Debunking Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

[triforcharity]

I have been promising to do a thorough debunking of Erik Lawyer and his analysis of NFPA 921. Well, here it is.

(A special thanks to Josarhus who was kind enough to get me the copy of NFPA 921 early, as school does not start for another week or so. Thanks! )

First, we will analyze this video found herev=uor8NhUr_90

Yepo, you've all seen it touted before by the "Truth Movement". It is Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. He goes step by step though the NFPA 921 guidelines and points out what NIST did wrong.

Well, the first problem he has is that NFPA is not a law or a state code. It is a guide, a model, or a best practice, for the investigation of Fires and Explosions. Nowhere does it ever say that it is a law, or that this is the only way to do it.

In fact, NFPA says specifically
NFPA codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides, of which the document contained herein is one, are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus
on fire and other safety issues. While the NFPA administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the development of consensus, it does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the accuracy of any information or the soundness of any judgments contained in its codes and standards.

It goes on to say

The NFPA has no power, nor does it undertake, to police or enforce compliance with the contents of this document... Users of this document should consult applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of this document, intend to urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and this document may not be construed as doing so.

It is very clear that is not a law enforcement agency, and as such, cannot enforce any of the recommendations in their guides.
So, we have determined that this is NOT a law, nor is it considered any kind of Formal guideline. So, whenever Mr. Lawyer says "They didn't follow the guidelines" remember this.
It is not a law.
Now, onto the video!

At about: 27 seconds in, he basically calls anyone who hasn't signed the petition a coward. Way to win ‘em over Erik! Woot! (Roll eyes here)

At: 39 seconds in, he asked for an investigation that follows the standards and has contempt and subpoena powers. The "Standards" he is referring to, is NFPA's guidelines. Well, as we have already established, NFPA is not a law enforcement agency, and makes no laws. See above.

At about: 40 seconds in, he says that “This should have been the most protected, preserved, over tested and thorough investigation in world history."

Well, you see it was. Fresh Kills rings a bell. The FDNY and NYPD could not logically say that nobody was to try to rescue anyone, or move anything, until this scene was completely documented. To ask that is asinine at best.

:56 " Most of the evidence was destroyed."

Really? Fresh Kills didn't exist? Amazing! Tell that to the guys from Phillips and Jordan out of Zephyrhills Florida. Here is their account.
http://911depository.info/PDFs/Other%20Reports/Phillips%20and%20Jordan%20Inc%20-%20World%20Trade%20Center%20Forensic%20Recovery.pd f
Pretty cool eh?

At 1:00 he says " I have seen a lot of crime scenes, but I have never seen anything like it in my life."

No **** Sherlock! Neither had 99.9% of the world’s population. Well, except maybe those guys in Hiroshima and Nagasaki! They got us beat.

1:22 "Evidence was being destroyed when it was being shipped off."

Really? Again, Fresh Kills ring a bell? Sure, some of the steel that was nowhere near the collapse initiation zone was not saved, but do I need the entire football team to undergo physical exams when one player hurts himself? Of course not.

1:32 "NIST investigation into Tower 7 had no physical evidence. How do you investigate a crime when you have destroyed all the evidence?"

Well, considering nobody died in 7WTC, and there was no crime committed, it was not necessary to save the physical evidence

At 1:38”They also refused to test for explosives....or residue of thermite"

No, they decided against it, as there was no physical evidence of any explosive, and no records of any of the recovery workers reporting any suspicious pieces in 7WTC.
Thermite? Do I really need to discuss this?

Here is what NFPA 921 19.2.4 says about thermite 19.2.4* Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers (see NFPA 430, Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers) may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.
Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of being associated with HTAs during the 1981–1991 period revealed that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.

Even NFPA classified thermite as an accelerant. Not explosive. It also goes on to say that you would see EXCEEDINGLY RAPID FIRE RATE (Not witnessed in 7WTC) BRILLIANT FLARES (Not witnessed in 7WTC) AND MELTED STEEL or concrete. (Also not found at 7WTC)

No steel melted. No flares and no rapid fire growth.

1:46 "There are standards for an investigation."

Yeah, too bad they are not from the NFPA. NFPA is, as we have already discussed, a guideline, a model. Not STANDARD.

1:52 "And holds people accountable."

NIST nor NFPA have that type of jurisdiction, as neither of them are a law enforcement agency. That is what the FBI, and the ATF do.

2:30 He brings up NFPA 9.3.6
Here it is.

Spoliation of evidence refers to the loss, destruction, or material alteration of an object or document that is evidence or potential evidence in a legal proceeding by one who has the responsibility for its preservation. Spoliation of evidence may occur when the movement, change, or destruction of evidence, or the alteration of the scene significantly impairs the opportunity of other interested parties to obtain the same evidentiary value from the evidence, as did any prior investigator

BUT, here is where he cherry picks the NFPA. Here is the special clause that NFPA put in, as they understand that in an imperfect world, sometimes spoliation may occur during the rescue operations, cleanup and investigation.

Fire investigation usually requires the movement of evidence or alteration of the scene. In and of itself, such movement of evidence or alteration of the scene should not be considered spoliation of evidence. Physical evidence may need to be moved prior to the discovery of the cause of the fire. Additionally, it is recognized that it is sometimes necessary to remove the potential causative agent from the scene and even to carry out some disassembly in order to determine whether the object did, in fact, cause the fire, and which parties may have contributed to that cause. For example, the manufacturer of an appliance may not be known until after the unit has been examined for identification. Such activities should not be considered spoliation.

Also of note, this chapter is referenced under Legal Considerations. It even gives a nice little disclaimer
The legal considerations contained in this chapter and elsewhere in this guide pertain to the law in the United States. This chapter does not attempt to state the law as it is applied in each country or other jurisdiction. Such a task exceeds the scope of this guide.

2:38 "The steel was melted down. We know this by their own admission"

Again, I ask, what crime was suspected of happening in 7WTC? None.

At 2:42 he brings up exotic accelerants. We have already gone over exotic accelerants.

at 3:00 he states "Even on a routine house fire, if we suspect even the slightest use of an accelerant, we test for it."

Yes, where you do not know the cause of the fire, and there is physical evidence of an accelerant. None was found. Well, except for the giant diesel fuel tanks that was contained in 7WTC. But, we know they were there.

3:17 "There is no excuse not to test for it."

Well, in a normal routine house fire, yes. But we knew the cause of 7WTC's fire before lunch time. The firefighters around the scene noted no brilliant light sources, no rapid spread of fire, and no melted steel or concrete. So, tell me, why should they have tested for it? To waste time and resources? For practice?

At 3:20, he talks about NFPA 18.15. This is a doozie! You'll get a kick out of this!
Here is what NFPA 921 18.15 says.

18.15 Analyze Fuel Source. Once the origin or epicenter of the explosion has been identified, the investigator should determine the fuel. This is done by a comparison of the nature and type of damage to the known available fuels at the scene. All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all of the physical damage criteria. For example, if the epicenter of the explosion is identified as a 6 ft (1.8 m) crater of pulverized concrete in the center of the floor, fugitive natural gas can be eliminated as the fuel, and only fuels that can create seated explosions should be considered.

IT'S TALKING ABOUT EXPLOSIONS THAT CAUSE FIRES!!! Please learn to read the ENTIRE text Mr. Lawyer...

At 3:32 Notice he stumbles a little and almost says craters.....Wonder why he left that out?!?!?
He then says "If you find cra - If you find pulverized concrete, which we all know was in all 3 buildings there was pulverized concrete"

Say it ain't so? You mean to tell me that hundreds if not thousands of tons of building collapsing on a concrete slab will pulverize concrete? Derpa. Again, this is STILL referring to EXPLOSIONS!!

At 3:43 or so, he says "Only fuels that create seated explosions should be considered. So they should not be considering fire, they shouldn't be doing that, it doesn't account for pulverized concrete" (NFPA def. of a seated explosion Only specific types or configurations of explosive fuels can produce seated explosions. These include explosives, steam boilers, tightly confined fuel gases or liquid fuel vapors, and BLEVEs occurring in relatively small containers, such as cans or barrels.

This is VERY misleading and blatantly dishonest Mr. Lawyer. This is, again, referring to EXPLOSIONS. Of course the fire did not cause the pulverized concrete, the collapse of the enormous building caused the pulverized concrete.

At 3:51 he says " 19.4.8.2.6 Extremism "The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal." We know they used them in 1993, why would we not test for them now?"

Because the terrorists parked the fire and explosion in the side of the building at ~500 MPH. Everyone saw it, and everyone knew where the "bomb" was planted.


At 4:06 he brings up explosives in the basements and asks "Why didn't we test for it?”

No evidence of an EXPLOSIVE going off in the basement, other than fuel from the elevator.

At 4:15 he brings up 14.3 Preservation of the fire scene and physical evidence. He states "The cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation."

But, is that was NFPA says? NOPE!! Close, but no cigar!!
Here is what NFPA ACTUALLY says

Every attempt should be made to protect and preserve the fire scene as intact and undisturbed as possible, with the structure, contents, fixtures, and furnishings remaining in their pre-fire locations. Generally, the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation.

We know what caused the fires. In buildings 1&2, it was a huge 767 being plowed into the side of it. 7 was because parts of that huge building that collapsed caused substantial damage to it, and sending flaming debris into the building.

Nice job quote-mining Erik! Why do you leave words out? Oh, because then it does not say what you want your audience to hear. You want them to hear what you WISH is said.

(Christopher7, are you paying attention? Your buddy is getting his ass handed to him)

At 4:42 he states that "NIST refused to test for explosives, as Dr. Stephen Jones did."

Yeah, except for the fact that there were so many methodological errors in it that it cannot be taken seriously. And, not to mention, to date, has not once submitted his results to an independent lab for analysis, not presented his paper to a respectable journal for peer-review.
Again, NIST is not required to test for explosives by NFPA guidelines.

At 5:15 he talks about Chapter 18 of NFPA 921. He says "Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not (in big bold letters) an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion."

Well, this is another lie. It does NOT have big bold letters at all.

Here is the exact text.

Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.

BUT, then it goes on to describe why a loud noise may not accompany an explosion.

The ignition of a flammable vapor/air mixture within a can, which bursts the can or even only pops off the lid, is considered an explosion. The ignition of the same mixture in an open field, while it is a deflagration, may not be an explosion as defined in this document, even though there may be the release of high-pressure gas, a localized increase in air pressure, and a distinct noise. The failure and bursting of a tank or vessel from hydrostatic pressure of a non compressible fluid such as water is not an explosion, because the pressure is not created by gas. Explosions are gas dynamic.

At 5:50 “NIST has lied. And we can prove it. As soon as the new investigation happens...We have 118 first responders that reported explosions, we have the radio transmissions from the FDNY members that are still recorded today that reported explosions. We have audio recordings, we have video recordings."

Excellent! 188 first responders reported something that went boom. Now, that is another topic for another thread, but we can touch on it briefly.
The 188 firefighters that reported explosions is a quote mine of all quote mines. It looks through all of the firefighters' oral histories (found here http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html ) and looks for the word explosion. This is BLATENTLY dishonest, as many of them are describing the collapse itself, or are using simile or hyperbole.
Also, there are many many things that go boom in a fire. Can we dismiss them in favor of the least plausible? No.

At 6:25 "This was the most incompetent investigation of all time."

Really? I think you are the one that is incompetent. You have quote mined and taken out of context just about every single thing that NFPA says. You are a disgrace to firefighters everywhere, and I have shown with irrefutable facts that you are wrong, and are a liar.
To Mr. Erik Lawyer, of the Seattle Fire Department; Please turn in your badge, as you sir, are a disgrace to the people of that department, and are not deserving of the honor, courage, and commitment that it takes to be called a true firefighter.

[Oystein]

Cool work, thanks, tri! :)

[tfk]

Tri,

I ran across this interesting article about one group of guys (& dogs) that pertain to the question of the use of either thermite or explosives on 9/11.


NO THERMITE:
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html?showComment=1240395840000#c61016 65985354960506

wardogs said...

Thank you Ron for both your patience and equanimity in dealing with this subject.

I am owner and trainer of a K9 training and deployment company in FL. We have been breeding, training and deploying our purpose bred explosive detection and SAR dogs for over 40 years as well as training K9's for the Military, LE and private industry.

