Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[kylebisme]

Name them then.

Again, every steel framed high-rise that's ever caught fire matches the design of the towers far better than your big bag of nothing. There's no point in me listing names of the many steel framed high-rises which have caught fir unless you can name a model that purports to prove fire brought down the towers to compete with.

If you don't think computer models are sufficient you're more than free to point out examples which you believe most closely model the WTC.

What models?

All I'm asking is for you to outline which ones, and any limitations that might arise from some details in them being different.

And again, of course the differences limit the applicability of comparison, but those differences are trivial compared to your big bag of nothing.

Ahh I see, so you think the scientific method is to challenge the accepted and essentially force a "do over".

No, your imagining there was a "do" in the first place, while you've got squat for experimental confirmation to support the notion that impact damage and fires could bring down buildings anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers came down.

What does sand have to do with your 911 delusions? Details please.

If that water had been trapped was in a big bag, it would have crushed the car far more. Have you deluded yourself into imagining otherwise?

If you hold the scientific method in such high regard (especially step 4 as you listed them above) then why do you ignore over 100 years of experiments involving the reaction of steel structures to fire? Do you think that they were all wrong?

What are you suggesting in those 100 years of experiments would best supports the notion that impact damage and fires could bring down buildings anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers came down.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What models?

In other words: Pick a physical building if you distrust computers

And again, of course the differences limit the applicability of comparison, but those differences are trivial compared to your big bag of nothing.

Then make it something. Name a building you think closely compares with the WTC. You're calling these trivial differences, be specific please.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/9864/f0710004.jpg
What do you consider trivial in buildings of different framing systems and materials for example?

What would you define as "trivial" in each of these?
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3097/structures.png

 

[1337m4n]

If that water had been trapped was in a big bag, it would have crushed the car far more. Have you deluded yourself into imagining otherwise?

Irrelevant. Your entire argument hinges on the delusion that it is IMPOSSIBLE for loose material to cause damage, which has just been soundly disproved.

You can whine all you want about how an intact mass would have caused "more" damage. It makes no difference. The WTC was destroyed. If it was "more" destroyed it would not change the fact that it is still no longer standing.

"More" destroyed or "less" destroyed; who cares. It was still destroyed. Beachnut's video proves this possibility.

Your argument is akin to saying that a shotgun blast to the brain will kill a person "more" than a handgun bullet to the brain. How can somebody be "more" dead than "dead"? How could the WTC have been "more" collapsed than "collapsed"? Would it have been in tinier pieces? Who cares? The 3000 murdered aren't any better off either way.

The car in the video still won't run. The WTC still isn't standing.

 

[1337m4n]

If the sand was in a bag, it would hurt more than if the sand was free flowing.

No, it wouldn't. Because you'd be dead. You cannot feel pain while you're dead.

Loose sand or bagged sand; who cares. They will both kill you. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Too scared?

 

[Architect]

Again, every steel framed high-rise that's ever caught fire matches the design of the towers far better than your big bag of nothing. There's no point in me listing names of the many steel framed high-rises which have caught fir unless you can name a model that purports to prove fire brought down the towers to compete with.

Name the ones you've looked at.

You can't, can you? You're going to have to frenetically Google and Wiki in the hope you can cobble together a list of some description, aren't you?

FACT: Testing shows that steel is susceptible to failure under normal fire loadings.

FACT: Steel structures have suffered substantial failure due to normal fire loadings.

FACT: WTC 1 and 2 employed steel structures and suffered from fires across entire foorplates on 9/11.

What you're trying to do - and pretty obviously, I have to say - is argue that because no building has suffered from 100% collapse then there is something suspiscious. This is, however, an appeal to perfection and I am willing to wager that if we show you a picture of a complete collapse then you'll move the goalposts to "complete collapse of a tall structure" and so on, ad infinitum.

But meanwhile, name the structures you looked at when considering ire performance. Let's have a list.

What are you suggesting in those 100 years of experiments would best supports the notion that impact damage and fires could bring down buildings anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers came down.

Argument from personal incredulity noted. Do you have any facts to bring, or just more speculation?

 

[1337m4n]

What are you suggesting in those 100 years of experiments would best supports the notion that impact damage and fires could bring down buildings anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers came down.

