Belz Has Front Page News!

[TruthSeeker1234]

In response to my statement that fire has never caused a steel framed skyscraper to collapse, Belz has reported something astounding.

Fire CAN and HAS demolished [steel framed skyscapers] before, some even more resilient than the WTC.

Please Belz, link away. List them. This is going to be great.

[Pardalis]

Not another thread-starting troll... :rolleyes:

[realitybites]

Truth, quick question.

Are you under the impression that fire has no effect whatsoever upon steel? That if left unchecked, a fire of any size would do nothing to the strength or integrity of the steel?

Just trying to get a bearing on where you're coming from.

[chran]

So Truth, did you contact the Port Authority about the blueprints for the World Trade Center yet?

[Dog Town]

This is going to be great.

Just not in the way you think!

[twinstead]

Truthy guy, it's impolite to ask people to acknowledge your answers to their claims when you don't give others the same courtesy.

Did you fall asleep that day in manners class?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just a taste of fire and steel skyscrapers. NOTE: none of these had any additional structural damage incurred to them; such as by a large airliner.

Steel structure of Madrid tower collapses: http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Structural engineers feared collapse of Meridian Tower: Firefighting Operations Suspended

All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24. At the time of the evacuation, the fire appeared to be under control on the 22nd though 24th floors. It continued to bum on floors 25 and 26 and was spreading upward. There was a heavy smoke condition throughout most of the upper floors. The evacuation was completed by 0730.
http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_thefire.html
Structural Conditions Observed

Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet --under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_analysis.html

The same holds true for the Venezuela fire: Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned. http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=961&cookie%5Ftest=1

Fire and the Ostankino TV tower: The tower's leaning and its instability due to the loss of more than half the 149 supporting cables, which were an essential component of the special construction of the tower, unleashed fierce arguments over whether the structure would stay standing. For safety reasons, a 700-meter area around the tower was evacuated during the fire-fighting operations. The top of the tower is now leaning almost two meters outside its normal position. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/mosc-a30.shtml

[Shrinker]

Funny, Belz actually said: "Fire CAN and HAS demolished buildings before."

Was altering his words somehow important to the point you are making?

[NickUK]

In response to my statement that fire has never caused a steel framed skyscraper to collapse, Belz has reported something astounding.



Please Belz, link away. List them. This is going to be great.

Not sure if you noticed, but two planes also crashed into the twin towers.

I know it's easy to miss details, so you're forgiven.

[realitybites]

We placing bets on whether or not Truth comes back to the discussion? Or is this a page out of the KillTown "Post and Run" handbook?

[chipmunk stew]

Funny, Belz actually said: "Fire CAN and HAS demolished buildings before."

Was altering his words somehow important to the point you are making?
TS1234, one thing you're not supposed to do when you use those bracket thingies is change the intended meaning of the quote. That's a big no-no. I can't blame you if you're one of Stephen Jones's students, though. He makes similar blunders.

[Psiload]

In response to my statement that fire has never caused a steel framed skyscraper to collapse... ***snip***

Whaaaa? :confused:

Is this supposed to be some sort of argument? The Troofers actually point this out like it's supposed to mean something?

Uh... OK...

No city has every been destroyed in a nuclear blast... therefore Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inside jobs. The Japanese government was obviously behind it all.

Bukkaked with stupid once again.

[Belz...]

In response to my statement that fire has never caused a steel framed skyscraper to collapse, Belz has reported something astounding.

Please Belz, link away. List them. This is going to be great.

Did I say "high-rise steel buildings" ?

Gosh, you truly have no reading ability at all.

Also, that Windsor building in Madrid would've collapsed completely if it were made of steel. The concrete core was the only thing left standing at the top.

[DavidJames]

Funny, Belz actually said: "Fire CAN and HAS demolished buildings before."

Was altering his words somehow important to the point you are making?

Hey TRUTH Person - why would someone with the word TRUTH in their name continually deceive and lie to try and make their point?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Nobody lies like a "truth" seeker.

[T.A.M.]

Truthseeker

Fire Protection Engineering Article of Building Collapses Due to Fire (http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153)

I like to quote this one as it has listed as 6 steel structured buildings having collapsed (4 were those involved in 9/11, but that does leave 2 others)...

TAM

[chipmunk stew]

Whaaaa? :confused:

Is this supposed to be some sort of argument? The Troofers actually point this out like it's supposed to mean something?

Uh... OK...

No city has every been destroyed in a nuclear blast... therefore Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inside jobs. The Japanese government was obviously behind it all.

Bukkaked with stupid once again.
Are you kidding? Precedence is, like, the biggest smoking gun they've got. If X1 never happened before, X2 is literally impossible.
And if Y1 happened before, it's incontrovertible proof that Y2 happened.

(where, on cursory examination, X1 and X2 are vaguely similar, as are Y1 and Y2)

[T.A.M.]

Is this the same truth seeker who came in here looking for an honest debate. And now he has resorted to altering quotes. Misrepresentation, Slander, no need.

tsk tsk tsk...

[apathoid]

Hey "truth"seeker1+2=4, How about pointing us to a list of steel framed skyscrapers that were rammed by 150 ton jumbo jets loaded with 80,000 lbs of volatile jet fuel at 500 mph...and then survived. Just one example will be sufficient.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Are you kidding? Precedence is, like, the biggest smoking gun they've got. If X1 never happened before, X2 is literally impossible.
And if Y1 happened before, it's incontrovertible proof that Y2 happened.

(where, on cursory examination, X1 and X2 are vaguely similar, as are Y1 and Y2)

Of course by CTist logic:
P1) My parents did not have any children before me
P2) I was not born before my parents had me
C1) I could not have been born

[TruthSeeker1234]

Funny, Belz actually said: "Fire CAN and HAS demolished buildings before."

Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. It was Belz who changed the meaning. Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.

It was Belz who was trying to cleverly make it appear that I had said something I didn't.

Perhaps Belz should clarify.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Original post:


Fire cannot cause steel framed skyscapers to collapse. Even if collapse is initiated, objects cannot crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight. 3 times in one day, 0 in all of the rest of history? Ludicrous.


So many things are wrong in that paragraph, I don't know where to start. Fire CAN and HAS demolished buildings before, some even more resilient than the WTC. Also, you're oversimplifying the "powder" thing, and lying about "0 in all [...] of history".

ETA: You want to address any of the evidence presented in this thread to the problems fire causes steel structures?

[KingMerv00]

Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. It was Belz who changed the meaning. Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.

It was Belz who was trying to cleverly make it appear that I had said something I didn't.

Perhaps Belz should clarify.

I honestly don't know the history of the conversation so I won't comment on that.


Assuming this is the first collapse of its kind:

Does X need to happen at least once before X can occur? :boggled:

[DavidJames]

It was Belz who was trying to cleverly make it appear that I had said something I didn't.In your mind everything is a conspiracy isn't it?

Since you detected this "clever" ploy, you deliberately attempt to deceive (LIE). Why do you lie, TruthSeeker?

[apathoid]

Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. It was Belz who changed the meaning. Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.

It was Belz who was trying to cleverly make it appear that I had said something I didn't.

Perhaps Belz should clarify.

So you admit that it is possible for fire to bring down a steel framed structure? What is the point of this thread then?

[Shrinker]

Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. It was Belz who changed the meaning. Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.

It was Belz who was trying to cleverly make it appear that I had said something I didn't.

Perhaps Belz should clarify.

Too late, liar.

Think before your start your next thread.

[Stellafane]

In response to my statement that fire has never caused a steel framed skyscraper to collapse, Belz has reported something astounding.

QUOTE:
Fire CAN and HAS demolished [steel framed skyscapers] before, some even more resilient than the WTC.




Please Belz, link away. List them. This is going to be great.

TruthSeeker, Belz did not say "steel framed skyscrapers." Belz said "buildings." So you just lied. Thus, you are a liar. Zero credibility to you from now on (not that you had any to lose, really). Liar!

I'm not sure why you consider it "great" to be proven a liar, but to each his own, I suppose.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Original post:


ETA: You want to address any of the evidence presented in this thread to the problems fire causes steel structures?