In addition we are a FEMA Incident Response Team/First Responder K9 unit for FEMA Task Force II, Miami.

It was in the latter capacity that we were went to NY on 9/11 as part of the FL Task Force, arriving on scene about 3 1/2 hours after the second tower fell. We went with 4 of our dogs and handlers. Our main function was US&R, live person, (not cadaver search) but all of our dogs are cross trained in several disciplines, including EDD and Incendiary detection. In addition, of the over 300 K9 teams that came from all over the world, there were more than 70 other EDD K9's present on site. This is on top of the 6 full time EDD dogs employed full time at the WTC site, 3 of which I had trained personally. Besides the presence of the normal team that patrolled in shifts 24/7, there had been an ADDITIONAL team of 16 explosives interdiction K9's on duty for several weeks prior to the attack. They were there in response to bomb threats against the center (unrelated) and had only been removed 5 days prior to the attack. 6 of those dogs were also trained by our company.

No explosives or incendiary devices were planted anywhere in that complex. None. Our dogs and the other EDD K9's would have alerted after the fact as well. It's what they are trained for. We staged for the two weeks we were there at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. This is where much of the structural steel was brought. Despite rumors to the contrary, chain of custody was maintained and virtually all of the steel was cataloged and vital pieces were inspected. Not a single dog ever alerted to the presence of either explosives or incendiary residue.
Not one.

Two K9's were lost at 9/11 and dozens more injured. One was our lead dog and the other was one of our trainees, EDD dog "Sirius".

Sirius was K9 Officer #17 of the Port Authority Police Dept. He had just finished his rounds with his handler, David Lim on the morning of the attack. When the first plane hit David placed him in his Kennel in the basement of Tower II while he investigated what had happened. He was still there when the tower came down.

Our dog "Ali'i" was lost on Sept 13th while attempting to find a way through the tunnels under building 6 into the subway system under the complex. He was carrying a video pack and VA radio and was trapped when 6 suffered a partial collapse from fire. It wasn't until the following Dec that 6 was pulled down and the basement of Tower II was cleared to the point where the body of Sirius was found. They had a full memorial service for him. Ali'i was never found.

I'm not a scientist, but I am an expert on explosives/incendiaries, their use and detection both before and after detonation. I've testified as an expert witness more than 70 times at court proceedings on explosives detection, K9 training protocol and K9 scent differrention capability.

No explosives or incendiaries were present at the Trade Center on 9/11.

Thermite has never been used in demolition, ever. It has been used occasionally in clean up, but never as an instigator for controlled demolition.

The procces of controlled demolition itself is one that takes many weeks to prepare. the buildings undergo extensive preparations, and the demolitions are painstakenly placed in strategic positions. Remember also that 6 full time explosive detection dogs were on 24 hour patrol in shifts, 7 days a week. In addition, until just 5 days before, 16 additional dogs were working the Center in response to bomb threats from two weeks prior to that.

Walls are ripped apart and knocked down, beams are cut, holes are bored, wires are run to detonators. Here is a description of the work needed to take down a much smaller, 33 story building, the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit. It was the largest (by square footage) building to be imploded at the time of 9/11. Keep in mind, this is just the amount of time needed to emplace the explosives, not to prepare the building in the first place:

Controlled demolitions Inc.
J.L. Hudson Department Store - Detroit, Michigan
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120

"...In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum..."

Before the placement started, more than a month of "prep" was involved that included removal of non load bearing walls, exposure of structural beams and stripping of all internal walls and supports.

I guess no one at the WTC noticed all that work going on.

wardogs

[tfk]

... And this absolutely superb program (by NPR) describing the processes at Fresh Kills.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/may/freshkills/


tom

[bill smith]

Well Tri....if hat was your best shot then Ol' lEric Lawyer doesn't have a a whole hell of a lot to worry about.In fact the debunking `is so weak that it amounts to faint praise.

[triforcharity]

Bill,

How do you come to that conclusion? Care to back up Eric Lawyer with anything relevent? Or do you normally just pull stuff our of your underwear for fun....

You cannot refute anything that has been said in regards to NFPA 921. Nothing.

I urge you to try.

Eric Lawyer is a liar. Proof positive.

[ElMondoHummus]

Tri:
Lawyer is only correct about chemical testing if he's only referring to NIST. The NYPD Crime Scene Unit and the FBI did some of their own evidence testing. One of our ex-posters here Pomeroo (Ron Wieck) talked to an investigator informally at one point about this. As far as I know, no one's attempted to FOIA either organization for their findings, although I would guess that such a request would get turned down as protected trial evidence. Then again, who knows? It'd be interesting to see if someone would try.

-----

Tom:
Thanks for that comment clip from Ronmossad's blog. I'd not actually seen that thread before, but it reminded me of one of the really old trutherisms that we haven't seen recycled in a while: The supposed pulling of Port Authority K9 units being pulled from WTC 7, supposedly to pave the way for "charges" to be planted (insert eye roll here). As that poster points out, what was removed were the excess/additional teams, and the normal contingent was still in place. We tend to forget that, as well as the fact that it wasn't just rescue and "cadaver" dogs that combed the rubble, it was also police K9s that did so, too (both at Ground Zero, and as the man pointed out, at the recycling site, which was something I had not known before). And as that man pointed out, some of them died while doing so. But the point is that it's an outright error for truthers to imply that the steel was never investigated.

[triforcharity]

Well I have lists of firefighter statements that can only be described as stunning and a scientific study of of those statements. Would they be relevent to backing up Eric Lawyer ?

Sure, find another thread to discuss them, as this one mainly focuses on NFPA 921.

Their scientific study was doing a "Ctrl+F" and searching the documents. Hardly scientific.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, enough about defending Lawyer. Firefighters have already ripped him to shreds (http://www.firehouse.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107457).

[Oystein]

It is "Erik Lawyer", not "Eric", by the way.

Maybe an admin could change the thread title, and/or tags, so that future searches would not fail?

[triforcharity]

It is "Erik Lawyer", not "Eric", by the way.

Maybe an admin could change the thread title, and/or tags, so that future searches would not fail?

I realized that mistake about 8 am this morning, and couldn't edit it.

I have reported it, and asked that it be changed.

Thanks for the heads up!

ETA: Thanks to Tricky for changing that for me. Much appreciated!

[ergo]

At 1:00 he says " I have seen a lot of crime scenes, but I have never seen anything like it in my life."

No **** Sherlock! Neither had 99.9% of the world’s population. Well, except maybe those guys in Hiroshima and Nagasaki! They got us beat.

Um, you're comparing two plane crashes to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


1:32 "NIST investigation into Tower 7 had no physical evidence. How do you investigate a crime when you have destroyed all the evidence?"

Well, considering nobody died in 7WTC, and there was no crime committed, it was not necessary to save the physical evidence

Yet, here, you say:

At 1:38”They also refused to test for explosives....or residue of thermite"

No, they decided against it, as there was no physical evidence of any explosive, and no records of any of the recovery workers reporting any suspicious pieces in 7WTC.

Which is the same illogic that NIST used. In other words "we don't test for things that aren't there".

But we won't find things that "aren't there" if we don't we look for them, will we?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

But we won't find things that "aren't there" if we don't we look for them, will we?

You mean rust deposits on the steel that LOOKED LIKE thermite?

[ergo]

You mean rust deposits on the steel that LOOKED LIKE thermite?

"Rust" deposits? What photos are you referring to?

[leftysergeant]

But we won't find things that "aren't there" if we don't we look for them, will we?

How do you test for things that are not there? You can see thermite damage without testing for it. Nothing that anybody has ever mentioned l;ooks the least bit like thermite damage, least of all the acid-etched "Swiss cheese" steel.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

"Rust" deposits? What photos are you referring to?

You have a charcoal or gas grill outside your house don't you? Now look inside & you will see rust forming on the racks. That's what we call iron oxide, or rust as it's known. :cool:

[ergo]

What does the swiss cheese steel look like?

[leftysergeant]

"Rust" deposits? What photos are you referring to?The "Swiss cheese" steel. To those of us with experience in fire fighting, welding, construction, or metal etching, it looks like rust and acid damage.

To ignorant louts and psychotics, it is thermite damage.

[TheRedWorm]

Edit: Lefty beat me.

[leftysergeant]

What does the swiss cheese steel look like?

Like steel that was heated in a damp environment in the presence of sulphuric acid and copper wires for a long period.

[leftysergeant]

Edit: Lefty beat me.

If he brings up the angle-cut coilumn, I'll let you explain thermal lances.;)

[ergo]

Like steel that was heated in a damp environment in the presence of sulphuric acid and copper wires for a long period.

Really? Do you have evidence of other such steel that looks like this from those conditions?

[bill smith]

Um, you're comparing two plane crashes to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?



Yet, here, you say:



Which is the same illogic that NIST used. In other words "we don't test for things that aren't there".

But we won't find things that "aren't there" if we don't we look for them, will we?

Yes, that was a really really funny statement for the National Institute for Standards and Technology to make.lol

Reporter Jennifer Abel:"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

Michael Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers' money."

[leftysergeant]

Really? Do you have evidence of other such steel that looks like this from those conditions?

Not likely that anyone would photograph such a thing, its being so common. There might be pictures of it in text books related to boiler operations.

[ergo]

People don't photograph things that are common? Funny, I would think if it was "common", there would be plenty of photographic evidence of this effect.

[leftysergeant]

People don't photograph things that are common? Funny, I would think if it was "common", there would be plenty of photographic evidence of this effect.

Not that many people are interested in the insides of boiler fire boxes anymore, especially not coal-fired ones.

[uke2se]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/235366876_5c9e978d35_m.jpg

http://jimmycrackedcorn.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/img_2969.jpg

[ergo]

Not that many people are interested in the insides of boiler fire boxes anymore, especially not coal-fired ones.

So we should just take your word for it?

[ergo]

Thanks for showing us the pictures of rust, uke2se.

[uke2se]

So we should just take your word for it?

See my last post.

[uke2se]

Thanks for showing us the pictures of rust, uke2se.

That's what you asked for. The first picture is from Ground Zero. The second is of a common charcoal grill. Note the similarities.

[T.A.M.]

since when does corrosion and sulfidation = Thermite? Is this really the argument ergo is trying to make?

TAM:)

[ergo]

Yes, comparisons between structural steel and rusted outdoor grills are completely valid.

[uke2se]

Yes, comparisons between structural steel and rusted outdoor grills are completely valid.

Do you know what charcoal grills are made of?

[ergo]

Structural steel ??

[uke2se]

Structural steel ??

What exactly differentiates structural steel from the steel used in charcoal grills, ergo? Dazzle us with your brilliance.

[ergo]

Ah yes, I see it now. But now I'm really flummoxed. Why hasn't my charcoal grill self-pulverized from the force of gravity yet??

[uke2se]

Ah yes, I see it now. But now I'm really flummoxed. Why hasn't my charcoal grill self-pulverized from the force of gravity yet??

Possibly because it isn't constructed like any of the WTC, but incorporates the same material as the WTC. After all, I'm not making a structural integrity comparison, merely a material comparison. Any more stupid questions?

[T.A.M.]

Ah yes, I see it now. But now I'm really flummoxed. Why hasn't my charcoal grill self-pulverized from the force of gravity yet??

dodge and topic switching noted. Welcome to the JREF truther.

TAM:)

[ergo]

Sure. How does structural steel rust?

[uke2se]

Sure. How does structural steel rust?

Like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/235366876_5c9e978d35_m.jpg

[ergo]

Like this:

...

Really? Wow. They better stop building highrises with structural steel!

[ElMondoHummus]

What does the swiss cheese steel look like?

ergo: If this is an attempt to recycle thermite for the billionth time, you'd better be aware that we've already seen and refuted this line of argument, last month being the most recent (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=180570). We've addressed it time (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=eutectic+reaction) and time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89753) and time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155743&page=2) again. So many times (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89753&page=2), in fact, that it's gotten ridiculous. You'd better read prior threads on the topic before thinking about treading that ground, otherwise you are going to be far behind where everyone else is at.

[TexasJack]

Oh no, is this deja vu? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141593

[uke2se]

Really? Wow. They better stop building highrises with structural steel!

Why?

[T.A.M.]

