The scientific method is based on hypotheses being progressively improved. Those are the prima facie hypotheses and NO ONE has ever put forward a sustainable better hypothesis requiring CD. Simple as that. NOTE that I make no reference to NIST. NIST is irrelevant to that "proof"

because of the so called "proof" offered by the NIST computer generated theory of progressive collapse.

NIST is not the reason. BUT it supports the real reason which I have just outlined.

This is continually being offered up as absolute proof

This is the typical truther "arse about logic". There is no absolute proof in the scientific method - only "best hypothesis produced so far". BUT the best hypothesis is scientifically equivalent to what lay persons refer to as "proof' - it is the best "proof" available. And the "arse about" bit - the reality for CD is that no one has "proved CD". There is no need to "prove" that "there was no possibity of CD" - the need is for someone to prove that there was CD. (There is another issue - - you cannot logically "prove a negative" but that one is secondary even tho it is another error on his part.)

( I only see it as "proof of a possibility , but thats not the point here)

Actually he could well be right there - what he "sees it as" is not relevant

Genuine questions

Given that the total collapse of a steel building was unprecented and unquestionably resembles a CD ,

False premise - multiple points where it doesn't resemble CD - in fact the only resemblance is that it fell downwards. Which is not a big surprise.

did you believe it was due to fire before the report came out ,

Of course. The facts of collapse are facts. Independent of "reports". The facts are historic - predate the reports by several years. Reports written after the event cannot change history. Therefore the reports are irrelevant to what actually happened.

if so , why ?

Scientific method of forming hypotheses based on evidence plus reasoning.

Why did you believe the story between the years 2001 and 2008 before the report was even published?

I don't "believe the story". "Belief" is a feature of religions. The evidence was the same 2001-2008. My acceptance of evidence and my conclusions are not weakened because NIST also formed some of the same conclusions.

What "proof" did you have then ?

Most of the same proof we still have. The reports are not relevant. The facts haven't changed.

Surely if you believed it collapsed due to fire between those years ,

It isn't "believed" - it was reasoned hypothesis based on evidence in those years. There has not been a supportable pro CD hypothesis. Situation unchanged. Fire induced so called "natural collapse" at WTC1, 2 and 7

you were believing something on no evidence whatsover but merely believing what you were told.

Both statements quote mined idiocy

 

[Iamme]

So is the main reason why the molten steel subject is being hashed over is to show that our govt crashed planes into the WTC buildings at exact specified height locations to make it APPEAR that the buildings could pancake all the way down from the weight above the crash zones, so that we could have an excuse to go into Iraq after Saddam Hussein, and Afghanistan after Osama bin Laden? And we made SURE the buildings would collapse as planned by placing thermite at the columns? Yet people(the gullible American public...and the world for that matter) would think that terrorists crashed the planes, and that naturally the buildings came down under their own weight?
And if we can prove molten steel, we can then have proof that some business had to have gone on, to bring down the buidings?

 

[stevemcqueen]

Steve - I presume that you are on top of his nonsense but here are my brief comments.

Overall he commits multiple sins of truther illogic. Two big errors the first one being that he confuses objectives -"Explain the collapse" conflated with "NIST was wrong". The facts of the three big collapses do not depend on NIST whether NIST was right or wrong. The second one is related - he presumes that like him we debunkers cannot think and only believe what we are told. Taint so. The third one is that his logic is arse about and the fourth one is his concept of "belief" (And I cannot count to "two" )Well I don't know about his field of "most posters" but members here on JREF - including me - follow the scientific method. Prima facie the twin towers fell following and as a result of aircraft impact damage; resulting fires; further accumulating damage from fires leading to a cascade failure of the "impact and fire zone" from which "global collapse was inevitable". WTC7 fell as a result of fire damage started by debris from Twin Tower collapse and the resulting deliberate choice to not fight fires - consequence of resource limitations. So those are the prima facie causes. The scientific method is based on hypotheses being progressively improved. Those are the prima facie hypotheses and NO ONE has ever put forward a sustainable better hypothesis requiring CD. Simple as that. NOTE that I make no reference to NIST. NIST is irrelevant to that "proof"
NIST is not the reason. BUT it supports the real reason which I have just outlined.This is the typical truther "arse about logic". There is no absolute proof in the scientific method - only "best hypothesis produced so far". BUT the best hypothesis is scientifically equivalent to what lay persons refer to as "proof' - it is the best "proof" available. And the "arse about" bit - the reality for CD is that no one has "proved CD". There is no need to "prove" that "there was no possibity of CD" - the need is for someone to prove that there was CD. (There is another issue - - you cannot logically "prove a negative" but that one is secondary even tho it is another error on his part.) Actually he could well be right there - what he "sees it as" is not relevantFalse premise - multiple points where it doesn't resemble CD - in fact the only resemblance is that it fell downwards. Which is not a big surprise.Of course. The facts of collapse are facts. Independent of "reports". The facts are historic - predate the reports by several years. Reports written after the event cannot change history. Therefore the reports are irrelevant to what actually happened.Scientific method of forming hypotheses based on evidence plus reasoning. I don't "believe the story". "Belief" is a feature of religions. The evidence was the same 2001-2008. My acceptance of evidence and my conclusions are not weakened because NIST also formed some of the same conclusions.Most of the same proof we still have. The reports are not relevant. The facts haven't changed.It isn't "believed" - it was reasoned hypothesis based on evidence in those years. There has not been a supportable pro CD hypothesis. Situation unchanged. Fire induced so called "natural collapse" at WTC1, 2 and 7Both statements quote mined idiocy

That's an answer and a half.

thanks.