To further clarify: Truthseeker1234, you can argue that Belz... in responding to your OP in a more general fashion (buildings vs. steel structure buildings) was in error. However, assuming that he meant steel structure buildings, and then arguing against it without asking him to clarify, is a strawman.

[TruthSeeker1234]

lying about "0 in all [...] of history".

Yes, unprecedented things can happen, assuming they are physically possible. It was Belz who seemed to be saying it had happeded before. Now, if he just meant "buildings" can collapse from fire, yes, of course, but so what.

If he meant steel framed skyscrapers, as I said, then we are still waiting for the examples. The examples linked above are support for my position, as you have fires far hotter, bigger and longer lasting, causing steel members to deform and twist, and yet, no total collapse, nothing remotely resembling 9/11.

The observations of 9/11, considered in total, simply require far more energy than is present in the form of GPE converted to KE. Orders of magnitude more. These calcs have been done by Hoffman, Trumpman, Ross.

[Carnivore]

What would really be front page news would be Truthseeker actually responding to any of the overwhelming evidence against his position his previous posts have generated. Still a slow news day as far as I can see.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?

[chipmunk stew]

Still a slow news day as far as I can see.
And here I was, getting my hopes up. :(
This is going to be great.

[Arus808]

and of course, why does that matter? There is always a first time. The WTC towers were the first 110 story steel skyscrapers that collpased due to the impact of two planes, the spilling over tons of jet fuel, the subsequent infernos that raged through much of the elevator shafts and the floors that were impacted and the removal of fire protection from the steel trusses due to the impact.

The fire was one of the causes, and a contributor to the collpase. ITs not soley the reason why they collapse, but a huge majority of it.

[KingMerv00]

If he meant steel framed skyscrapers, as I said, then we are still waiting for the examples. The examples linked above are support for my position, as you have fires far hotter, bigger and longer lasting, causing steel members to deform and twist, and yet, no total collapse, nothing remotely resembling 9/11.

Wow really? How big were the planes that crashed into them?

[Arus808]

I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?


added to note , this is a classic CT reply so that you only focus on the one "thing" they want an answer for, when the subject hand is actually broader.

[chipmunk stew]

I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?
No steel framed skyscraper has ever ENTIRELY collapsed from fire ALONE.

To that, I think we can all agree.

Do you at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that before 9/11 no steel framed skyscraper had ever experienced the same level of combined structural and fire damage as the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11?

[Arus808]

he wont accept it. the ony "truth" to him is that of your answer is "no". He'll now "skew" your context so that it proves his claim. typical ct tactics.

[KingMerv00]

No steel framed skyscraper has ever ENTIRELY collapsed from fire ALONE.

That we know of anyway.

Agreed on the face of it though.

[Carnivore]

I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?

Well, since you ask, I think my favourite was your suggestion of a shaped charge at the Pentagon's C ring. Thanks! And yes, I share the general agreement that no steel framed skyscraper has completely collapsed solely due to fire.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I've never replied to a TruthSeeker1234 thread before. Luckily, this means I still haven't.

[kevin]

No steel framed skyscraper has ever ENTIRELY collapsed from fire ALONE.


Heh, yeah gravity usually needs to be present too.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?

Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that your theory requires thousands of knowing participants?

[kookbreaker]

Q: Just how many skyscrapers have been exposed to fires that were signifigantly out of control?

A: Not many. The only 2-3 examples CT's can come up with are different designs from the WTC buildings, had constant firefighting efforts during their blaze, and were still partially destroyed or had to be destroyed later on. Many skyscrapers may have small fires, but these didn't get out of control. At times, the CT's must lie to boost their position; at least one CT website states that the Meridian building is still standing.

[T.A.M.]

Truthseeker

Fire Protection Engineering Article of Building Collapses Due to Fire (http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153)

I like to quote this one as it has listed as 6 steel structured buildings having collapsed (4 were those involved in 9/11, but that does leave 2 others)...

TAM

Just in case you missed it.

[kookbreaker]

Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.


Q: Steel is automatically a better building material than wood in a fire, correct?

A: Not automatically, some old factories that held heavy equipment were contructed using huge wood beams. These wood beams actually have better survivability than steel. The reason? Wood beams are assumed by many to be fire fuel, but given the nature of the structure (its not like a fireplace) the wood would char, then the layer of burnt wood prevents the core from being consumed. With steel, while it is not flammable, it does conduct heat even with fireproofing. This heat can signifigantly weaken steel, as was evidenced by the sagging metal beams in the Meridian fire.

[Dave_46]

1. Forum member Truthseeker has asked in another thread that we do not refer to TruthSeeker1234 by his name.

2. I really wish that I had a copy of a picture I saw years ago showing a timber framed building after a fire, with steel beams softened and draped over charred, but still in position timber beams.

..snip.. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash. ..snip..

It demonstrates that a fire can be hot enough to seriously weaken steel before the wood is burned away.

Dave

ETA I see Kookbreaker is making a similar point.

[TruthSeeker1234]

With steel, while it is not flammable, it does conduct heat even with fireproofing.

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. This makes it more resistant to fire, not less. When trying to heat up part of an interconneted steel structure, heat is wicked away to the connected parts.

Have we reached a consensus that no steel framed skyscraper in history has ever collapsed from fire, apart from the alleged examples of 9/11?

[Arus808]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. This makes it more resistant to fire, not less.
That is a false assumption.
Steel, like everything on this planet is susceptible to heat, that would exceed its weakening point.

How THE hell do steel/iron workers BEND steel ? They heat it up to a point they are able to bend it to the shape they need.

Fire, is of course a way of creating heat. Fire fueld by jet fuel can increase the temperature.

When trying to heat up part of an interconneted steel structure, heat is wicked away to the connected parts.

Have we reached a consensus that no steel framed skyscraper in history has ever collapsed from fire, apart from the alleged examples of 9/11?

Again, you reword statemetns to suit your preconceived conclusions.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The only 2-3 examples CT's can come up with are different designs from the WTC buildings,

Actually, the 1st interstate bank building in Los Angeles is quite like the twin towers - square footprint, tube-within-a-tube steel superstructure, 67 stories.
3 1/2 hour fire, far hotter than WTC, as evidenced by breaking windows. No breaking windows from heat at WTC.

[Arus808]

not even a close example. it has a core, and the fire was fought constantly.
The WTC fires were never, EVER attempted to be put out. From the momen the rescue/firefighters arrived on scene, they knew it was from that point on, A RESCUE and evacuation effort.

[WildCat]

Have we reached a consensus that no steel framed skyscraper in history has ever collapsed from fire, apart from the alleged examples of 9/11?
So you're one of those no-planes-hit-the-towers CGI/bluescreen guys?

[Regnad Kcin]

Have we reached a consensus that no steel framed skyscraper in history has ever collapsed from fire, apart from the alleged examples of 9/11?No. Because, as far as I'm aware, no one is asserting that.

Hve we reached a consensus that the 2006 Ford Mustang is made entirely out of creamcheese and crushed Smurf dolls?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Still wating for any examples from the 100+ year history of steel skyscrapers and fire. Any collapses? Any? Hello? Is this thing on?

[defaultdotxbe]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. This makes it more resistant to fire, not less. When trying to heat up part of an interconneted steel structure, heat is wicked away to the connected parts.

Have we reached a consensus that no steel framed skyscraper in history has ever collapsed from fire, apart from the alleged examples of 9/11?

steel is a good conductor, but i wouldnt call it excellent, heat is not transferred away as fast as your implying

as you cna see in this picture the end of the steel beam is yellow/orange hot, while parts just a few inches are very dark (this cool) and the iron machinery is in no danger of overheating

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg

[DavidJames]

No. Because, as far as I'm aware, no one is asserting that.

Hve we reached a consensus that the 2006 Ford Mustang is made entirely out of creamcheese and crushed Smurf dolls?
It's crash test rating must suck.

[Regnad Kcin]

C'mon now. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is in on it.

[Arus808]

Still wating for any examples from the 100+ year history of steel skyscrapers and fire. Any collapses? Any? Hello? Is this thing on?

since there were only 3 buildings in this world that are considered Steel Skyscrapers, 2 of which (WTC towers) collapsed, then the answer to your question is a "no". Becuase the WTC towers were the FIRST in history to do so. however, they were solely not DUE to fires. A multitude of events caused their collapse.