Really? Wow. They better stop building highrises with structural steel!

ok, now you are just trolling...that comment makes a strawman look like a steel sculpture.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Oh no, is this deja vu? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141593

another HI puppet? You think? been so long since I've seen one.

TAM:)

[ergo]

I'm sorry. I thought it was you folks who were arguing that structural steel rusts such that it can end up looking like swiss cheese.

[T.A.M.]

I'm sorry. I thought it was you folks who were arguing that structural steel rusts such that it can end up looking like swiss cheese.

who said rust alone? anyone?

TAM:)

[ergo]

Right. Rust AND fire. Which brings us back to our charcoal grill analogy.

[ElMondoHummus]

Enough. If you have indeed been around here before, then you will be aware of the fact that the "swiss cheese" pieces of steel underwent a sulfidation attack due to the conditions in the rubble pile. Read the previous threads I linked on the topic; there is nothing suspicious about the presence of eutectically corroded steel. It was studied by Worchester Polytechnic researchers and while it was considered interesting from an academic point of view, it was not considered suspicious.

Unless there's something new to contribute regarding the eroded steel, this topic is done.

[ergo]

there is nothing suspicious about the presence of eutectically corroded steel. It was studied by Worchester Polytechnic researchers and while it was considered interesting from an academic point of view, it was not considered suspicious.


Do you have evidence for this statement?

[uke2se]

Do you have evidence for this statement?

Would it matter if he did, considering you handwaved away the last piece of evidence you requested?

[uke2se]

Right. Rust AND fire. Which brings us back to our charcoal grill analogy.

It's not an analogy. It's a direct material comparison. Intense heat has an effect on steel which is easily visible on a common charcoal grill.

[ergo]

Would it matter if he did, considering you handwaved away the last piece of evidence you requested?

The question I had asked was:

Do you have evidence of other such steel that looks like this from those conditions?

[ergo]

It's not an analogy. It's a direct material comparison. Intense heat has an effect on steel which is easily visible on a common charcoal grill.

Does heat rust the grill?

[Myriad]

Thermite causes rusted steel?

Does that work the same way as how droughts cause floods, leaving a flashlight on causes its batteries to charge up, driving adds gas to your tank, exercise makes you fatter, and sunny weather causes vampire attacks?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[uke2se]

The question I had asked was:

Do you have evidence of other such steel that looks like this from those conditions?

And I presented such evidence. Why did you handwave it away?

[ElMondoHummus]

Do you have evidence for this statement?

I just gave you some links above to discussions, with other links to original sources. Do you not follow links?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6m00uuhvn16tnu2/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/
http://www.buehler-asia.com/brochure/apps_support_literature_wtc.pdf
Your turn: Do you have evidence that it should be taken suspiciously?

[ergo]

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I guess it's not really clear to me the link you're making between a charcoal grill and a structural steel highrise.

[ergo]

I'll take a look at the links, ElMondo.

[uke2se]

Does heat rust the grill?

Borrow a book on high temperature corrosion.

[sts60]

Oh, enough about defending Lawyer. Firefighters have already ripped him to shreds (http://www.firehouse.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107457).

...and I'll just quote myself from that thread:
No, I'm not surprised that a few firefighters would be gullible, uncritical, or unstable enough to fall for this crap. There's one in very crowd, as the old saying goes, and in a country where there are still those who claim we never landed on the Moon, it's hardly surprising. Depressing, yes, but not surprising.

[ElMondoHummus]

I'll take a look at the links, ElMondo.

Not an answer. Again: Why should the "swiss cheese" appearing steel be considered suspicious? You're the one who brought it up, so it's your burden to demonstrate why it's an issue.

[uke2se]

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I guess it's not really clear to me the link you're making between a charcoal grill and a structural steel highrise.

Maybe because you insist on misrepresenting my argument. I'm making a comparison between the material of a charcoal grill (steel) and the material we are discussing in a highrise building (steel). Is that clearer, or do you want me to post it in single-syllable words?

[ergo]

Maybe because you insist on misrepresenting my argument. I'm making a comparison between the material of a charcoal grill (steel) and the material we are discussing in a highrise building (steel). Is that clearer, or do you want me to post it in single-syllable words?

Well, actually, the material in a charcoal grill is not construction-grade steel. So that would be my first objection. And structural steel is not exposed to the elements or repeated heating the way a charcoal grill is. That would be my second objection. There are more, of course, but these are the two obvious ones.

[ergo]

Not an answer. Again: Why should the "swiss cheese" appearing steel be considered suspicious?

Well, one of the links you provided yourself talks about the "unexpected erosion" of the steel,

http://www.buehler-asia.com/brochure/apps_support_literature_wtc.pdf

and they did write a paper on it, presumably to explain what would be unexpected by engineers and the science community. So, that might indicate that the swiss cheese steel is somewhat out of the ordinary.

[uke2se]

Well, actually, the material in a charcoal grill is not construction-grade steel. So that would be my first objection.

Hence my request for you to outline the differences. Go ahead. Present the differences between construction-grade steel and steel used for a charcoal grill. Especially, explain how the chemical properties of construction-grade makes it corrode in a different way than steel subjected to heat from a charcoal grill.


And structural steel is not exposed to the elements or repeated heating the way a charcoal grill is. That would be my second objection. There are more, of course, but these are the two obvious ones.

We're talking about a piece of steel found in the debris from a collapsed highrise ravaged by fire. The conditions are similar enough. If you don't think so, explain how the conditions are different enough to disallow comparison between high temperature corrosion on the steel found in the debris from high temperature corrosion on a charcoal grill.

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, one of the links you provided yourself talks about the "unexpected erosion" of the steel,

http://www.buehler-asia.com/brochure/apps_support_literature_wtc.pdf

and they did write a paper on it, presumably to explain what would be unexpected by engineers and the science community. So, that might indicate that the swiss cheese steel is somewhat out of the ordinary.

"Unexpected" or "out of the ordinary" does not equal "suspicious". Try again: Why would the eroded steel be suspicious? You cited what I cited: That it was of academic interest, a topic that furthers fire chemistry and steel physics knowledge. That is not the same as it being suspicious.

If you do not even know what we're discussing regarding the eroded steel, then go back to my other post and read the threads.

[ergo]

Hence my request for you to outline the differences. Go ahead. Present the differences between construction-grade steel and steel used for a charcoal grill. Especially, explain how the chemical properties of construction-grade makes it corrode in a different way than steel subjected to heat from a charcoal grill.

I'm not a materials scientist, and would not be able to discuss the chemical properties of the different materials used. Are you able to? Perhaps you could explain how they are comparable in both composition and response. Then you might be able to convince me.

[uke2se]

I'm not a materials scientist, and would not be able to discuss the chemical properties of the different materials used. Are you able to? Perhaps you could explain how they are comparable in both composition and response. Then you might be able to convince me.

If you are not a "materials scientist", how can you make the assertion that the two forms of steel aren't comparable? Were you just making an argument from personal incredulity?

[ergo]

"Unexpected" or "out of the ordinary" does not equal "suspicious".

Yes, it does.

If you do not even know what we're discussing regarding the eroded steel, then go back to my other post and read the threads.

I told you I was going to read your links. You haven't exactly given me much time, have you?

[ergo]

If you are not a "materials scientist", how can you make the assertion that the two forms of steel aren't comparable?

That's why I'm asking you to show their comparability in composition and response. If you understand this, surely you can explain it.

[twinstead]

Why is it that truthers like to bog down this debate to meaningless minutiae?

[ergo]

Hey, I wasn't the one to bring up "rust". :)

[uke2se]

That's why I'm asking you to show their comparability in composition and response. If you understand this, surely you can explain it.

I understand it:

Steel used in construction can corrode, because it is subject to the laws of physics.

Steel used in charcoal grills can corrode, because it is subject to the laws of physics.

Mankind has never been able to invent a substance that isn't subject to the laws of physics.

Are you with me thus far?

[ergo]

I understand it:

Steel used in construction can corrode, because it is subject to the laws of physics.

Steel used in charcoal grills can corrode, because it is subject to the laws of physics.

....

Are you with me thus far?

A little lacking in detail. I guess I could have come up with something similarly vague. Which laws of physics are you referring to?

[uke2se]

A little lacking in detail. I guess I could have come up with something similarly vague. Which laws of physics are you referring to?

Laws concerning the behaviour of nuclear particles. Would you agree that steel can corrode?

[Jono]

A little lacking in detail. I guess I could have come up with something similarly vague. Which laws of physics are you referring to?

Ergo, are you serioulsy arguing that steel can not be subjected to erosion/corrosion by high temperatures? If so, it would come as a shock to a department of one of Sweden's most prestigeous technology universities (Chalmers University of Technology): The High Temperature Corrosion Center (http://www.htc.chalmers.se/).

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2aqua/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6236800#post6236800)
"Unexpected" or "out of the ordinary" does not equal "suspicious".


Yes, it does.

No it does not. A few months back the local school district started a major refurbishment of the high school athletic fields across the street from my home. There was no prior warning (not even a flyer with start and completion dates). They had never in the 30+ years that my family has lived here done this before. It was both unexpected and out of the ordinary yet in no way was it suspicious.

I told you I was going to read your links. You haven't exactly given me much time, have you?

If you are spending time responding on an internet forum after you're given the links then obviously either you've read the links or you don't think them important enough to read in the first place before commenting on them. You set the time scale, not ElMondo.

[BigAl]

Well, one of the links you provided yourself talks about the "unexpected erosion" of the steel,

http://www.buehler-asia.com/brochure/apps_support_literature_wtc.pdf

and they did write a paper on it, presumably to explain what would be unexpected by engineers and the science community. So, that might indicate that the swiss cheese steel is somewhat out of the ordinary.


It's Freshman chemistry. Pick up a textbook.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, it does.



I told you I was going to read your links. You haven't exactly given me much time, have you?

No it does not. A few months back the local school district started a major refurbishment of the high school athletic fields across the street from my home. There was no prior warning (not even a flyer with start and completion dates). They had never in the 30+ years that my family has lived here done this before. It was both unexpected and out of the ordinary yet in no way was it suspicious.



If you are spending time responding on an internet forum after you're given the links then obviously either you've read the links or you don't think them important enough to read in the first place before commenting on them. You set the time scale, not ElMondo.

What Sam said. You are absolutely wrong in conflating "interesting" with "suspicious". There is no basis for mistaking one for the other. On top of that, your time is probably better spent reading those links I gave you than making inane replies. Once you read up, then you can make substantive replies, something you haven't done yet.

Furthermore, one thing you've been ignoring this entire time was my own question to you: What is your evidence for why the eroded steel should be taken suspiciously? Don't make an excuse about time or links or divert into minituae; you are the one who honed in on that, you are the one who should've had the argument ready. So give it. Why is the erosion suspicious?

[BigAl]

A little lacking in detail. I guess I could have come up with something similarly vague. Which laws of physics are you referring to?

I call troll.

[tsig]

A little lacking in detail. I guess I could have come up with something similarly vague. Which laws of physics are you referring to?

There's more than one set?

[bill smith]

I call troll.

How come you jrefer's will never define a troll ? I have asked many times and have never gotton an answer. My abiding impression is that it is something you are all deadly scared of. That's why you call 'Troll' like other people might say 'Shark'.

[twinstead]

How come you jrefer's will never define a troll ? I have asked many times and have never gotton an answer. My abiding impression is that it is something you are all deadly scared of. That's why you call 'Troll' like other people might say 'Shark'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[bill smith]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

So no problem then...

[ergo]

No it does not. A few months back the local school district started a major refurbishment of the high school athletic fields across the street from my home. There was no prior warning (not even a flyer with start and completion dates). They had never in the 30+ years that my family has lived here done this before. It was both unexpected and out of the ordinary yet in no way was it suspicious.

Wow. Is this how JREFers make their arguments? Lol.

[T.A.M.]

How come you jrefer's will never define a troll ? I have asked many times and have never gotton an answer. My abiding impression is that it is something you are all deadly scared of. That's why you call 'Troll' like other people might say 'Shark'.

here is a troll bs:

a person who enters a discussion and baits other people with inflammatory or antagonistic comments not because they have a legitimate interest in the discussion, but because they wish to annoy or get a rise out of the people on the other side of the "table".

DOES THAT CLARIFY IT FOR YOU????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

TAM:)

Edit: and no, we do not yell "troll" like others would yell "shark". We yell "troll" like others would yell "annoying ********".