So your objection is not to the fact that the towers collapsed, but to the fact that they collapsed "quickly and completely".

Since you're such an expert on physics, structural engineering, and the mechanics of tall building collapses, why don't you explain to us what, in your professional opinion as an expert on physics, structural engineering, and the mechanics of tall building collapses, the collapses SHOULD have looked like. Support your answer with calculations and verifiable data.

 

[kylebisme]

In other words: Pick a physical building if you distrust computers

I've got no reason to distrust computers, and never suggested as much. What I am saying is; pick a physical building yourself and tell me, where is the computer simulation to best it?

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/9864/f0710004.jpg
What do you consider trivial in buildings of different framing systems and materials for example?[/QUOTE]
No in any absolute sense, but in comparison to the utter lack of any simulation of a building subjected to impact damage and fire comming down anywhere near as quickly and completly as WTC 7.

Your entire argument hinges on the delusion that it is IMPOSSIBLE for loose material to cause damage...

You're deluding yourself here, I've never made any such argument.

 

[Furcifer]

Dodge noted.

 

[kylebisme]

So your objection is not to the fact that the towers collapsed, but to the fact that they collapsed "quickly and completely".

No, I reject to the notion that what happened to the towers can rightly be called a "collapse" at all, but in humoring that claim I point to how quickly and completely they came down along with the utter lack of any experimental confirmation to support the notion that such damage could bring a building down so quickly and completely.

 

[Architect]

Name the ones you've looked at.

(cough)

 

[kylebisme]

...pick a physical building yourself and tell me, where is the computer simulation to best it?

(burp)

 

[Architect]

Come on, name the ones you looked at. Give us the examples.

 

[Carlos]

No, I reject to the notion that what happened to the towers can rightly be called a "collapse" at all, but in humoring that claim I point to how quickly and completely they came down along with the utter lack of any experimental confirmation to support the notion that such damage could bring a building down so quickly and completely.

Engineering explains.

 

[beachnut]

(burp)

How did your engineering school let you down? Only a few fringe engineers are unable to grasp the collapse of the towers. Why was your engineering education unable to give you the skills to understand 911? What engineering school failed you? Why can't an engineer like yourself answer you own idiotic questions?

 

[Furcifer]

Argument from incredulity, that's the net sum of the entire conspiracy.

It isn't a matter of what you can or can't believe bro. But it is a very quaint notion. So cute, you little conspiracy kids and your incredulity

 

[Sam.I.Am]

So you admit that there is over 100 years of engineering experience and testing concerning fire and steel structures but you reject it all because the testing doesn't exactly match the WTC structures? That's what you're hanging your hat on? Really? Think about that for a minute...

Using your standards no murder case would never result in a conviction unless the crime scene was replicated exactly and then documented from here to next Sunday, otherwise the jury must acquit.

A jury can convict when known circumstances have repeatable results. They don't need to see someone else shot in the head in front of them to understand that being shot in the head will kill someone. The same principle applies to engineering. It's well known and has been repeatedly proven that fire weakens steel so you don't need to replicate or model that after every fire just to make sure that that hasn't changed since the last time you checked.

 

[dafydd]

How did your engineering school let you down? Only a few fringe engineers are unable to grasp the collapse of the towers. Why was your engineering education unable to give you the skills to understand 911? What engineering school failed you? Why can't an engineer like yourself answer you own idiotic questions?

kybelisme is an engineer? No way.

 

[Furcifer]

kybelisme is an engineer? No way.

HO scale.

 

[kylebisme]

So you admit that there is over 100 years of engineering experience and testing concerning fire and steel structures but you reject it all because the testing doesn't exactly match the WTC structures?

Again, please show me whatever experiment you believe best confirms the notion that fires could bring down a steel framed high-rise anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers came down. You've got a big bag of nothing here, but you refuse to admit it, eh?

 

[excaza]

Again, please show me whatever experiment you believe best confirms the notion that fires could bring down a steel framed high-rise anywhere near as quickly and completely as the towers came down. You've got a big bag of nothing here, but you refuse to admit it, eh?

Why is it that truther's investigoogling stops right after they find whatever they think validates their nutball theories?