[Regnad Kcin]

Still wating for any examples from the 100+ year history of steel skyscrapers and fire. Any collapses? Any? Hello? Is this thing on?Our little friend sure seems a bit like Killtown, no?

[TruthSeeker1234]

No. Because, as far as I'm aware, no one is asserting that.

I thought Belz was asserting that. Now, true he said "buildings", not "steel framed skyscrapers". But he said it in response to my statement about "steel framed skyscrapers".

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ooh, nice picture Default. How do suppose that chunk of metal got yellow hot?

Any examples in history of building fires doing that?

[jskowron]

Strawman Alert-

Even if no skyscraper has ever completely collapsed due to fire (though there are certainly arguments to the contrary, depending on your definition of completely collapse), it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Has any other spaceshuttle ever exploded shortly after takeoff due to defective o-rings? I didn't think so, thus the challenger was obviously blown up by more sinister means.

Has any other supersonic commercial aircraft ever had its landing gear fall off during takeoff? I didn't think so, thus the Concorde landing gear was obviously blown off by more sinister means.

I'm torn- these threads are entertaining, and I am certainly enlightened by the contrary information presented in reponse to the CTer claim. However, even if the point was conceded that non other skyscraper ever collapse completely due to fire alone, it would not add any logical support to the CT view of the WTC collapse as controlled demolition. You are not going to change their views of what happened, but perhaps there could be some enlightenment about logical fallacies. At the very least that might lead to more challenging to discredit CTs, and even more informative refutations.

[WildCat]

I thought Belz was asserting that. Now, true he said "buildings", not "steel framed skyscrapers". But he said it in response to my statement about "steel framed skyscrapers".
Answer my question, do you believe no planes hit the towers?

[defaultdotxbe]

Ooh, nice picture Default. How do suppose that chunk of metal got yellow hot?

Any examples in history of building fires doing that?

any examples of fires burning for weeks under a million tons of debris that DIDNT produce yellow hot metal?

...didnt think so



did you read my response in your other thread to you "molten iron" claim?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arus intrigued with since there were only 3 buildings in this world that are considered Steel Skyscrapers

OK, I'll take the bait. What on earth do you mean by this?

[Dog Town]

Our little friend sure seems a bit like Killtown, no?

My thought as well! This sounds all to familiar!
Have we reached a consensus that no steel framed skyscraper in history has ever collapsed from fire, apart from the alleged examples of 9/11?

Hmmmm!

[DavidJames]

Our little friend sure seems a bit like Killtown, no?

Other then...

Deliberately misquotes others to his advantage
Ignoring answers to his questions he doesn't like
Changing the subject often
Abandoning threads
Claiming he wants to work with science and facts then never uses either
Thinking questions equals evidence

no, I don't think they're anything alike :D

[WildCat]

Arus intrigued with

OK, I'll take the bait. What on earth do you mean by this?
Do you believe no planes hit the towers?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Has any other supersonic commercial aircraft ever had its landing gear fall off during takeoff? I didn't think so, thus the Concorde landing gear was obviously blown off by more sinister means.

If you want to explore this statistical approach, we can.

Suppose there were 10's of thousands of Concorde supersonic jets, not just a few. Suppose we had a 100 year history of Concorde jets taking off with no landing gear problems. Then suppose not one, not two, but three jets all suffered landing gears falling off, all on the same day, all at the same airport. There's a much more valid comparison. If that happened, three in one day, I would be very suspicious of foul play.

Further, let's suppose that the landing gears didn't just fall off, but suppose the metal parts were shredded into pieces, and the non-metallic elements were rendered into fine powder. Now I would be convinced that explosives were used. This is now a valid comparsion.

Comment please.

[WildCat]

If you want to explore this statistical approach, we can.

Suppose there were 10's of thousands of Concorde supersonic jets, not just a few. Suppose we had a 100 year history of Concorde jets taking off with no landing gear problems. Then suppose not one, not two, but three jets all suffered landing gears falling off, all on the same day, all at the same airport. There's a much more valid comparison. If that happened, three in one day, I would be very suspicious of foul play.

Further, let's suppose that the landing gears didn't just fall off, but suppose the metal parts were shredded into pieces, and the non-metallic elements were rendered into fine powder. Now I would be convinced that explosives were used. This is now a valid comparsion.

Comment please.
Do you believe that no planes hit the towers?

[Arus808]

please explain how these "explosvies" lasted up to 2 hours within a building ON FIRE and not detonate?

[Bell]

If you want to explore this statistical approach, we can.

Suppose there were 10's of thousands of Concorde supersonic jets, not just a few. Suppose we had a 100 year history of Concorde jets taking off with no landing gear problems. Then suppose not one, not two, but three jets all suffered landing gears falling off, all on the same day, all at the same airport. There's a much more valid comparison. If that happened, three in one day, I would be very suspicious of foul play.

Further, let's suppose that the landing gears didn't just fall off, but suppose the metal parts were shredded into pieces, and the non-metallic elements were rendered into fine powder. Now I would be convinced that explosives were used. This is now a valid comparsion.

Comment please.

My comment please:
Why are you avoiding answering WildCats question?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Do you believe no planes hit the towers?

I think planes hit the towers.

[WildCat]

I think planes hit the towers.
So you have invalidated your own premise. Your question is a strawman.

[Stellafane]

If you want to explore this statistical approach, we can.

Suppose there were 10's of thousands of Concorde supersonic jets, not just a few. Suppose we had a 100 year history of Concorde jets taking off with no landing gear problems. Then suppose not one, not two, but three jets all suffered landing gears falling off, all on the same day, all at the same airport. There's a much more valid comparison. If that happened, three in one day, I would be very suspicious of foul play.

Further, let's suppose that the landing gears didn't just fall off, but suppose the metal parts were shredded into pieces, and the non-metallic elements were rendered into fine powder. Now I would be convinced that explosives were used. This is now a valid comparsion.

Comment please.

You want a comment? OK, here's one: You're a proven liar.

[Alareth]

Is this the same truth seeker who came in here looking for an honest debate. And now he has resorted to altering quotes. Misrepresentation, Slander, no need.

tsk tsk tsk...

No, in print it's libel not slander ;)

[DavidJames]

If you want to explore this statistical approach, we can.

Suppose there were 10's of thousands of Concorde supersonic jets, not just a few. Suppose we had a 100 year history of Concorde jets taking off with no landing gear problems. Then suppose not one, not two, but three jets all suffered landing gears falling off, all on the same day, all at the same airport. There's a much more valid comparison. If that happened, three in one day, I would be very suspicious of foul play.

Further, let's suppose that the landing gears didn't just fall off, but suppose the metal parts were shredded into pieces, and the non-metallic elements were rendered into fine powder. Now I would be convinced that explosives were used. This is now a valid comparsion.

Comment please.You're serious aren't you? Ok, it's not a valid comparison since in your analogy, the landing gear was not impacted by any external forces. A better comparison to yours would be if two large airplanes hadn't hit the two towers at high speed and then parts of falling debris hadn't hit the third tower. If the towers had just fallen down, no planes, no fires, just fallen.

In that case, I would be curious what happened.

[defaultdotxbe]

If that happened, three in one day, I would be very suspicious of foul play.

there was foul play, or did you miss the part about terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them ito the towers with intentions of destroying them?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arus questioned please explain how these "explosvies" lasted up to 2 hours within a building ON FIRE and not detonate?

First, explosives did go off while the fires were burning. Whether these were intentional or accidental is an interesting question. Second, explosives can be fireproofed, and set off by remote control. Third, it appears that a variety of substances were used. It appears that some form of thermite was used as an incindiary to weaken the structure. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite, requiring tempertures beyond hydrocarbon fires. Then it appears some type of high explosives finished the job.

[defaultdotxbe]

No, in print it's libel not slander ;)

do forums count as published media though?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Default confused Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1917094#post1917094)
If that happened, three in one day, I would be very suspicious of foul play.

there was foul play, or did you miss the part about terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them ito the towers with intentions of destroying them?

I was referring to my hypothetical example about the COncorde. Come on.