[T.A.M.]

Wow. Is this how JREFers make their arguments? Lol.

well how many posts do you have in this thread alone without making a point, or adding in anyway constructively to the discussion?

You are behaving like a troll...why?

TAM:)

[ergo]

I'm just asking questions to hopefully get some of you to clarify your vague assertions.

[T.A.M.]

I'm just asking questions to hopefully get some of you to clarify your vague assertions.

uh huh...ok.

TAM:rolleyes:

[TexasJack]

Wow. Is this how JREFers make their arguments? Lol.

I haven't seen one from you yet, do you ever plan on making one?

P.S. you are a "JREFer" too.

[ergo]

I haven't seen one from you yet, do you ever plan on making one?

Kind of waiting til my favourite topic comes up... :)

P.S. you are a "JREFer" too.

Good point. :o

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm just asking questions to hopefully get some of you to clarify your vague assertions.

Speaking of vague assertions: What is your evidence for why the eroded steel should be taken suspiciously?

[ergo]

I don't recall making this statement. But I'll answer your question: if we are counting on structural steel to hold up our buildings, and it behaves in this fashion supposedly merely from fire, then all our assumptions about highrise construction would need to be reassessed. I also note the lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires.

[uke2se]

I don't recall making this statement. But I'll answer your question: if we are counting on structural steel to hold up our buildings, and it behaves in this fashion supposedly merely from fire, then all our assumptions about highrise construction would need to be reassessed.

You mean, kind of like what has happened with building codes after the NIST report?


I also note the lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires.

What is so special about the steel that goes into highrises? You never got around to clarify that.

[triforcharity]

Um, you're comparing two plane crashes to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


No, not at all. You're just as bad as Erik Liar. I did not compare the two at all. In fact, I said THEY HAVE US BEAT.

Reading for comprehension elludes you, doesn't it?


Yet, here, you say:



Which is the same illogic that NIST used. In other words "we don't test for things that aren't there".

But we won't find things that "aren't there" if we don't we look for them, will we?

Again, taken out of context. I was referring to crime scene evidence, of which there were none in 7WTC's debris. As you know, there was no crime comitted there.

If anyone there would have suspected that any kind of explosives were used, and saw any other kind of evidence of explosives, they would have looked more extensively for them. But, given the fact that there were dozens of bomb sniffing dogs all over the pile, and none alerted to evidence of an explosive, it is a moot point.


Are we looking for the guy who left the bathtub running in New Orleans?

No, as there was no evidence that someone left the water running, and a BUNCH of evidence of a hurricane coming through.

[ergo]

What is so special about the steel that goes into highrises? You never got around to clarify that.

Are you suggesting it's the same kind of steel that barbecue grills are made of?

[uke2se]

Are you suggesting it's the same kind of steel that barbecue grills are made of?

I'm suggesting that steel is steel and that steel corrodes. Are you suggesting that steel does not corrode?

[ergo]

I am guessing that steel doesn't corrode from fire.

[uke2se]

I am guessing that steel doesn't corrode from fire.

You guess wrong. Again, look up high temperature corrosion.

[triforcharity]

I don't recall making this statement. But I'll answer your question: if we are counting on structural steel to hold up our buildings, and it behaves in this fashion supposedly merely from fire, then all our assumptions about highrise construction would need to be reassessed. I also note the lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires.

Do you know of other fires that caused the global collapse of a highrise building, that sat smoldering for days, if not weeks?

If you do, post it in the other thread. This is primarily about NFPA 921.

[triforcharity]

Bill,

I didn't see you ever getting around to providing any kind of refutation of NFPA 921 guidelines.

Care to take a stab?

[thecritta]

Speaking of vague assertions: What is your evidence for why the eroded steel should be taken suspiciously?

How do we know that a chemical wasnt placed strategically in those
buildings to create a high temperature corrosion attack on the steel
to make the buildings collpase?

[Disbelief]

I don't recall making this statement. But I'll answer your question: if we are counting on structural steel to hold up our buildings, and it behaves in this fashion supposedly merely from fire, then all our assumptions about highrise construction would need to be reassessed. I also note the lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires.

I am sure you have been asked this heere before, but why is steel fireproofed then? If structural steel is not susceptible to fire, why would anyone pay the extra money to fireproof a building?

[ozeco41]

No, not at all. You're just as bad as Erik Liar. I did not compare the two at all. In fact, I said THEY HAVE US BEAT.

Reading for comprehension elludes you, doesn't it?



Again, taken out of context. I was referring to crime scene evidence, of which there were none in 7WTC's debris. As you know, there was no crime comitted there.

If anyone there would have suspected that any kind of explosives were used, and saw any other kind of evidence of explosives, they would have looked more extensively for them. But, given the fact that there were dozens of bomb sniffing dogs all over the pile, and none alerted to evidence of an explosive, it is a moot point....

That is the core point about all the claims related to evidence and testing for explosives and adherence to claimed codes for investigation. They only apply to situations where there is a prima facie reason to explore those aspects. If there had been reasons to suspect demolition or arson or other criminal human activity which was causal in the WTC building collapses then those additional tests would be appropriate.

And you don't go chasing that which isn't there and irrelevant just to satisfy conspiracy theorists post hoc claims which will shift ad infinitum no matter how far you investigate to satisfy them. The truthers goalposts are never fixed.

The only thing the truthers have going for them on claims for WTC demolition is a slight and superficial resemblance of the collapses to the collapse which can be caused by controlled demolition / implosion.

Note I said "slight and superficial" because that is all it is. We have bent over backwards to respond to truther rubbish and have seen so much of it that we tend to think that there was more resemblance to CD than there really was.

All the collapses - WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 - fell by mechanisms which would be exceedingly difficult to achieve by CD and that alone argues strongly against demolition. That is stand alone from (1) the total lack of evidence for demolition; AND (2) the logistic/security impossibility of achieving CD wothout getting caught.

(Given a spare WTC1 or WTC2 and the necessary resources I think I could mimic the collapse using demolition techniques alone. Couldn't do it with fires raging. And even so that claim is based on 100% hindsight of how the towers did collapse. ;) Just about anyone with demolition experience should be able to collapse a WTC1 or 2 tower BUT not by the way it actually happened. I haven't tried to work out a demolition mechanism to mimic the collapse of WTC7.)

[ergo]

I am sure you have been asked this heere before, but why is steel fireproofed then? If structural steel is not susceptible to fire, why would anyone pay the extra money to fireproof a building?

Because steel can lose strength when heated to a certain temperature.

[triforcharity]

How do we know that a chemical wasnt placed strategically in those
buildings to create a high temperature corrosion attack on the steel
to make the buildings collpase?

Because the HTC that is shown on there takes an extended period of time. More than 7 hours.

[triforcharity]

And what temperature might that be there ergo?

[Myriad]

How do we know that a chemical wasnt placed strategically in those
buildings to create a high temperature corrosion attack on the steel
to make the buildings collpase?


Jet fuel is a chemical.

We therefore know for absolute certain that a chemical was placed in those buildings (tactically, if not strategically) and that it did make them collapse as well as ultimately cause (as a minor side effect) corrosion of some of the steel.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ergo]

I believe we're talking about WTC7, which did not suffer any airplane collision. Therefore, no fuel.

[Justin39640]

Well, actually, the material in a charcoal grill is not construction-grade steel. So that would be my first objection. And structural steel is not exposed to the elements or repeated heating the way a charcoal grill is. That would be my second objection. There are more, of course, but these are the two obvious ones.

A charcoal grill maxes out at about 700 degrees F.
Buy a brand new one and sustain an 1800 degree (F) fire in it for an hour or two and see what happens.

Better?

[Justin39640]

I believe we're talking about WTC7, which did not suffer any airplane collision. Therefore, no fuel.

A 110 story building collapsed next door. Many buildings caught fire in the general area besides 7. No jets hit them directly either. That mean they didn't use enough thermite in those structures?

[ergo]

A charcoal grill maxes out at about 700 degrees F.
Buy a brand new one and sustain an 1800 degree (F) fire in it for an hour or two and see what happens.



Did the fires in the WTC reach 1800 deg F?

[RedIbis]

Jet fuel is a chemical.

We therefore know for absolute certain that a chemical was placed in those buildings (tactically, if not strategically) and that it did make them collapse as well as ultimately cause (as a minor side effect) corrosion of some of the steel.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You think the jet fuel caused the corrosion of the steel?

[dafydd]

How do we know that a chemical wasnt placed strategically in those
buildings to create a high temperature corrosion attack on the steel
to make the buildings collpase?

Because it wasn't.That's how we know.Simple really.

[leftysergeant]

How do we know that a chemical wasnt placed strategically in those
buildings to create a high temperature corrosion attack on the steel
to make the buildings collpase?The acid bath method is a little too spotty to porduce predictable failure timing.

And it takes too long.

[fess]

I believe we're talking about WTC7, which did not suffer any airplane collision. Therefore, no fuel.
There was no fuel stored in WTC7? What were those storage tanks for?

[triforcharity]

Did the fires in the WTC reach 1800 deg F?

Absolutely. Hydrocarbon fires do that regularly.

[ozeco41]

I am sure you have been asked this heere before, but why is steel fireproofed then? If structural steel is not susceptible to fire, why would anyone pay the extra money to fireproof a building?

Structural steel is probably the material most susceptible to fire of commonly used building materials.

Historically stone and timber were preferred materials and both are more fire resistant than steel. The purpose of "fire proofing" is to slow down but not prevent heating. The idea being to give time for firefighters and possible sprinkler systems to control/extinguish the blaze. Hence the problems with WTC1, 2 & 7 - the sprinklers were disabled and fire fighters could not fight the fires.

One example which stays in my memory because I have been there is the cathedral church in Coventry, England. It was destroyed by incendiary bombing on 14 November 1940. Originally built late C14 early C15 it was a very large church and had a timber framed roof. The roof structure was reinforced by steel members at some time because the timber was deteriorating. However when hit by incendiary bombing the intense fire softened the steel. There is some thought that if the steel reinforcing had not been used the timber, and therefore the structure of the Cathedral, may have survived. However the weight of the steel once softened had no strength and overloaded whatever strength remained in the timber. None of that conjecture is in the Wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Cathedral.

[ergo]

Oh, I guess Thomas Eagar is wrong. Well, we knew that already.

So a barbecue grill will suffer some damage, apparently, in a 1 to 2-hour, 1800 deg F fire. What will structural steel do? Will it become like swiss cheese? Is this evidenced by other building fires?

[Grizzly Bear]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/steel%20beams%20hang%20off%20charred%20wood/xu-an/woodbeam_fire_bentsteel.jpg

Ergo's not literate in structural engineering or architecture. Stop responding to his nonsense people. It's not worth the time, or the derail

[ergo]

Maybe I'm not. Are you, Grizzly Bear?

I don't see swiss cheese steel in that picture. Could you point it out for me?

[A W Smith]

http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/mechanical/articles/49940.aspx

[thecritta]

Because the HTC that is shown on there takes an extended period of time. More than 7 hours.

So then it must have occured whilst it was on the pile then not
while either of the buildings was on fire.

[Sabretooth]

I don't recall making this statement. But I'll answer your question: if we are counting on structural steel to hold up our buildings, and it behaves in this fashion supposedly merely from fire, then all our assumptions about highrise construction would need to be reassessed. I also note the lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires.

So the fact that building codes require fireproofing material to be affixed to structural beams hasn't caught your attention yet?

Sorry didn't see that Disbelief asked this first.

[Sam.I.Am]

Wow. Is this how JREFers make their arguments? Lol.

No. That's how one shows that a blanket statement is wrong. You made a 4 word blanket statement. I showed you, in the simplest possible way, that you were wrong. Your response was a LOL. Great counter argument there sparky.