 

[ozeco41]

That's an answer and a half.

thanks.

 

[stevemcqueen]

response:-


I'm not sure that the best possible explanation is one that has never happened before or since and can only be proved possible with a computer model with the data used unavailabe to independent researchers .


What significant differences do the collapse of wtc 7 to other other bottom down controlled demolition collapses ? Bearing in mind there are many ways for them to occur due to the required result . ie if you want a building to topple in a specific direction , this also can be achieved.


It's quite easy to see other CD collapses that look very similar. but there are none that even remotely look like it due to fire ( this is because there hasn't been any because as NIST admit , it's unprecedented)


So you are insisting that because there are minor differences with other CD collapses (?) means its certainly not CD , but unquestionably accept its quite the same as a fire induced collapse even though that's never happened before ?

 

[DGM]

response:-


I'm not sure that the best possible explanation is one that has never happened before or since and can only be proved possible with a computer model with the data used unavailabe to independent researchers .

This is wrong. All the data needed to run the simulations is in the report.

What significant differences do the collapse of wtc 7 to other other bottom down controlled demolition collapses ? Bearing in mind there are many ways for them to occur due to the required result . ie if you want a building to topple in a specific direction , this also can be achieved.

Not many due to the fact a natural collapse and a controlled demolition both use the same gravity.

It's quite easy to see other CD collapses that look very similar. but there are none that even remotely look like it due to fire ( this is because there hasn't been any because as NIST admit , it's unprecedented)

That would be because it doesn't happen very often. So what?

So you are insisting that because there are minor differences with other CD collapses (?) means its certainly not CD , but unquestionably accept its quite the same as a fire induced collapse even though that's never happened before ?

No, what everyone is saying is there is no reason to believe the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

We'll listen as soon as they come up with a narrative that includes CD that fits better then what was seen.

 

[stevemcqueen]

This is wrong. All the data needed to run the simulations is in the report.




Not many due to the fact a natural collapse and a controlled demolition both use the same gravity.




That would be because it doesn't happen very often. So what?




No, what everyone is saying is there is no reason to believe the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

We'll listen as soon as they come up with a narrative that includes CD that fits better then what was seen.

Thanks.

He responded.

Incorrect. All the data needed to run the simulations is in the report

Regarding all available data, click on this AE911 link:-

(I cant post the link but if you type this into google you'll find it):-

Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports - Part 1


and scroll down to the link " NIST will not release the input data because doing so might "jeopardize public safety" and read the letter.

 

[Robrob]

In the video here though, all they are talking about is the rubble pile fires. We had a thread in this forum that posed the scenario to truthers that we simply accept their claim, sans evidence, that molten steel existed in the rubble hot areas. The question then was to tie this to anything occurring within the standing structures. Not a single one came up with a full response. [highlight]ONE proposed that the dust was trickling down to the hot spots keeping it hot enough to melt steel. It was fantastical but also required an enormous quantity of thermite 'leftover' to be present in all the dust which itself then requires an even greater amount to have been present in the towers.[/highlight] So much so that hiding it before ignition would be difficult enough but hiding this enormous blazing white burning thermite would be even harder.

An example of the thermite as "magic pixie dust" thermite argument. Unable to use the energy of a finite amount of thermite to achieve their claim, they imagine an entire WTC constructed of thermite?

Not many due to the fact a natural collapse and a controlled demolition both use the same gravity.

Argument by TV. Buildings fall in accordance with gravity. Videos of buildings falling from explosive demolitions look similar to videos of buildings falling from jet impact and fire.

Because, you know - gravity.

 

[alienentity]

So is the main reason why the molten steel subject is being hashed over is to show that our govt crashed planes into the WTC buildings at exact specified height locations to make it APPEAR that the buildings could pancake all the way down from the weight above the crash zones, so that we could have an excuse to go into Iraq after Saddam Hussein, and Afghanistan after Osama bin Laden? And we made SURE the buildings would collapse as planned by placing thermite at the columns? Yet people(the gullible American public...and the world for that matter) would think that terrorists crashed the planes, and that naturally the buildings came down under their own weight?
And if we can prove molten steel, we can then have proof that some business had to have gone on, to bring down the buidings?

Yeah, that whole hypothesis fails on so many levels, not least because the hijackers were mainly Saudis, not Iraqis. If THEY™ wanted to frame Iraq, THEY™ would've used Iraqi hijackers in the plot. Duh.

And there never has been hard evidence of molten steel. Yes, claims and allegations, but that's not good enough.
If you find that hard evidence, let us know.

 

[DGM]

Thanks.

He responded.

Wrong. All the (input) data they used is in the reports. The software is available (not free) and anyone with the required knowledge (a competent engineer) could duplicate the results.

"Truthers" want the whole thing in a neat package. If only they had some engineers they too could do the job.