[defaultdotxbe]

Arus questioned

First, explosives did go off while the fires were burning. Whether these were intentional or accidental is an interesting question. Second, explosives can be fireproofed, and set off by remote control. Third, it appears that a variety of substances were used. It appears that some form of thermite was used as an incindiary to weaken the structure. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite, requiring tempertures beyond hydrocarbon fires. Then it appears some type of high explosives finished the job.

how did the explosives survive the planes hitting them?

what kind of "fireproofing" can be applied to explosives? please cite examples

while thermite itself is difficult to ignite, the ignition devices used (magnesium for example) are as vunerable to office fires as any other explosive

[defaultdotxbe]

Default confused

I was referring to my hypothetical example about the COncorde. Come on.

but you were doing so an an analogy to 9/11, stating that 3 failures in one day would be suspect of foul play, the anology being that 3 building collapses in 1 day is suspect of foul play

i was responding to the analogy, not the hypothetical example

[TruthSeeker1234]

Wilcat concluded So you have invalidated your own premise. Your question is a strawman.

Huh?? WHich premise is that?

[Bell]

If you want to explore this statistical approach, we can.

Suppose there were 10's of thousands of Concorde supersonic jets, not just a few. Suppose we had a 100 year history of Concorde jets taking off with no landing gear problems. Then suppose not one, not two, but three jets all suffered landing gears falling off, all on the same day, all at the same airport. There's a much more valid comparison. If that happened, three in one day, I would be very suspicious of foul play.

Further, let's suppose that the landing gears didn't just fall off, but suppose the metal parts were shredded into pieces, and the non-metallic elements were rendered into fine powder. Now I would be convinced that explosives were used. This is now a valid comparsion.

Comment please.

And I'll give you a comment to your post to, please:

Could you please show me:

1.) 10's of thousands skyscrapers built exactly like the WTC.
2.) those 10's of thousands of WTC skyscapers standing for a 100 years.
3.) your interpretation of how big 'a piece' would be?
4.) evidence of metal of the WTC shredded into those pieces.
5.) pictures or video of the third 110 story WTC building that got hit by an airplane on 9/11 and subsequently fell due to combined STRUCTUAL DAMAGE

No, it is NOT a valid comparison.

Comment please.

[defaultdotxbe]

Wilcat concluded

Huh?? WHich premise is that?

that the buildings collapsed from fire alone

[DavidJames]

...Third, it appears that a variety of substances were used. It appears that some form of thermite was used as an incindiary to weaken the structure. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite, requiring tempertures beyond hydrocarbon fires. Then it appears some type of high explosives finished the job.I don't suppose you would have any evidence to support any of that would you? Other then what you make up in your own head, I mean. Keep in mind, finding sulpher residue in a the remains of a fire hardly are proof of thermite.

edit to add the bolding in liar's quote are mine.

[T.A.M.]

From Fire Protection Engineering:

Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire
By: Jesse Beitel and Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.

INTRODUCTION
There have been, and remain to be, continuing concerns about the adequacy of structural fire protection in the wake of the 9/11 tragedies. As significant as these events were, they were also clearly not representative of the normal accidental impact of fire on building structures. To assess the extent and nature of structural collapses due to fire in taller buildings, a review of existing information about fire incidents resulting in structural collapse was collected and reviewed.

The survey was international in scope and included building collapses due to fire in structures with four or more stories that had occurred during the 1970-2002 time frame of the survey. Both total and partial collapses were included in the survey. Since no database exists that systematically identifies building collapses due to fire (including the NFIRS system), the survey was necessarily exploratory. The survey methodology included a review of both news sources and technical literature, as well as inter-views with a wide range of individuals knowledgeable in structural fire protection. Twenty-two fires were identified that caused either partial or total collapse of a multistory structure. The adequacy and code compliance of the original structural and fire-resistant design of the identified buildings were beyond the scope of the project and were not assessed. While the number of fire events may appear low (average of one/year), these fire events are high-consequence occurrences with respect to loss of life, injuries, and economic costs.
article continues below
Dupont

This survey of structural building collapses due to fire causes was sponsored in 2002 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as part of a larger project. The complete report is available from NIST.1

SURVEY RESULTS
For the purposes of this NIST survey, multistory buildings were defined as those having four or more stories. Nonbuilding structures, such as tunnels, bridges, observation or transmission towers, were not included. Either partial or total failure of the structural framing, members, and/or connections was considered to have constituted a collapse, and it was necessary for a fire to have been the direct cause of this failure.

A total of 22 such cases were identified through 2002 after extensive searches of the literature, news, and other contacts, with the Sept. 11 disasters in New York and Washington, DC, counting as five of these incidents [World Trade Center (WTC) 1, 2, 5, and 7, and the Pentagon]. The cases occurred not only in the U.S. and North America, but also internationally. This NIST survey data demonstrated that buildings of all types of construction and occupancies, in the U.S., North America, and abroad, are susceptible to fires, particularly older buildings and those that may be undergoing construction, renovations, or repairs. The total fatalities were dominated by the Sept. 11 WTC disasters, which were unique in that they were precipitated by terrorist attacks that substantially damaged the buildings' structural framing and destroyed their fire protection systems prior to the fires.

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-20021 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
* Brick/Masonry: 5
* Wood: 2
* Unknown: 2

Three of the these events were from the 1970s, another three from the 1980s, four from the 1990s, and 12 in 2000 and beyond. This temporal distribution is skewed towards more recent occurrences, as expected, both due to the magnitude of the WTC (counted as four events) and Pentagon (one event) disasters of 9-11 and the news media searches.

The collapse distribution by building story height was as follows:

* 4-8 stories: 13
* 9-20: 3
* 21 or more: 6

Almost 60 percent of the cases are in the 4-8 stories range, with the remainder affecting much taller buildings. Six collapses occurred in buildings over 20 stories, and three of these were the WTC steel-framed buildings (1, 2, and 7).

At least four of these fire collapses had occurred during construction or renovations of some kind, when the usual expected architectural, structural, and fire protection functions were still incomplete or temporarily disrupted, and/or potential new fire sources were introduced, such as electrical and gas line repairs, welding, and the presence of other flammable supplies and/or equipment. Partial collapses (14 events) were the most frequent occurrences, and the WTC disasters (listed as four separate events, with three full collapses) dominated the full collapse event total of eight cases. Office and residential were the primary types of occupancy in these 22 buildings, as would be expected in multistory construction, with the occupancy distribution being as follows:

* Office: 9
* Residential: 8
* Commercial: 3
* Combined commercial/residential: 2

The 9-11 events are quite thoroughly documented in the FEMA 4032 and ASCE-SEI Pentagon Reports,3 with further NIST investigations on the WTC ongoing, and will not be further covered herein. Rather, some other interesting and more obscure cases of fire-induced collapses will be described.

Two large department store fires in Athens, Greece, in 1980 are documented in the paper by Kyriakos Papaioannoa, 1986.4 These fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed (see Figure 1). The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections. On May 21, 1987, Sao Paulo had one of the biggest fires in Brazil, which precipitated a substantial partial collapse of the central core of the tall CESP Building 2.5 This was a 21-story office building, headquarters of the Sao Paulo Power Company (CESP), after whom the building was named. Buildings 1 and 2 of this office complex were both of reinforced concrete framing, with ribbed slab floors. These two buildings had several unique internal features and contents. Both buildings still retained their original wood forms used for pouring the concrete floor slabs, which were never removed. Low-height plywood partition walls were also used in the interiors. Approximately two hours after the beginning of the fire in CESP 2, its structural core area throughout the full building height collapsed. This collapse was attributed to the thermal expansion of the horizontal concrete T-beam frames under the elevated fire temperatures, which led to the fracture of the vertical framing elements and their connections in the middle of the building, and the consequent progressive loss of gravity load-carrying capacity (see Figure 2).

A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000.6 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people. Figure 3 shows a photograph of this collapse.

CONCLUSIONS
Past experience and this 2002 NIST collapse survey confirm that fires, and the related damage, deaths, casualties, and any collapses, are essentially rare and random events, whose effects depend highly on the time, nature, and circumstances of the fire occurrence. Thus, fires represent a hazard to all building types, materials, and occupancies. Likewise, the added fire-fighting difficulty in all taller buildings must be recognized, given the longer times needed to escape or access the higher floors. Many of the past major fires in tall buildings fortunately occurred in the evenings or weekends, when the office buildings were almost vacant, thereby, minimizing their potential dangers to human life. Automatic sprinkler systems are a very effective means to suppress a fire, but if the system is being repaired, or is nonexistent or nonfunctional for other reasons, the threat of fire growth increases.