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't recall making this statement. But I'll answer your question: if we are counting on structural steel to hold up our buildings, and it behaves in this fashion supposedly merely from fire, then all our assumptions about highrise construction would need to be reassessed. I also note the lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires.
Which highrise fires have you studied that lead you to state that there's a "lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires"? No, I'm not asking you to ask me what I know about this, I'm asking what you know and have studied.
The erosion is believed to have been caused in the rubble piles well after the collapse, not in the towers prior to collapse. This is supported by those studies I linked.
The erosion is not believed to have occurred strictly due to the fires, but also due to chemical reactions occuring in the rubble pile, reactions due to species being released/generated by those same fires.
You need to stop comparing the WTC steel - which laid in a pile subject to fire and chemical stews for months - to "highrise fires" which never last anywhere near that long. The proper comparison is to other steel structures that are not only subject to high temperatures for weeks to months at a time, but also are subject to chemical attack by corrosive species such as chorines and sulfurs. In those cases - such as boilers and other steel structures for coal burning power plants - sulfidation erosion is noted:

High temperature corrosion of coatings and boiler steels in reducing chlorine-containing atmosphere (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVV-473F2MV-V&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F02%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1407882551&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c43586dc6977f56b6563748a362990c5), Surface and Coatings Technology, Volume 161, Issues 2-3.
D. O. Albina et al. “Effects of Feed Composition on Boiler Corrosion in Waste-to-Energy Plants.” 12th North American Waste to Energy Conference (NAWTEC 12), 2004.
Sulfidation, down-time corrosion and corrosion-assisted cracking on high alloy materials in synthetic coal gasifier environments W. M. M. Huijbregts, E. Kokmeijer and H. G. van Zuilen, Materials for Coal Gasification Power Plant, International Workshop Petten, 14-16 june 1993. (paper 41)

And again, the Worchester group did indeed study the steel (I linked those papers earlier), and yes, it was in order to reasses the performance of steel in fires and see if they could gain new knowledge from it. The question is, why are you casting about on the topic? We have already given you links about it. You're choosing to post here instead of read and learn about what's known.

[ergo]

You made a 4 word blanket statement.

Yes, it does.

Did you mean "forward"? :)

And yes, in science, you do have to investigate, or at least acknowledge, what does not fit your expectations or precedents.

Note that "suspicious" was ElMundo's word. I never used it. "Abnormal", "unusual", "unexpected" is good enough for me.

[ergo]

Which highrise fires have you studied that lead you to state that there's a "lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires"? No, I'm not asking you to ask me what I know about this, I'm asking what you know and have studied.

I have searched the 'net far and wide for pictures of swiss cheesed steel, and alas, have found none, outside WTC7.

You need to stop comparing the WTC steel - which laid in a pile subject to fire and chemical stews for months - to "highrise fires" which never last anywhere near that long. The proper comparison is to other steel structures that are not only subject to high temperatures for weeks to months at a time, but also are subject to chemical attack by corrosive species such as chorines and sulfurs. In those cases - such as boilers and other steel structures for coal burning power plants - sulfidation erosion is noted:


This is interesting that you note this. A lot of NISTers dispute the fact that the rubble pile smoldered for weeks afterward. What caused the rubble piles to remain so hot, even after rains?

[Myriad]

You think the jet fuel caused the corrosion of the steel?


Yes. Did I not explain clearly? The jet fuel caused the fire which caused the collapse which caused an extended smoldering debris fire which exposed some of the steel to a hot oxidizing chemical environment for extended periods of time which caused the corrosion.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ergo]

Cool. That's like me causing the Pope to sneeze every morning. The "butterfly" effect, right?

[ElMondoHummus]

Note that "suspicious" was ElMundo's word. I never used it. "Abnormal", "unusual", "unexpected" is good enough for me.

Did Jammonius get banned and sockpuppet or something? He's the only one who's ever called me ElMundo.

Also: You are the one who latched onto Leftysergeant's note that the eroded steel was not indicative of thermite. You seriously trying to make fly the argument that you're wondering about a well studied phenomenon (see previous links) for the sake of building safety? Here, in the middle of a forum dedicated to discussing conspiracy fantasies? You, the same guy citing trutherism and truther heros Chandler and Ross in a different thread?

No. You got caught setting the state for the thermite argument. Just like every other truther sock that comes around. We're done here; there's nothing further you can contribute.

[WildCat]

Sure. How does structural steel rust?
Oxidation...

[ergo]

No. You got caught setting the state for the thermite argument. Just like every other truther sock that comes around. We're done here; there's nothing further you can contribute.

I tend not to argue the thermite hypothesis on the 'net. I don't have enough knowledge about it. I enjoy instead examining the NISTers' arguments.

[Garb]

Right. Rust AND fire. Which brings us back to our charcoal grill analogy.

What is the difference between the chemical properties of structural steel and the steel used in a charcoal grill?

[ergo]

I don't know. That's what I was asking uke2se. How much steel is even in a barbecue grill, who cares, and do you really have no other material comparisons?

[T.A.M.]

I tend not to argue the thermite hypothesis on the 'net. I don't have enough knowledge about it. I enjoy instead examining the NISTers' arguments.

interesting choice of words...

just admit you are a sock puppet.

TAM:)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I don't know. That's what I was asking uke2se. How much steel is even in a barbecue grill, who cares, and do you really have no other material comparisons?

I've got a question, how much rust is on your car right now? Wait, that's not rust, it's "thermite"!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Bill,

How do you come to that conclusion? Care to back up Eric Lawyer with anything relevent? Or do you normally just pull stuff our of your underwear for fun....

You cannot refute anything that has been said in regards to NFPA 921. Nothing.

I urge you to try.

Eric Lawyer is a liar. Proof positive.

Bill didn't read your post. He doesn't ready any debunking posts. He just renders negative opinions and then moves on like an automated script.

[bill smith]

Bill,

I didn't see you ever getting around to providing any kind of refutation of NFPA 921 guidelines.

Care to take a stab?

Well now that's a long story Tri. No,I am not very interested in the NEPA guidelines at this time.

But the thread title says nothing about the NEPA guidelines. The thread title as you penned it is a direct attack on Erik Lawyer and Firefighters for 9/1 Truth.

Your title and the OP:
'' Debunking Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth''

[leftysergeant]

I don't know. That's what I was asking uke2se. How much steel is even in a barbecue grill, who cares, and do you really have no other material comparisons?Your barbeque is exposed to the same conditions, (except that there should be no aqueous solution of sulphuric acid in your charcol) as was the steel in the debris pile, although for a shorter period.

[Oystein]

I'm just asking questions to hopefully get some of you to clarify your vague assertions.

We call that behaviour "JAQing off", and don't like it much.

You made an assertion and never backed it with any argument. You should have done that without being asked any question, and without asking questions.

The OP stands on its own merit.

You derailed the thread, and it is firmly off-topic since you entered. However, some members were so kind as to supply you with firm, scientific information. So much for "vage assertions".

[Oystein]

I believe we're talking about WTC7, which did not suffer any airplane collision. Therefore, no fuel.

If we are talking about a couple of pieces of swiss cheese corroded steel, then I think we are not talking about WTC7

[Oystein]

Did the fires in the WTC reach 1800 deg F?

Yes, locally.

[Oystein]

So then it must have occured whilst it was on the pile then not
while either of the buildings was on fire.

Exactly.

[Oystein]

I have searched the 'net far and wide for pictures of swiss cheesed steel, and alas, have found none, outside WTC7.

You didn't read any of the papers recommended to you, did you?


This is interesting that you note this. A lot of NISTers dispute the fact that the rubble pile smoldered for weeks afterward. What caused the rubble piles to remain so hot, even after rains?

Like who? Got any name or reference?

[Oystein]

Did Jammonius get banned and sockpuppet or something? He's the only one who's ever called me ElMundo. ...

What the..??? :jaw-dropp Print out an average ergo-post, an average jammo-post, pin them to a wall, and look at them from a distance of, say 50 feet. It should be easy to tell the difference even from that far away!

[ozeco41]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/steel%20beams%20hang%20off%20charred%20wood/xu-an/woodbeam_fire_bentsteel.jpg

Ergo's not literate in structural engineering or architecture. Stop responding to his nonsense people. It's not worth the time, or the derail

Someone has to feed the trolls - and their nonsense - all the real debate is well and truly over.

[Jono]

I don't recall making this statement. But I'll answer your question: if we are counting on structural steel to hold up our buildings, and it behaves in this fashion supposedly merely from fire, then all our assumptions about highrise construction would need to be reassessed. I also note the lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires.

You're wedging around. Make a specific claim or ask a specific question. You seem to be 'dancing' around a statement that steel can not suffer acute corrosion from high temperatures. If you had followed the link you'd know that statement to be wrong. If you are not making any such statment, then why do you insist on wedging at it?

The principles as well as codes for high-rise construction were notably re-evaluated after the 9/11 incident, and this has been noted elsewhere on this forum alone, many many times.

Furthermore, the steel doesn't change simply because it is put in a high-rise building. I.e, the physical reality of steel being affected by oxidation doesn't chance in principle just by being put into high-rise buildings. And what "way" are you referring to?
As a somewhat related curiosa, here's a picture (http://www.burnsstainless.com/images/technology/intergranular_corrosion-lg.jpg) of intergranular corrosion of a race car's header-tube. And this is from 'only' from exhaust temperatures. Yes, it's stainless steel, but then again s-steel conducts less heat. To circumvent this from happning, they add titaninum to the mix, for turbo applications et al.

[Disbelief]

I tend not to argue the thermite hypothesis on the 'net. I don't have enough knowledge about it. I enjoy instead examining the NISTers' arguments.

Yes, we see that you are a "no-claimer." Of course, most had you pegged early, since we have had the same discussions with you before.

[triforcharity]

I have searched the 'net far and wide for pictures of swiss cheesed steel, and alas, have found none, outside WTC7.



This is interesting that you note this. A lot of NISTers dispute the fact that the rubble pile smoldered for weeks afterward. What caused the rubble piles to remain so hot, even after rains?

W.P.I, a HIGHLY respected school, did the studies. ElMondo (IIRC) posted links to their studies. I take their word that it was not abnormal considering the circumstances.

Why could FDNY put of the fires? Couldn't get enough of the wet stuff on the hot stuff.

See here.

http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/

Someon even invented a tool to assist in doing so.

[triforcharity]

Well now that's a long story Tri. No,I am not very interested in the NEPA guidelines at this time.

But the thread title says nothing about the NEPA guidelines. The thread title as you penned it is a direct attack on Erik Lawyer and Firefighters for 9/1 Truth.

Your title and the OP:
'' Debunking Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth''

So, you can't refute it. Thank you.

Don't spout off any more FF911T anymore, as we know that pretty much ever single thing that comes from that idiot is either a lie, or is taken out of context, or quotemined and cherry picked.

[leftysergeant]

Couldn't get enough of the wet stuff on the hot stuff.

Ironicly, some of the water poured onto the pile may have actually added, among other things, elemental hydrogen to the mix.

Steam passing over hot iron produces rapid rusting of the steel and the realease of hydrogen.

Very useful fuel, hydrogen is.

[Horatius]

This is interesting that you note this. A lot of NISTers dispute the fact that the rubble pile smoldered for weeks afterward. What caused the rubble piles to remain so hot, even after rains?



I call shenanigans on this. Show me any "NISTers" who dispute the fact that the rubble pile smoldered for weeks afterwards.


What we dispute is that is did so because of "thermite" or some such nonsense.

[ElMondoHummus]

W.P.I, a HIGHLY respected school, did the studies. ElMondo (IIRC) posted links to their studies. I take their word that it was not abnormal considering the circumstances.


Actually, it was considered unusual. The WPI researchers come out and say that. That's why they went out of their way to study it. That's also why that eroded steel is mentioned in the NIST report: It's something unique to the Twin Towers event that bears study.

What it is not is a sign that there is something not understood about the fires. It was indeed a mystery at first, but it's now known to be sulfide erosion. The microanalysis of the remains is clear on that point. That's why I'm quick to head off these truthers when they try to bring up the erosions; they're always setting up for a thermite argument, all protestations to the contrary nonwithstanding.


Why could FDNY put of the fires? Couldn't get enough of the wet stuff on the hot stuff.

See here.

http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/

Someon even invented a tool to assist in doing so.

You'd know way better than I would about this, but I was under the impression that a lot of the firefighting actually depended on getting a lot of the rubble out of the way so they could actually spray the fires themselves, instead of the rubble on top of the fires. Was this indeed so?

Just as an aside: I noticed the absolutely erroneous claim that "NISTers" :rolleyes: somehow deny the rubble pile fires. This in the face of thread after thread where we are the ones explaining the existence of it to truthers. Note that this particular truther even stoops to misrepresenting minute points.