Another important finding of this study was the lack of readily available, and well-documented, information on partial or total structural collapse due to fire. Unless the fire event was significant for other reasons, e.g., loss of life, very little information was available. It is recommended that a centralized database be developed, whereby structural damage and collapse can be investigated and systematically reported in the future. The current lack of systematic information on fire-induced collapses seriously limits the profession's understanding of the scope and nature of the real structural fire protection problem.

Jesse Beitel and Nestor Iwankiw are with Hughes Associates, Inc.

REFERENCES

1. Iwankiw, N., and Beitel, J., "Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing," Hughes Associates, Report NIST GCR 02-843, December 2002.
2. 2 FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, May 2002.
3. ASCE-SEI, The Pentagon Building Performance Report, ASCE, Reston, VA, January 2003.
4. Papaioannoa, K., "The Conflagration of Two Large Department Stores in the Centre of Athens," Fire and Materials, Vol. 10, 1986, pp. 171-177, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
5. Berto, A.F., and Tomina, J.C., "Lessons From the Fire in the CESP Administration Headquarters," IPT Building Technologies, 1988, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
6. BBC News, "Factory Fire Kills 15 in Egypt," World: Asia-Pacific, July 20, 2000.

put it here in its entirety...link is in my two posts above...not sure if it is proof or not, as noone else seems to reference it.

TAM

[TruthSeeker1234]

Default you're being silly. You gave the Concorde landing gear example to show that unique events are not necessarily sinister. I agree with that. I modified your example to fit with 9/11. A landing gear falling off a Concorde is not necessarily sinister. 3 in one day on different planes, that would be very suspicious. 3 in one day is a much more valid comparison to 9/11 buildings. If they only would have blown up 1 of them instead of 3, they might have fooled me.

[WildCat]

Wilcat concluded

Huh?? WHich premise is that?
That any of the buildings collapsed due to fire.

[defaultdotxbe]

Default you're being silly. You gave the Concorde landing gear example to show that unique events are not necessarily sinister. I agree with that. I modified your example to fit with 9/11. A landing gear falling off a Concorde is not necessarily sinister. 3 in one day on different planes, that would be very suspicious. 3 in one day is a much more valid comparison to 9/11 buildings. If they only would have blown up 1 of them instead of 3, they might have fooled me.

i didnt make the concorde analogy

and you are still missing my point, there WAS foul play on 9/11, 3 planes didnt just randomly slam into 3 buildings resulting the complete destruction of 2 of them, it was planned

WTC7 didnt just collapse for no reason, it was severely damaged by the collapse of WTC1+2


your trying to compare a hypothetical random event with no apparent cause to a planned attack, its a false analogy

[TruthSeeker1234]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.

[Bell]

TruthSeeker1234,

Could you please show me:

1.) 10's of thousands skyscrapers built exactly like the WTC.
2.) those 10's of thousands of WTC skyscapers standing for a 100 years.
3.) your interpretation of how big 'a piece' would be?
4.) evidence of metal of the WTC shredded into those pieces.
5.) pictures or video of the third 110 story WTC building that got hit by an airplane on 9/11 and subsequently fell due to combined STRUCTUAL DAMAGE

Comment please.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. This makes it more resistant to fire, not less. When trying to heat up part of an interconneted steel structure, heat is wicked away to the connected parts.

Have we reached a consensus that no steel framed skyscraper in history has ever collapsed from fire, apart from the alleged examples of 9/11?


Steel actually burns at the temperatures nist believes were involved in the world trade center, so conductivity is not an issue there.

I also love the fact you mentioned that since the conductive potentials of iron and steel make it impossible for the material dripping from the twin towers to be molten steel or Iron.

It glows yellow for far to long it should have turned red much sooner when exposed to air.
The same thing that turns Aluminum silver also causes steel to turn red then dark blueish metallic in color.

Question for you at what tempature does the iron in steel Oxidize?

PS, there was more burning than Jet fuel in those buildings.

[T.A.M.]

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
* Brick/Masonry: 5
* Wood: 2
* Unknown: 2

Now The Pentagon was steel reinforced concrete, yet it is in a different group, so the Steel Structured Buildings are not as you say "Steel Reinforced Concrete" (The WTCs are included in this group).

TAM

[TruthSeeker1234]

The evidence of thermite is from Jones, as you know. Molten iron, with all sorts of entrained exotic chemicals. Can any of you link me to a nice refutation of Steven Jones? I will read it.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I modified your example to fit with 9/11. A landing gear falling off a Concorde is not necessarily sinister.

No you didn't, liar.

We know that on 9-11, hijacked aircraft with nearly full fuel loads were crashed into the towers in a deliberate attack by Al-Queada terrorists.

To make your concorde example fully congruent with 9-11, we'd need to add Al-Queada operatives camping runways with stinger (or SA-7/14 "Grail")missile launchers shooting at the concordes.

This would leave us with a complete theory of the otherwise coincidental concorde "accidents" and would therefore require no further investigation.

[Matt32]

I've been lurking around these kinds of threads for a while, and I think it's a real uproar whenever someone tries the whole "this-has-never-happened-before-in-all-history" argument. They bring up examples like the building in Madrid and think, "OK, building bigger than my house + it's on fire = comparable to WTC. And because these situations are valid parallels, it shows that since the Madrid building over there didn't collapse, the Twin Towers shouldn't have either."

Wrong, very wrong. Amusing as it is to watch these folks waddle about in the delusion that they have equal things on the left and right sides of the equation. You can't really use the Madrid building or others for a very valid comparison because those ones didn't have 1) giant planes pummeling into them weakening much of the structure including vital fireproofing, 2) friggin' huge fires caused immediately by tanks full of jet fuel exploding and fed further by all the other flammable stuff that was quickly engulfed, 3) firefighters completely unable to reach the fire itself, 4) similar, let alone identical, structures and compositions as the WTC, and the list probably goes on. When you actually start looking at the details, it turns out, there isn't much basis for comparison, there isn't much similarity at all aside from the initial impression you'd get running your eyes over the burning buildings. Which begs the question: do CTers think details just disappear?

Sorry for asking rhetorical questions about irrational people... I'm new here :D

[T.A.M.]

so now examples of collapse are not good enough, now they have to be collapses similar to the WTCs...come on.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The evidence of thermite is from Jones, as you know. Molten iron, with all sorts of entrained exotic chemicals. Can any of you link me to a nice refutation of Steven Jones? I will read it.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[TruthSeeker1234]

T.AM. link me to the example of a steel frame collapse that you think is corrobrative of 9/11. I will study it.

[Bell]

T.AM. link me to the example of a steel frame collapse that you think is corrobrative of 9/11. I will study it.

TruthSeeker1234,

Could you please show me:

1.) 10's of thousands skyscrapers built exactly like the WTC.
2.) those 10's of thousands of WTC skyscapers standing for a 100 years.
3.) your interpretation of how big 'a piece' would be?
4.) evidence of metal of the WTC shredded into those pieces.
5.) pictures or video of the third 110 story WTC building that got hit by an airplane on 9/11 and subsequently fell due to combined STRUCTUAL DAMAGE

Comment please.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I've been lurking around these kinds of threads for a while, and I think it's a real uproar whenever someone tries the whole "this-has-never-happened-before-in-all-history" argument. They bring up examples like the building in Madrid and think, "OK, building bigger than my house + it's on fire = comparable to WTC. And because these situations are valid parallels, it shows that since the Madrid building over there didn't collapse, the Twin Towers shouldn't have either."

Wrong, very wrong. Amusing as it is to watch these folks waddle about in the delusion that they have equal things on the left and right sides of the equation. You can't really use the Madrid building or others for a very valid comparison because those ones didn't have 1) giant planes pummeling into them weakening much of the structure including vital fireproofing, 2) friggin' huge fires caused immediately by tanks full of jet fuel exploding and fed further by all the other flammable stuff that was quickly engulfed, 3) firefighters completely unable to reach the fire itself, 4) similar, let alone identical, structures and compositions as the WTC, and the list probably goes on. When you actually start looking at the details, it turns out, there isn't much basis for comparison, there isn't much similarity at all aside from the initial impression you'd get running your eyes over the burning buildings. Which begs the question: do CTers think details just disappear?