I've stuck this fool on ignore. He's probably already on that list under another name anyway.

[triforcharity]

Actually, it was considered unusual. The WPI researchers come out and say that. That's why they went out of their way to study it. That's also why that eroded steel is mentioned in the NIST report: It's something unique to the Twin Towers event that bears study.

What it is not is a sign that there is something not understood about the fires. It was indeed a mystery at first, but it's now known to be sulfide erosion. The microanalysis of the remains is clear on that point. That's why I'm quick to head off these truthers when they try to bring up the erosions; they're always setting up for a thermite argument, all protestations to the contrary nonwithstanding.


Exactly. They would LOVE to claim that thermite would do this. I would absolutely LOVE to any truther to show me thermite that has created this type of erosion.

They won't, as we all know why.


You'd know way better than I would about this, but I was under the impression that a lot of the firefighting actually depended on getting a lot of the rubble out of the way so they could actually spray the fires themselves, instead of the rubble on top of the fires. Was this indeed so?


That is 100% true. FDNY could not get enough of the water to the fire to produce any kind of significant results. My anology is this.

Take a 5 gallon bucket. Place it 25' away. Place a tree right in your way. A big tree, with lots of leaves and brances to obstruct you. Get a garden hose and fill it up.

Takes a little while to do.

This is what FDNY had to contend with. You could put out the fires near the top of the pile, but the fires that were deep inside the pile, you couldn't get any water on, due to the fact that there was tons of debris in the way.

[ElMondoHummus]

That is 100% true. FDNY could not get enough of the water to the fire to produce any kind of significant results. My anology is this.

Take a 5 gallon bucket. Place it 25' away. Place a tree right in your way. A big tree, with lots of leaves and brances to obstruct you. Get a garden hose and fill it up.

Takes a little while to do.

This is what FDNY had to contend with. You could put out the fires near the top of the pile, but the fires that were deep inside the pile, you couldn't get any water on, due to the fact that there was tons of debris in the way.

Well, to simplify the experiment, I'd just locate an already existing tree and move the bucket and hose instead. That'd save me from having to move the tree. ;)

But all joking aside, thanks for the info. That's what I thought the situation was. That's why they simultaneously had removal crews and firefighters on the scene.

[triforcharity]

Well, to simplify the experiment, I'd just locate an already existing tree and move the bucket and hose instead. That'd save me from having to move the tree. ;)

But all joking aside, thanks for the info. That's what I thought the situation was. That's why they simultaneously had removal crews and firefighters on the scene.

Welcome.

An no, the tree has to be moved, as if you moved the bucket or the hose, it would be invalid.....

/truther logic

[Miragememories]

"I ran across this interesting article about one group of guys (& dogs) that pertain to the question of the use of either thermite or explosives on 9/11."

from:
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/0...65985354960506

"Our main function was US&R, live person, (not cadaver search) but all of our dogs are cross trained in several disciplines, including EDD and Incendiary detection."

So the handlers were looking for survivors with dogs that were trained to detect people as well as explosive and incendiaries.

Based on dust evidence of thermite alone, which would have placed thermite residue throughout the whole WTC debris zone, how would such a dog be expected to behave?

The whole idea that dogs will distinguish and communicate with their a handlers a finding of live human scent vs. thermite is absurd.

Especially given the fact that the handlers were not looking for thermite.

MM

[Fonebone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

TROLL wiki
<excerpt>
USAGE ":
..........The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an
opposing position by attacking its proponent.
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives....

[excaza]

How much thermite is required to take down the buildings?

[AJM8125]

TROLL wiki
<excerpt>
USAGE ":
..........The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an
opposing position by attacking its proponent.
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives....

That's a Wiki article, how do you know that wasn't written by a troll?

[BigAl]

So the handlers were looking for survivors with dogs that were trained to detect people as well as explosive and incendiaries.

Based on dust evidence of thermite alone, which would have placed thermite residue throughout the whole WTC debris zone, how would such a dog be expected to behave?



No therm-anything was used at WTC.

[Grizzly Bear]

Someone has to feed the trolls - and their nonsense - all the real debate is well and truly over.
Compared with a few others who actually "believe" what they say this one is posting for posting's sake. There are better ones to have a conversation with, just my .02 anyway, ;)

[Oystein]

So the handlers were looking for survivors with dogs that were trained to detect people as well as explosive and incendiaries.

Based on dust evidence of thermite alone, which would have placed thermite residue throughout the whole WTC debris zone, how would such a dog be expected to behave?

The whole idea that dogs will distinguish and communicate with their a handlers a finding of live human scent vs. thermite is absurd.

Especially given the fact that the handlers were not looking for thermite.

MM

When your cross-trained K9 barks at a sample, and you don't find human remains in it, and you know that the other training is for explosives, that should clue the dog handler that maybe explosives are at hand.
Apparently, this did not happen.
So no explosives. They were looked for (by the dogs) and not found.

Thermite is not an explosive. Since basic Thermite consists of rust and aluminium, two ubiquous substances, it stands to reason that no K9s were trained to identify thermite.
But: Thermite is a non-starter. There exists no theory how thermite could have been employed, and there exists no physical proof that thermite was used (such as blindingly bright light, columns with seriously melted ends, etc.). The amounts of thermite needed to cut one column would be significant, as thermite contains surprisingly little energy. To do it on many columns, the amounts would have to be huge - many tons.
The whole idea of thermite was a fantasy cooked up by proven liars who realized clearly that explosives cannot possibly have brought down any building that day.

[ergo]

You made an assertion and never backed it with any argument.

What was my "assertion" again?

And I do apologize for derailing the thread. Please don't let me interfere any further with your attacks on firefighters.

[Grizzly Bear]

But: Thermite is a non-starter. There exists no theory how thermite could have been employed, and there exists no physical proof that thermite was used (such as blindingly bright light, columns with seriously melted ends, etc.). The amounts of thermite needed to cut one column would be significant, as thermite contains surprisingly little energy. To do it on many columns, the amounts would have to be huge - many tons.
The whole idea of thermite was a fantasy cooked up by proven liars who realized clearly that explosives cannot possibly have brought down any building that day.

Even better than that. No high rise building in history has ever been demolished through the use of therm*te. As truthers believe a building can't collapse due to fire because it's "never happened before in the history of man..." Let's just say in order for the latter to be true, they'd have to also accept the former. ;) The fact that they can't indicates they want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Oystein]

What was my "assertion" again?

A major case of JAQing of. Yeah. May I remind you of several of your unsupported assertions:



Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
"Unexpected" or "out of the ordinary" does not equal "suspicious".

Yes, it does.



Speaking of vague assertions: What is your evidence for why the eroded steel should be taken suspiciously?
I don't recall making this statement. But I'll answer your question: if we are counting on structural steel to hold up our buildings, and it behaves in this fashion supposedly merely from fire, then all our assumptions about highrise construction would need to be reassessed. I also note the lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires.



I am guessing that steel doesn't corrode from fire.



...A lot of NISTers dispute the fact that the rubble pile smoldered for weeks afterward...

I marked your assertions blue. In one case, you claim to not have made statement you did in fact make. In another you are at least honest enough to admit you are merely guessing.

And I do apologize for derailing the thread. Please don't let me interfere any further with your attacks on firefighters.

The only one attacking firefighters is Erik Lawyer.

[triforcharity]

What was my "assertion" again?

And I do apologize for derailing the thread. Please don't let me interfere any further with your attacks on firefighters.
proof of a liar who is a disgrace to the fire department.

FTFY.

[Fonebone]

That's a Wiki article, how do you know that wasn't written by a troll?


Don't know- Twinstead posted the wiki definition.
Are you disagreeing with the definition (wiki)of using the term 'troll '
as a technique to discredit an arguement or poster in lieu of evidence or constructive comment ?

Here is an example of this technique in use:


Big Al > I call troll.

[uke2se]

Don't know- Twinstead posted the wiki definition.
Are you disagreeing with the definition (wiki)of using the term 'troll '
as a technique to discredit an arguement or poster in lieu of evidence or constructive comment ?

Here is an example of this technique in use:

If you twoofers used more evidence in your arguments you wouldn't be called trolls as often.

Just sayin'.

[TexasJack]

No he didn't.

Your credibility, on the other hand, is so low that whatever you post, we can pretty much just assume that the truth is the exact opposite.

I've got him on ignore, but I find it hilarious that anyone can seriously judge someone else's credibility after posting this. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6203606#post6203606)

[Fonebone]

If you twoofers used more evidence in your arguments you wouldn't be called trolls as often.

Just sayin'.

Thank you for the constructive feedback -
I have just made a personal
commitment to redouble my efforts to supply
more evidence. Bic ?

BTW The word is spelled (spelt) TRUTHER

Fonebone is a truther.

[sts60]

... Please don't let me interfere any further with your attacks on firefighters.

Nope. On idiots who happen to be firefighters. As I pointed out in my post on page 2 of this thread, there's a few in every crowd.

I'm a firefighter, and I don't believe the tired "truther" claptrap pushed by that bunch - and neither, as far as I can tell, do most other firefighters. So don't try such an appeal to sympathy; it's a transparent gimmick, and no one is buying it.

[Miragememories]

"No Mirage, he was right. Jowenko made a rather snappy judgement, and stuck to it later for the reason that there were "secret papers" in the WTC7... "
When an expert observe something very familiar to their field of knowledge, it is not unreasonable to expect that to form a quick opinion.

Nowhere does Danny Jowenko say that he formed or maintained his opinion because of some speculation about "secret papers".

OCTers certainly love to tell lies to support their feeble arguments.

MM

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

OCTers certainly love to tell lies to support their feeble arguments.

MM

When you present your evidence of what you claim then, and only then, will you have support. But we know you love to spread lies & paranoia around, it's an illness that's going around & it's called: Retarded!

[Oystein]

When an expert observe something very familiar to their field of knowledge, it is not unreasonable to expect that to form a quick opinion...

When that quick opinion is based on bad (too little, wrong) information, it will likely be wrong.

At the very least, a conclusion based on wrong premises is logically invalid. Regardless of the expertise of the person drawing that conclusion.

However, as has been many times pointed out by several here, and never challenged with facts by you or anyone: Jowenko is NOT - to anyone's knowledge here - an expert about fire science. If you want to make that claim, and you have made that claim many many times, you must present positive evidence. Since you have not done that, we may safely, if tentatively, conclude that you don't know his expertise, and that you know that your claim is baseless.

[dafydd]

When an expert observe something very familiar to their field of knowledge, it is not unreasonable to expect that to form a quick opinion.

Nowhere does Danny Jowenko say that he formed or maintained his opinion because of some speculation about "secret papers".

OCTers certainly love to tell lies to support their feeble arguments.

MM

Lol,the word that describes how feeble 9/11 CTs arguments are has yet to be coined.

[stilicho]

It's Freshman chemistry. Pick up a textbook.

High school chemistry. I have a textbook picked up at a garage sale a couple years ago and it even has experiments to show how it works.

[AJM8125]

Don't know- Twinstead posted the wiki definition.
Are you disagreeing with the definition (wiki)of using the term 'troll '
as a technique to discredit an arguement or poster in lieu of evidence or constructive comment ?

Here is an example of this technique in use:

No, I'm just saying you haven't cherry-picked enough of the wiki article to support your position. ;)

[beachnut]

Sure. How does structural steel rust?
http://www.exponent.com/paint_failures_on_structural_steel_due_to_corrosio n/

Welcome.

Ah yes, I see it now. But now I'm really flummoxed. Why hasn't my charcoal grill self-pulverized from the force of gravity yet??
You have not waited long enough. Your grill will collapse; gravity. Got physics?

What do you have to contribute besides easy questions your mom can answer?

... : if we are counting on structural steel to hold up our buildings, and it behaves in this fashion supposedly merely from fire, then all our assumptions about highrise construction would need to be reassessed. I also note the lack of evidence of steel appearing this way after other highrise fires.

You are not a structural engineer. Steel is not used because it is fireproof; steel's strength is destroyed quickly by fire. Fact. You bring your own failed opinions based on ignorance and lack of experience.

Do you know anything about steel? This should be common knowledge; why don't you know it?
Though steel is less flammable than wood and doesn't contribute fuel to a fire, it still performs poorly in fires. Any urban firefighter can tell you that when steel gets hot it expands and twists, which often causes the roof system to fail and fall down - endangering the lives of firefighters and people trying to escape from the building.