Sorry for asking rhetorical questions about irrational people... I'm new here :D

Welcome to the goat rodeo, Matt.

[defaultdotxbe]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.

on the contrary, concrete is LESS vunerable to fire because it doesnt weaken as temperature increases

as an example i present the windsor building in madrid, the steel portion of the building suffered a complete collapse leaving only the concrete structure standing

http://static.flickr.com/16/19755967_dbf08d2823_m.jpg

[T.A.M.]

I don't have access to the finer details of the FPE study up above. All I know is they did a study to look back at high rise buildings destroyed due to fire (I think is NIST and FEMA who did the research). From this they listed 6 buildings as Steel Structured (4 of them 9/11) that collapsed due to fire. I guess if you write them they could tell you what the other two buildings are, or do you think they are lying.

The whole article is above.

TAM

[Sword_Of_Truth]

T.AM. link me to the example of a steel frame collapse that you think is corrobrative of 9/11. I will study it.

Link me to a study of a 100+ storey steel skyscraper struck by a 150 ton airliner with a nearly full fuel load at over 500 miles per hour that subsequently did not collapse I will study it.

[twinstead]

Default confused

I was referring to my hypothetical example about the COncorde. Come on.


Truthseeker his question was an excellent one. Deal with it. There WAS foul play when the WTC collapsed. It was targeted by terrorists.

No skyscraper has EVER been subjected what the WTC 1 and 2 were subjected to. To suggest that because it has never happened before it is suspcious, then you are right only because it WAS suspicious. B. F. Planes flew into them.

Then, in great detail, people who know how they were built and how buildings fail explained how it happened. I'm no expert. You have a problem with their explanation then ask THEM about it.

All I know is I sure don't trust your ideologically biased observations.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.

False the low conductivity of concrete is exactly what protects it, the heat can not penetrate the concrete like it can the steel.
The outside can heat up, but the inside stays cool that is why it makes such a good fire protect ant.
However steel will conduct the heat into the core of the metal, where the air can not reach to cool it and the metal softens and bends.
Exactly what happed in the twin towers that is why the trusses were at fault the new world trade 7 has concrete beams encased in concrete it is not venerable like the towers were.
Only some one who knew absolutely nothing about steel and concrete would suggest such fallacy!

[stateofgrace]

Default you're being silly. You gave the Concorde landing gear example to show that unique events are not necessarily sinister. I agree with that. I modified your example to fit with 9/11. A landing gear falling off a Concorde is not necessarily sinister. 3 in one day on different planes, that would be very suspicious. 3 in one day is a much more valid comparison to 9/11 buildings. If they only would have blown up 1 of them instead of 3, they might have fooled me.

You think it is suspicious that three building collapsed on the same day?

The fact that two of them was hit by planes traveling at high speed is totally incidental is it?

The fact that WTC 7 was probably (I say probably because as yet there is not a final report) hit by lots and lots of falling debris is incidental also?

Do you actually not notice what is going on or are you too stupid?

Had they "blown one up” you would be arguing that it and it alone was rigged with explosives. It is totally beside the point what people put to you and I have no desire to convince you or even debate you. You are simply a liar and a terrible person to boot. I resent strongly the fact you compare people to holocaust deniers because they not only don't believe you but can actually show you how wrong you are.

Do yourself a favor stop offering up bunk and read what people has said to you. Show some maturity and drop the self righteous savior of humanity act. It is sickening, especially when it is based on a pack of lies.

[defaultdotxbe]

The evidence of thermite is from Jones, as you know. Molten iron, with all sorts of entrained exotic chemicals. Can any of you link me to a nice refutation of Steven Jones? I will read it.

could you please list these "all sorts of exotic chemicals"

BTW sulphur is neither exotic nor "all sorts"

[T.A.M.]

My whole point, when this grandious statement is brought up, which it VERY OFTEN IS, is that it needs to be refined...

"No Steel Framed Building has ever collapsed due to fire." should be changed to,

"No Steel Framed Skyscraper has ever completely collapsed due to fire alone." and that I might accept as a statement of fact...might, if it turns out the two buildings they mention in the study are (1) Not skyscrapers, and (2) did not COMPLETELY collapse.

TAM

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The evidence of thermite is from Jones, as you know. Molten iron, with all sorts of entrained exotic chemicals. Can any of you link me to a nice refutation of Steven Jones? I will read it.

His evidence refutes itself how did he transform A36 structural steel into, Stainless steel with Chromium.
Everything he found is used in the manufacture of steel, and the sulfur in a building flooded in high sulfur fuels and items come on it is laughable!

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2003/37/i16/abs/es030356l.html

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

Should I go on all the compound that Dr. Jones found are trace elements common in steel.

[jskowron]

I originally brought up the Concorde crash to provide an example of a Strawman Argument similar to what the truthseeker1234 was proposing with the "no skyscraper collapse from fire" post. It is interesting to see how, a mere 30 minutes later, there start to be point-counterpoint posts about the Concorde crash. That is how these strawman arguments can get out of hand.

Arguments about WTC turn into arguments about something else, distracting from the fact that one unique event (2 simultaneously hijacked planes), inflicted upon a unique building complex (the twin WTC towers) led to a unique consequence (total collapse of two skyscrapers due to a combination of compromised structural integrity[damage form planes] and weakened components [steel strength compromised by fire]). Unique things occur. Again, To prove that the WTC collapsed due to fire, and was the only steel skyscraper to ever completely fail in such a manner, would not lend any more or less support to the CT idea that the official story is untrue.

[Architect]

Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.




Just a passing observation which might astound your average CTer with their intuitive logic (haha), but in actual fact under some circumstances large section structural timbers have better fire ratings than steel. So there.

I'm sure some of you can work out why, answers on the back of a postcard to.....




Damn: I see someone already covered that.

[Architect]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.

Truth, you're going to have to stop calling it "steel reinforced concrete". It's just plain old reinforced concrete. It doesn't get reinforced with anything else. All the steel is doing is taking the tension load (concrete being crap in those loadings). It's also typically AT LEAST 50-75mm from the finished face. Basically, it's pretty damned fireproof.

I have to also say that the detailing is easier.

[WildCat]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.
A primer for you (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm).

[kookbreaker]

Just a passing observation which might astound your average CTer with their intuitive logic (haha), but in actual fact under some circumstances large section structural timbers have better fire ratings than steel. So there.

I'm sure some of you can work out why, answers on the back of a postcard to.....


Damn: I see someone already covered that.

Bwahahaha!

[Arus808]

Arus questioned

First, explosives did go off while the fires were burning.
considering that there was no evidence of explosives, how do you come to this conclusion?

Dont confuse explosions being any indication that there are explosives. As we all know, in an average office setting, there are numerous items that can "explode" if subjected to intense heat, and that includes your computer.

Whether these were intentional or accidental is an interesting question. Second, explosives can be fireproofed, and set off by remote control.
Please provide proof of this claim. Every detonation expert disagrees that you can make explosives fireproof, and always state "keep away from open flame".

Third, it appears that a variety of substances were used. It appears that some form of thermite was used as an incindiary to weaken the structure. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite, requiring tempertures beyond hydrocarbon fires. Then it appears some type of high explosives finished the job.

Since there was no evidence of thermit,e how do you deduce that thermite was there (considering that 2 of the main three substances in thermite were missing).

[steve s]

Third, it appears that a variety of substances were used. It appears that some form of thermite was used as an incindiary to weaken the structure. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite, requiring tempertures beyond hydrocarbon fires. Then it appears some type of high explosives finished the job.

Please cite a single example of a controlled demolition in which Thermite was used to weaken a building and then high explosives were used to "finish the job." Just one example will do.

You can't, because it's never been done that way. Why? Because high explosives are more than sufficient to do the job. This obsession with Thermite is ridiculous.

Steve S.

[steve s]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. This makes it more resistant to fire, not less. When trying to heat up part of an interconneted steel structure, heat is wicked away to the connected parts.



Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

Not only are you wrong on both counts but you have it completely backwards. Something that is a poor conductor of heat is called an insulator, and is less vulnerable to heat, not more. The fireproofing material that was sprayed on the beams of the WTC is an example of an insulator.

The fact that you can't even get this most basic fact correct leads me to conclude that you're either abysmally stupid or a troll trying to stir up trouble. Either way, please leave us alone.

Steve S.

[Z]

1) If explosives were present, workers in the office would have noticed. The only situation in which office workers would NOT have noticed, is if the explosives were planted and then concealed while the office workers were not present.

Since workers were present nearly continuously, there was no opportunity to plant explosives. Before you bring up the alleged power-down in the one tower - only ever mentioned by this one person, never by any corroberative evidence - the time required to plant sufficient explosives, then disguise them, has been estimated at 6-9 days.

The only other opportunity would be during the late '60s - early '70s. Given the maximum shelf life of explosives at 25 years (and that's being GENEROUS), by 9.11 nearly all the explosives would have either been completely inert, or completely unstable.

(And, no, concrete does not make a better sealant than the original packaging this stuff comes in... Concrete is quite porous, you know.)

Therefore, no explosives were used in the Twin Towers.

2) Apparently, you are clueless about fire resistance and heat conduction. Ability to conduct heat is a bad thing in a structure - unless you've specifically made heat sinks. However, steel expands, softens, warps, etc. under intense heat - and if that steel is attached to rigid members, you can just imagine what it does to the whole structure. Concrete, on the other hand, is much less susceptible to heat precisely because concrete does NOT expand, soften, warp, etc. under intense heat.

3) Some buildings have suffered total collapse, even without fire. Even without earthquakes. Without vehicle impacts, or any other traumatic event.

Recently, I saw a special about a building in Asia (I believe) - a bank, with concrete support columns. This building suffered no trauma whatsoever, but spontaneously suffered total collapse one day. Why?

Because the building was constructed without taking into account proper dead load. It was strong enough to support loads for many years, but over time, micro fractures occured throughout the columns. Eventually, one column cracked.

That crack shifted the load to nearby columns, causing two other columns to collapse. This caused further load shifting, and seconds later, all columns collapsed.

Regardless of the fire on 9.11, the building had a large number of its supports knocked out, shifting the remaining load over to those columns that remained. That load would eventually lead to collapse - maybe in 10 minutes, maybe in 10 years, but eventually, those loads would have caused total structural failure. That there was a fire only shortened the time the remaining members could survive.

Even wind shear in the gaping hole left by the planes could have been enough, at any time, to shift mass and cause structural failure of the remaining beams.

The fact is, it's a wonder the structures remained standing as long as they did.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Estimated time frame of collapses

Time Collapse Situation 1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed 1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed 1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor 2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed 2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed 3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor 3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor 4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell downhttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor6.jpghttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor4.jpg
The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible. A closer look at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these were a fraction of the dimensions, and spaced about twice as far apart as the (http://forums.randi.org/)perimeter columns of the Twin Towers (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html).) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building. 4 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#ref4)
The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire:

The lack of a sprinkler system
Incorrect installation of spandrels
The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain 5 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#ref5) The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.


The Meridian Plaza fire directly contradicts your above claim. The steel portion of the structure collapsed from fire; the concrete core of the lower structure did not.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The evidence of thermite is from Jones, as you know. Molten iron, with all sorts of entrained exotic chemicals. Can any of you link me to a nice refutation of Steven Jones? I will read it.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

[Bell]

TroofSeeker1234, you STILL didn't answer my post:

Could you please show me:

1.) 10's of thousands skyscrapers built exactly like the WTC.
2.) those 10's of thousands of WTC skyscapers standing for a 100 years.
3.) your interpretation of how big 'a piece' would be?
4.) evidence of metal of the WTC shredded into those pieces.
5.) pictures or video of the third 110 story WTC building that got hit by an airplane on 9/11 and subsequently fell due to combined STRUCTUAL DAMAGE

Comment please.

[defaultdotxbe]

The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.

the gradual and partial collapses were due mainly to the concrete core, which did not collapse, as we already discussed earlier concrete is LESS vunerable to fire than steel, and thus more likely to remain standing

fireproofing: the impact of the planes knocked off the fireproofing in the WTC

sprinklers: the impacts of the planes cut the sprinkler lines so fire suppression was inoperative on floors that were on fire

prevention: you can prevent all you want, but 10,000 pounds of jet fuel is probably going to burn no matter what

[defaultdotxbe]

TroofSeeker1234, you STILL didn't answer my post:

Could you please show me:

1.) 10's of thousands skyscrapers built exactly like the WTC.
2.) those 10's of thousands of WTC skyscapers standing for a 100 years.
3.) your interpretation of how big 'a piece' would be?
4.) evidence of metal of the WTC shredded into those pieces.
5.) pictures or video of the third 110 story WTC building that got hit by an airplane on 9/11 and subsequently fell due to combined STRUCTUAL DAMAGE

Comment please.

he hasnt told me what "exotic chemicals" jones found either

[WildCat]

he hasnt told me what "exotic chemicals" jones found either
Isn't that what Brazilian women rub on their bronzed bodies at the beach in Ipanema?

[Mince]

Truth, quick question.

Are you under the impression that fire has no effect whatsoever upon steel? That if left unchecked, a fire of any size would do nothing to the strength or integrity of the steel?

Just trying to get a bearing on where you're coming from.

If you don't mind, I'd like to expand your argument a bit. All of the past building fires to which deniers connect are all missing one crucial element: the structural compromise caused by damage to the building other than the fire, i.e. the two plane crashes and building 7's collateral damage.

[Bell]

Isn't that what Brazilian women rub on their bronzed bodies at the beach in Ipanema?

Note to self:

Book vacation at Ipanema, Brazil.

[CptColumbo]

Nevermind

[DavidJames]

he hasnt told me what "exotic chemicals" jones found either
Like every looser before him, he responds selectively, ignoring what he can't (or won't) answer. When he does respond it rarely addresses the point(s) being made.

He clearly has read nothing but CT related information. Realizing he was way over his head technically, he quickly abandon any pretense of analytical debate in favor of post spamming of others data. Of course, he cares not that the data is selectively produced by people unqualified (or unwilling) to understand the details.

In other words, he is a garden variety CTist. A CT mongrel or tabby, who fashions himself as so much more.

With apologies to owners of mongrel or tabby's everywhere.

[defaultdotxbe]

A CT mongrel or tabby

darn you, now im gonna feel bad for throwing rocks at him

..poor little kitty...

[CptColumbo]

TS-If you look at this photo of WTC 2's east face, you will notice some bowing of the columns. What do you think caused that?

[Loss Leader]

It doesn't matter what you write. This is this shmendrick's pattern. As I have said on other threads:

It goes like this:

1. Make a lunatic assertion about a detail of 9/11 with no evidence.
2. Offer some links to pictures.
3. Become exceptionally beligerant.
4. Make an unwarranted analogy with no evidence.
5. Deflect attention away from yourself by demanding that others offer information about your analogy (Holocaust, NSA, whatever).
6. Make a new lunatic assertion, possibly in another thread.

We're currently on point 5. Rather than debate anything that he has brought up about the WTC, shmendrick1234's tactic now is to demand that we produce evidence of some offshoot of his main argument.

And still he has not told us his theory of exactly what happened to bring down the towers - who planted what at what times, what happened to the planes, who ran things, etc. He hasn't told us because he has no theory. He just has the 6 steps which he repeats over and over. Why? Because he's a shmendrick.

[Bell]

TS-If you look at this photo of WTC 2' east face, you will notice some bowing of the columns. What do you think caused that?

Also, watch this video, which beside is shocking, also shows the buckling:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=wtc+church&hl=en

[Mince]

It doesn't matter what you write. This is this shmendrick's pattern. As I have said on other threads:

It goes like this:

1. Make a lunatic assertion about a detail of 9/11 with no evidence.
2. Offer some links to pictures.
3. Become exceptionally beligerant.
4. Make an unwarranted analogy with no evidence.
5. Deflect attention away from yourself by demanding that others offer information about your analogy (Holocaust, NSA, whatever).
6. Make a new lunatic assertion, possibly in another thread.