Steel has to be insulated to survive long enough for people to escape a steel building on fire. Many high-rise buildings were totaled by fire, never to be used again.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
The firemen left the building because it could collapse.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg
Why do we use steel? Guess you are not an engineer I can ask. Do you answer any questions?

[Tricky]

Stay on topic and don't import arguments from other threads.

[BigAl]

When an expert observe something very familiar to their field of knowledge, it is not unreasonable to expect that to form a quick opinion.


WTC7 was an unfought fire, you can't tell that from
the video tapes. You'd never hear that fact from Richard Gage.

Unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

WTC7 was an unfought fire, you can't tell that from
the video tapes. You'd never hear that fact from Richard Gage.

Unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse.

And the fact is that Gage has over 20 years in fire prevention in high rise buildings & he completely dismisses his 20 years of service for a bunch of retarded conspiracy theories for money. Well atleast he knows who the suckers are, isn't that right Truthers?

[Miragememories]

When that quick opinion is based on bad (too little, wrong) information, it will likely be wrong.

At the very least, a conclusion based on wrong premises is logically invalid. Regardless of the expertise of the person drawing that conclusion.

However, as has been many times pointed out by several here, and never challenged with facts by you or anyone: Jowenko is NOT - to anyone's knowledge here - an expert about fire science. If you want to make that claim, and you have made that claim many many times, you must present positive evidence. Since you have not done that, we may safely, if tentatively, conclude that you don't know his expertise, and that you know that your claim is baseless.

I liken it to observing a large mushroom cloud at an atomic test site and instantly recognizing the shape for what it is.

You know you are seeing an explosion and you are asked to opine as to what caused it. An atomic test has a very clear visual signature, as does a controlled demolition.

In spite of my repeated requests, no one here has yet to offer one example of a total building implosion, solely caused by fire.

And yes, Oystein, I agree, a "quick opinion [i] is based on bad (too little, wrong) information, it will likely be wrong."

A huge 47-story building cannot be made to totally implode easily.

Maybe, Jowenko doesn't have much expertise about fire science. I don't claim to know.

But he does have a professional interest in knowing the most economical methods of creating a controlled demolition.

It would seem like an awfully late hour for controlled demolition experts worldwide to discover that they could achieve similar results as produced by cheap, random office furnishings fires.

And on a record high building no less.

If you read the descriptions that Mark Loiseaux of CDI gives regarding the required detailed planning for much smaller collapses, it baffles the mind that the biggest collapse ever, (excluding WTC 1 & 2), supposedly just happened due to amazing random coincidence.

Your lack of incredulity is even more amazing.

MM

[BigAl]

I liken it to observing a large mushroom cloud at an atomic test site and instantly recognizing the shape for what it is.

You know you are seeing an explosion and you are asked to opine as to what caused it. An atomic test has a very clear visual signature, as does a controlled demolition.



You forgot to mention the blast made by an atomic bomb and a demolition explosion.

There was no demolition blast at WTC.




In spite of my repeated requests, no one here has yet to offer one example of a total building implosion, solely caused by fire.


Find us an all-steel building on fire with no water for sprinklers or firefighting. That was WTC7 on 9/11.
[/QUOTE]

[Sam.I.Am]

I liken it to observing a large mushroom cloud at an atomic test site and instantly recognizing the shape for what it is.

http://a.imageshack.us/img46/8933/230pxblowingsmoke607757.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img838/5484/230pxmtredoubtedit16124.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img709/4230/jakesmushroomcloud63339.jpg

Not a nuclear weapon in sight...

Looks like != is.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I liken it to observing a large mushroom cloud at an atomic test site and instantly recognizing the shape for what it is.

You know you are seeing an explosion and you are asked to opine as to what caused it. An atomic test has a very clear visual signature, as does a controlled demolition.

In spite of my repeated requests, no one here has yet to offer one example of a total building implosion, solely caused by fire.

And yes, Oystein, I agree, a "quick opinion [i] is based on bad (too little, wrong) information, it will likely be wrong."

A huge 47-story building cannot be made to totally implode easily.

Maybe, Jowenko doesn't have much expertise about fire science. I don't claim to know.

But he does have a professional interest in knowing the most economical methods of creating a controlled demolition.

It would seem like an awfully late hour for controlled demolition experts worldwide to discover that they could achieve similar results as produced by cheap, random office furnishings fires.

And on a record high building no less.

If you read the descriptions that Mark Loiseaux of CDI gives regarding the required detailed planning for much smaller collapses, it baffles the mind that the biggest collapse ever, (excluding WTC 1 & 2), supposedly just happened due to amazing random coincidence.

Your lack of incredulity is even more amazing.

MM

Comparing atomic blasts with those of demolition blasts. Pathetic!

What about that great comparison of a pyroclastic flow from a volcano & that of the dust from the collapse of the WTCs'? Pathetic!

[Newtons Bit]

To address the OP

Much of the documents produced by NFPA have been adopted by various building codes (such as the International Building Code) which have in turn been adopted into law by various local jurisdictions. It is a respected institution. NFPA 921 has not been adopted, as far as I can tell, by any building code.

However it is a guide for investigators to investigate fires. But I'm going to go ahead and assume that the Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't need an outside guide to hold their hand in fire investigations. They probably know what they're doing.

And wasting resources that could be used to track down the terrorists or assist in life-saving operations would be down right criminal given that the cause of the fire and the collapse was caught on camera by multiple people and visually seen by thousands of people.

[Miragememories]

You forgot to mention the blast made by an atomic bomb and a demolition explosion.

There was no demolition blast at WTC.



Find us an all-steel building on fire with no water for sprinklers or firefighting. That was WTC7 on 9/11.


I would reply BigAl but you are off topic and the moderator has sent out a warning.

I intend to comply even if you don't.

MM

[leftysergeant]

I would reply BigAl but you are off topic and the moderator has sent out a warning.

You are being asked to respond to contradictory evidence. Unfought fires in steel buildings leads to the collapse of steel components.

There was no way to get water to the top of the Windsor Tower. The steel elements collapsed. There you have it, a sound scientific principle demonstrated in the best available example.

[leftysergeant]

What was my "assertion" again?

And I do apologize for derailing the thread. Please don't let me interfere any further with your attacks on firefighters.
Fire fighters are perfectly at liberty to throw shoes at those of their colleagues who express such momumental stupidity and possible mental defects as does Lawyer. They put our lives in danger and may be aiding and abetting terrorist groups.

[BigAl]

I would reply BigAl but you are off topic and the moderator has sent out a warning.

I intend to comply even if you don't.

MM

Showing that your line of argument is stupid, wrong, irrelevant, or premised on fiction or all four is never off-topic.

[triforcharity]

I liken it to observing a large mushroom cloud at an atomic test site and instantly recognizing the shape for what it is.

You know you are seeing an explosion and you are asked to opine as to what caused it. An atomic test has a very clear visual signature, as does a controlled demolition.

In spite of my repeated requests, no one here has yet to offer one example of a total building implosion, solely caused by fire.

And yes, Oystein, I agree, a "quick opinion [i] is based on bad (too little, wrong) information, it will likely be wrong."

A huge 47-story building cannot be made to totally implode easily.

Maybe, Jowenko doesn't have much expertise about fire science. I don't claim to know.

But he does have a professional interest in knowing the most economical methods of creating a controlled demolition.

It would seem like an awfully late hour for controlled demolition experts worldwide to discover that they could achieve similar results as produced by cheap, random office furnishings fires.

And on a record high building no less.

If you read the descriptions that Mark Loiseaux of CDI gives regarding the required detailed planning for much smaller collapses, it baffles the mind that the biggest collapse ever, (excluding WTC 1 & 2), supposedly just happened due to amazing random coincidence.

Your lack of incredulity is even more amazing.

MM

How about the Windsor Towers which suffered a GLOBAL collapse of ALL of the STEEL structure from FIRE alone.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

How about the Sight and Sound Theature in PA, which suffered a COMPLETE collapse of the roof, which was steel, only by fire.
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

Both suffere complete collapse of the steel structure of the building.

The problem with using fire as a method of CD, is that the results would be very unpredictable. VERY. Humidity, time, wind speed and direction could all change how a buildng fire progresses and acts. This wouldpose a HUGE problem with using fire as a CD method.

[leftysergeant]

McCormick Place, with a far smaller loading of Class A fuels, was totally destroyed when fire caused its steel roof to collapse.

[Mr. Skinny]

To address the OP

Much of the documents produced by NFPA have been adopted by various building codes (such as the International Building Code) which have in turn been adopted into law by various local jurisdictions. It is a respected institution. NFPA 921 has not been adopted, as far as I can tell, by any building code.

However it is a guide for investigators to investigate fires. But I'm going to go ahead and assume that the Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't need an outside guide to hold their hand in fire investigations. They probably know what they're doing.

(snip)
Thank for making this point, Newtons Bit.

IIRC, I made a point in a previous thread here on this subject (too lazy to search) about a year or so ago where I essentially said that NFPA codes are voluntary and carry no legal weight, but are certainly considered the "bible" of fire protection (along with FM research, UL research, etc.)

Triforcharity is correct, of course, but NFPA standards are some of (one of?) the best fire fighting/protection resources out there, and they can't be dismissed as an "authorative" collection. They just don't have the law behind them like OSHA, EPA, or the like.

[RedIbis]

McCormick Place, with a far smaller loading of Class A fuels, was totally destroyed when fire caused its steel roof to collapse.

The operative word being 'roof.' The inoperative word being 'totally.'

[Sam.I.Am]

The operative word being 'roof.' The inoperative word being 'totally.'

I'd call any structure that had to be completely rebuilt from the ground up after a fire to be totally destroyed by that fire.

[leftysergeant]

The operative word being 'roof.' The inoperative word being 'totally.'

If you are that ignorant of fire engineering standards, you were well advised to sit this one out.

[fess]

In spite of my repeated requests, no one here has yet to offer one example of a total building implosion, solely caused by fire.
MM

Solely by fire? Why no mention of the damage that was caused when WTC7 was hit by Tower1? How many other high-rise buildings that were involved in fire were struck by another building? And, how many of those buildings had storage tanks capable of holding 24,000 gallons of fuel oil?

[RedIbis]

If you are that ignorant of fire engineering standards, you were well advised to sit this one out.

I don't have to be an expert in fire engineering standards to know your analogy blows.

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't have to be an expert in fire engineering standards to know your analogy blows.

You're correct... the situation was actually worse in the WTC, since McCormick didn't have 30 floors above it when the "floor" (roof) gave out.

[ergo]

How about the Windsor Towers which suffered a GLOBAL collapse of ALL of the STEEL structure from FIRE alone.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm



Wrong. 18 to 20 hours of burning. Steel structure remained.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/images_export/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/windsorDamaged.gif

[Arus808]

False:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

Further:

On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.

The steel portions above the 17th Floor collapsed.

[ergo]

Um, the photo and information I included is from the link you provide. See the crane mounted on top of the completely burnt-out steel framework?

[Arus808]

Did you complete miss the fact that the Windsor tower had a REINFORCED concrete core:
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building. The crane is sitting/built ontop of the CONCRETE CORE.

Why are you being intellectually dishonest?

http://i34.tinypic.com/9iu3wh.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/28weyc2.jpg

[AJM8125]

Oh sure, make the pictures all big and everything, showoff. ;)

[ergo]

How about the Windsor Towers which suffered a GLOBAL collapse of ALL of the STEEL structure from FIRE alone.


Who's being intellectually dishonest?

[Arus808]

Oh sure, make the pictures all big and everything, showoff. ;)


I just love how "ergo" links to the same article, pulls one image out of it (that seems to support his claims) yet the ARTICLE he links to says the opposite of what he is claiming.

[Arus808]

Who's being intellectually dishonest?


Where in Tri's reply was there being any dishonest?

from the report you linked:

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.




Tri's reply:

GLOBAL collapse of ALL of the STEEL structure from FIRE alone.


Where in that reply is there any dishonesty?

[ergo]

I just love how "ergo" links to the same article, pulls one image out of it (that seems to support his claims) yet the ARTICLE he links to says the opposite of what he is claiming.

Ya do, huh?


The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

[AJM8125]

Who's being intellectually dishonest?

Uh, you?

[Arus808]

OMG. you are being purposely OBTUSE

Again for the reading impaired

Tri's reply:

GLOBAL collapse of ALL of the STEEL structure from FIRE alone.

From the report:
The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

If you BOTHERED to read the report you linked to, you would now that the BUILDING below the 17th floor was made from REINFORCED concrete. ABOVE THE 17th Floor was a STEEL FRAMED unprotected BUILDING with concrete slab floors.

Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.

[ergo]

"Gutted" doesn't mean "TOTAL!! GLOBAL!!! COLLLAAPPPPSE!!!!"

[Arus808]

What do you mean "gutted" ? No where in this conversation about your dishonesty about the Windsor tower did Tri or I mention "gutted".

[ergo]

Holy Jebus, read your friggin' link.

[Arus808]

And it shows that you fail at READING comprehension. No where in that report did it equate gutted to global collapse. Its one of the CAUSES of the global collapse of the STEEL above the 17th floor.

Gutted used in the report means the fire did so much damage (by destroying all the supports) that it caused the global collapse of the floor slabs from the 17th floor and above. What does fire do when it DESTROYS all the contents within (its called gutted)

Definition: Gutted - To destroy the interior of as in fire gutted the house

That's what the fire did.

When you destroy the interior, the area has been gutted.

YOU are definitely being purposefully obtuse.

[AJM8125]

Then there's the fact that while the fire burned 18-20 hours, it only took 5 hours for the upper floors to collapse.

[ergo]

And it shows that you fail at READING comprehension. No where in that report did it equate gutted to global collapse. Its one of the CAUSES of the global collapse of the STEEL above the 17th floor.

Partial collapse. You can see some steel frame in the upper portion of the building in the photo I posted. However, I concede this point. Most of the steel frame above the 17th floor collapsed. The fire did not, as Triforclarity claimed, produce GLOBAL. COLLAPSE. of ALL THE STEEL STRUCTURE.

Got it?

[ozeco41]

Partial collapse. You can see some steel frame in the upper portion of the building in the photo I posted. However, I concede this point. Most of the steel frame above the 17th floor collapsed. The fire did not, as Triforclarity claimed, produce GLOBAL. COLLAPSE. of ALL THE STEEL STRUCTURE.

Got it?

...er no

Looks like the steel structure collapsed
...and it was all of the steel part of the structure leaving the RC bits.

So what part of "total" are you trying to disagree with? ...and in what context?

[TruthersLie]

So the handlers were looking for survivors with dogs that were trained to detect people as well as explosive and incendiaries.

Based on dust evidence of thermite alone, which would have placed thermite residue throughout the whole WTC debris zone, how would such a dog be expected to behave?

The whole idea that dogs will distinguish and communicate with their a handlers a finding of live human scent vs. thermite is absurd.

Especially given the fact that the handlers were not looking for thermite.

MM

You state there is evidence of thermite ..

you state there were explosives.

GREAT prove it.

(please, pretty please post a link to the ******** bentham "paper." Pretty please)

[TruthersLie]

Wrong. 18 to 20 hours of burning. Steel structure remained.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/images_export/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/windsorDamaged.gif

<facepalm>

Take a much closer look at that image.

Or do some googlefu.

The unprotected STEEL STRUCTURE collapsed. What remained standing was the steel REINFORCED IN CONCRETE... where was the concrete reinforcement in wtc1,2 or 7?

What next? The beijing cctv tower fire? (pretty please...)

[leftysergeant]

Wrong. 18 to 20 hours of burning. Steel structure remained.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/images_export/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/windsorDamaged.gif

I would need a better image of the structures you say are steel, but they may not even be relevant. We know how intense the fires were on the most often displayed images, in which all the steel did fail.

Whether the heat was as intense on the up-wind side of the building I do not know, but can still catregorically state that, were the heat less intense, global collapse might not have occurred. Please note, too, that there is a fire-resistant concrete structure between those steel structures which globally failed and those that you are, apparently, offering as evidence of a lack of global failure. That concrete structure could have both shielded the other area from the most intense heat and acted to reienforce the steel on that side.

[triforcharity]

Wrong. 18 to 20 hours of burning. Steel structure remained.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/images_export/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/windsorDamaged.gif

HA HA HA HA!!! Show me the steel structure that is remaining.....

here is another picture, more detailed.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c230/Scout_tpg/windsor6.jpg

She me the steel framed structure that remained.......I'll wait....

*This aught to be good.

[Oystein]

I liken it to observing a large mushroom cloud at an atomic test site and instantly recognizing the shape for what it is.

You know you are seeing an explosion and you are asked to opine as to what caused it. An atomic test has a very clear visual signature, as does a controlled demolition.

Both also have a clear audio signature. And a clear olfactoric signature. And a clear chemical signature.

Fact is: No explosions of the sort typical for what Danny Jowenko does (explosive CD, see the trailer to http://www.jowenko.com ) were heard. This alone disproves the kind of CD that Jowenko can be considered an expert for. He was fooled with regard to the audio signature by being shown a SILENT video clip.

In spite of my repeated requests, no one here has yet to offer one example of a total building implosion, solely caused by fire.

Moving goal posts.

And yes, Oystein, I agree, a "quick opinion [i] is based on bad (too little, wrong) information, it will likely be wrong."

Thank you.

A huge 47-story building cannot be made to totally implode easily.

Strawman.

Maybe, Jowenko doesn't have much expertise about fire science. I don't claim to know.

Thank you. I bold that for future reference. Next time you claim that Jowenko's opinion about the (im)possibility of fire-induced collapse is "professional", I will call you on it, as it will be a flat-out lie.

But he does have a professional interest in knowing the most economical methods of creating a controlled demolition.

Quite likely. Which no one denies.

It would seem like an awfully late hour for controlled demolition experts worldwide to discover that they could achieve similar results as produced by cheap, random office furnishings fires.

And on a record high building no less.

You know that all three towers fell wildly outside of their footprints and thus destroyed ajacent buildings. Hence, it is preposterous and foolich to compare these devestating results to Controlled Demolitions.

If you read the descriptions that Mark Loiseaux of CDI gives regarding the required detailed planning for much smaller collapses, it baffles the mind that the biggest collapse ever, (excluding WTC 1 & 2), supposedly just happened due to amazing random coincidence.

Your lack of incredulity is even more amazing.

MM

Most amazing is how you present an argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy, as you know) and demand that I follow you on it. Amazing. Just amazing.

[ergo]

<facepalm>

The unprotected STEEL STRUCTURE collapsed. What remained standing was the steel REINFORCED IN CONCRETE...

Are you *********** serious?

To properly mask profanity (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5669817&postcount=7). Please see Rule 10 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744).

[Oystein]

Are you *********** serious?

Yes, he is. A scientific study by researchers of Manchester University has been linked to several times in this thread. Read it.

[ergo]

I am referring to the claim that the entire steel structure was demolished.


When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls.

[Oystein]

I am referring to the claim that the entire steel structure was demolished.

All unprotected steel structure was demolished. Yes.

When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls.

[ergo]

Thank you for showing Trifor and the others to be in error.

[Oystein]

Thank you for showing Trifor and the others to be in error.

They were basically right.

[ergo]

They were basically right.

Lol. "Debunker" logic.

[excaza]

Lol. "Debunker" logic.

The question is "can fire alone cause steel to fail?"

The answer is yes.

[ozeco41]

The question is "can fire alone cause steel to fail?"

The answer is yes.

Put that simply it is well known that steel is about the worst material used for building when it comes to failing in fire.

[excaza]

Put that simply it is well known that steel is about the worst material used for building when it comes to failing in fire.

Thankfully its advantages surpass its disadvantages. Maybe ergo wants future skyscrapers to be brick?

[ergo]

The question is "can fire alone cause steel to fail?"

The answer is yes.

This isn't in dispute. The question the "debunkers" then always want to apply this to is, "can fire alone cause global collapse?" No, it cannot. This is a demonstration of how it doesn't do that.

[excaza]

This is a demonstration of how it doesn't do that.

Great, when are you going dispense with the incredulity and begin the demonstration?

[Oystein]

Lol. "Debunker" logic.

The relevance of the findings of the Windsor Tower investigation to the WTC desaster are simple:

Insufficiently fireproofed structural steel will very like succumb to unfought fires
Sufficiently fireproofed structural steel (and rc) has a good chance of survival.
This is the (rather unsurprising) lesson from Madrid.

How does this relate to the WTC?

Easy.

When planes plowed through several stories of both twin Towers and were torn to millions of shreds, they hit many structural steel members, both in trusses and columns. Spray-on fireproofing was removed that way or severely tampered.
It follows that much structural steel in these stories was insufficiently fireproofed. The Madrid lesson tells us: Such steel member must be expected to collapse.

The Windsor tower did not totally collapse due to its reinforced concrete core.

The Twin Towers had no such good luck.
When their insufficiently fireproofed structural steel failed, collapse was initiated throughout one or several entire stories.
The Towers were doomed.



(WTC7's collapse was initiated by a much different failure mode)

[Oystein]

This isn't in dispute. The question the "debunkers" then always want to apply this to is, "can fire alone cause global collapse?" No, it cannot. This is a demonstration of how it doesn't do that.

Had the Windsor tower not had a reinforced concrete core, but entire floors made of insufficiently fireproofed structural steel, it likely would have suffered global collapse.

[TruthersLie]

Are you ******* serious?

Much more so than you are.

You might just want to do some BASIC RESEARCH.

Here let me google that for you

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=windsor+tower+fire+madrid+building+report

Now if you choose to you can actually READ the building reports... the second and third link on the page actually give you the full reports.

5 minutes of real research twoof.

Please try that with the meridian plaza fire, or the beijing CCTV tower fire... pretty please.

[TruthersLie]

I am referring to the claim that the entire steel structure was demolished.

Your reading for comprehension skillz suck.. but then again you are a twoof so I am not suprised.

I never said ANY of the structure was "demolished."

I stated that all of the unprotected steel (note the stuff NOT REINFORCED with concrete) failed and collapsed.

Which it did.

Try again.

[ergo]

I never said ANY of the structure was "demolished."



"Debunker" syntax: make our statements so illogical and meaningless that no one can challenge them.

"I never said ANY of you were complete morons."

[TruthersLie]

"Debunker" syntax: make our statements so illogical and meaningless that no one can challenge them.

"I never said ANY of you were complete morons."


Just like a truther.
Dodge dodge dodge.

handwave handwave handwave.

do you have a link to me saying ANY of the windsor towers was "demolished?" Provide it or STFU.

Your lack of reading for comprehension is showing... you might want to take courses for that... and at the same time maybe you could take a simple experimental design course and even a simple ENG 101 course should teach you basic information literacy. It might even allow you to get promoted above "would you like fries with that" some day. Give it a try.

[ergo]

and even a simple ENG 101 course should teach you basic information literacy. It might even allow you to get promoted above "would you like fries with that" some day. Give it a try.

Yeah, like "I never said ANY of your hamburgers weren't ready." ? That would really win them over.

[TruthersLie]

Yeah, like "I never said ANY of your hamburgers weren't ready." ? That would really win them over.

So then you have no reply to the FACT that the unprotected and unreinforced steel above the 17th floor in the windsor tower suffered a collapse due to fire.

You are just trying to tap dance around. Thanks...

(and since we have had this converstaion before, I eagerly await your banning for being a sock puppet... I miss kicking you around DBS.)

[TruthersLie]

Yeah, like "I never said ANY of your hamburgers weren't ready." ? That would really win them over.

And your inability to read for comprehension is again showing.

what I said originally was
The unprotected STEEL STRUCTURE collapsed. What remained standing was the steel REINFORCED IN CONCRETE... where was the concrete reinforcement in wtc1,2 or 7?


I understand in twoof world words like "collapse" and "unprotected" means "demolished" and "vast conspiracy."

But they don't mean the same thing... now do they?

But since you think that it is impossible for steel to collapse, can you tell me why they require fireproofing on steel structures?

or are you trying to push for the "first time in history" cannard?

[ergo]

The concrete-reinforced steel structure is the steel structure. My entry into this particular discussion was to point out Trifor's claims of a "global" collapse of "all" the steel structure. Obviously false.

[excaza]

sigh...