We're currently on point 5. Rather than debate anything that he has brought up about the WTC, shmendrick1234's tactic now is to demand that we produce evidence of some offshoot of his main argument.

And still he has not told us his theory of exactly what happened to bring down the towers - who planted what at what times, what happened to the planes, who ran things, etc. He hasn't told us because he has no theory. He just has the 6 steps which he repeats over and over. Why? Because he's a shmendrick.

Ya, gotta like the argument:

Your failure to disprove A, proves A.

"Ya, well I saw Superman bring down building 7. Prove me wrong."
"Well, gee, I can't."
"Ha ha, see, I told you, you freakin' BushBot."

[LashL]

First, explosives did go off while the fires were burning. Whether these were intentional or accidental is an interesting question. Second, explosives can be fireproofed, and set off by remote control. Third, it appears that a variety of substances were used. It appears that some form of thermite was used as an incindiary to weaken the structure. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite, requiring tempertures beyond hydrocarbon fires. Then it appears some type of high explosives finished the job.

Evidence, please, of "explosives going off while the fires were burning".
Evidence, please, of said explosives being "fireproofed".
Evidence, please, that "a variety of substances were used".
Evidence, please, that thermite was used.
Evidence, please, of "high explosives" being used to "finish the job".

[apathoid]

TS-If you look at this photo of WTC 2's east face, you will notice some bowing of the columns. What do you think caused that?

Squibs.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ya, gotta like the argument:

Your failure to disprove A, proves A.

"Ya, well I saw Superman bring down building 7. Prove me wrong."
"Well, gee, I can't."
"Ha ha, see, I told you, you freakin' BushBot."

Ah yes, good old
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

[apathoid]

TS-If you look at this photo of WTC 2's east face, you will notice some bowing of the columns. What do you think caused that?

Here are a few shots which also illustrate the bowing.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht2.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/bow2.jpg



I guess all these were photoshopped by Val McClatchey. Shame on her, where is Killtown when you need him.

[R.Mackey]

Here are a few shots which also illustrate the bowing.

I guess all these were photoshopped by Val McClatchey. Shame on her, where is Killtown when you need him.
Good grief, I hadn't seen those. That is huge.

Remember, steel hits its plastic deformation limit at about 3% strain. THREE PERCENT. If you can see it, it's bad.

I've always thought the WTC towers performed very, very well, myself. If I ever had the chance to meet their architect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoru_Yamasaki), I should have wanted to shake his hand.

[Kent1]

Here are a few shots which also illustrate the bowing.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht2.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/bow2.jpg



I guess all these were photoshopped by Val McClatchey. Shame on her, where is Killtown when you need him.

If you like that last shot you'll love a larger pic of the whole shot.

http://www.pbase.com/bankst/image/35931732&exif=Y

[Dog Town]

Can't say that I like anything about that shot! But I understand!

[defaultdotxbe]

another important thing to note in that pic is the size of the fires, neithe rmoderate nor "going out"

[R.Mackey]

Can't say that I like anything about that shot! But I understand!
Roger that. It's not the kind of thing I like. But if you look at that and think "that building can stay standing indefinitely," you're fooling yourself.

[Kent1]

Roger that. It's not the kind of thing I like. But if you look at that and think "that building can stay standing indefinitely," you're fooling yourself.

Good point.

[gumboot]

Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse.


That was not your statement. You said fire cannot cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse.

Big difference.

By the way...

The Kader Toy Factory Fire (http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0&ssect=0)

-Andrew

[kookbreaker]

Run away, little lieseeker, run away. Those pesky facts will never catch you if you keep running away.

[MRC_Hans]

I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?

OK. ... IF you will have the intellectual honesty to admit that 100% of the steel-framed skyscrapers ever hit by large airliners have collapsed.

After all, that is our true reference, ehh?

In fact, I'm pretty sure we could extend that to be: 100% of the buildings ever suffering direct hits by proportionally large aircraft have suffered catastrophic structurla failure.

Hans

[Skibum]

In fact, I'm pretty sure we could extend that to be: 100% of the buildings ever suffering direct hits by proportionally large aircraft have suffered catastrophic structurla failure.


I wouldn't extend it that far, after all the Empire State Building is still around.

[Belz...]

Yes, unprecedented things can happen, assuming they are physically possible. It was Belz who seemed to be saying it had happeded before. Now, if he just meant "buildings" can collapse from fire, yes, of course, but so what.

So what ?

Are steel buildings impervious to fire damage ?

Obviously not, because that Madrid building, AGAIN, had its steel components collapse while the concrete stayed in place. Replace that concrete with more steel, and what do you get ?

I'd really like to see your answer to this, seeing as how you keep dodging it when I bring it up.

[Belz...]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. This makes it more resistant to fire, not less.

WHAT ?

Still wating for any examples from the 100+ year history of steel skyscrapers and fire. Any collapses? Any? Hello? Is this thing on?

Fire, planes. Don't forget the 767s.

I thought Belz was asserting that. Now, true he said "buildings", not "steel framed skyscrapers". But he said it in response to my statement about "steel framed skyscrapers".

So, if you ask me if I like chocolate and I answer "I like ice cream", does that make "ice cream" a subset of "chocolate" ?

Suppose there were 10's of thousands of Concorde supersonic jets, not just a few. Suppose we had a 100 year history of Concorde jets taking off with no landing gear problems. Then suppose not one, not two, but three jets all suffered landing gears falling off, all on the same day, all at the same airport. There's a much more valid comparison.

Except the WTC didn't "just" collapse, did it ?

First, explosives did go off while the fires were burning. Whether these were intentional or accidental is an interesting question. Second, explosives can be fireproofed, and set off by remote control. Third, it appears that a variety of substances were used. It appears that some form of thermite was used as an incindiary to weaken the structure. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite, requiring tempertures beyond hydrocarbon fires. Then it appears some type of high explosives finished the job.

Aside from the fact that this is conjecture of the worst kind, thermite burns DOWN. How many times must I say this ?

[Belz...]

Here are a few shots which also illustrate the bowing.


Ow! Hadn't seen it that way, before. That's impressive.

[Mancman]

Actually, the 1st interstate bank building in Los Angeles is quite like the twin towers - square footprint, tube-within-a-tube steel superstructure, 67 stories.
3 1/2 hour fire, far hotter than WTC, as evidenced by breaking windows. No breaking windows from heat at WTC.

Ahhh, I wondered how long it would take you to pull the windows fallacy out of your hat. You should read the NIST reports, they really do contain alot of information. What do you make of the following table and text?

http://i6.tinypic.com/449fjf8.jpg
NISTNCSTAR1-5Achap1-8Draft, page 232.

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, the 1st interstate bank building in Los Angeles is quite like the twin towers - square footprint, tube-within-a-tube steel superstructure, 67 stories.
3 1/2 hour fire, far hotter than WTC, as evidenced by breaking windows. No breaking windows from heat at WTC.Oh? What then are all those holes from which flames and smoke is seen belching? Toilet vents?

Seriously, TS1234, by now you should know that you need to do better than that, around here. Maybe there are forums where you can get away with that kind of nonsense, but this is not one of them. At least do put in some effort, OK?

Hans

[Loss Leader]

I've always thought the WTC towers performed very, very well, myself. If I ever had the chance to meet their architect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoru_Yamasaki), I should have wanted to shake his hand.

They were a marvel of engineering, that's true. However, the architect's decision to anchor the floors to a core rather than a more traditional skeletal structure did make the buildings weaker than they could have been. It also made the buildings taller and more rentable and it was clearly sufficient for decades of day-to-day use. Second, while the architecture may have been excellent, evidence now points to poor construction and fireproofing by mafia-controlled firms which contributed (decades later) to the failure of the buildings.

My point? I don't really have one. I just wanted to prove I knew something about something.

[CptColumbo]

TS-I suggest you answer some of the above questions, before you create another thread and fall too far behind. We've answered your questions, so it's only fair.

[defaultdotxbe]

I wouldn't extend it that far, after all the Empire State Building is still around.

a b25 hitting the ESB is not "proportionally as large" as a 767 hitting the WTC, i think the point is quite valid