Circularity of the "never happened before" argument

[1337m4n]

Let's talk the Truther argument that the WTC couldn't have collapsed due to fire because "it's never happened before". The traditional method of debunking this involves pointing to examples like the Kader Toy Factory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory) or this tower in Egypt. (http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/Cairo-Suburb-Building-Fire--Collapse-Kills-14/46$25161) This method has proven ineffective because the Truthers always manage to move the goalposts: first it's "no steel building has collapsed due to fire", then when you provide examples like the Kader Toy Factory it becomes "no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire", then when you provide the Windsor building it becomes "no steel skyscraper has ever COMPLETELY collapsed due to fire", etc. The Truthers can theoretically keep moving the goalposts like this until they demand an identical collapse of an identically designed building.

Instead, there's a better way. You can show with simple logic that the "never happened before" argument is a circular reasoning fallacy. First, we consider their claim:

CLAIM: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.

Next, we work in the supporting "never happened before" argument:

CLAIM: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.
--WARRANT: No building with (insert criteria X here) has ever collapsed from fire.

This is the basis of the Truthers' case. Although one could easily point out that the claim doesn't follow from the warrant, there's a bigger flaw with this argument: namely, the WTC itself. The WTC would obviously meet criteria X, whatever X happened to be. This means that the World Trade Center itself would falsify the warrant. So within the warrant to this argument is the inherent assumption that the WTC did not collapse from fire:

CLAIM: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.
--WARRANT: No building with (insert criteria X here) has ever collapsed from fire.
----SUPPORTING ASSUMPTION: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.


...and now the problem is obvious: the warrant used to support the claim is essentially the same as the claim itself. The WTC did not collapse from fire, because it did not collapse from fire. If that's not circular reasoning, I don't know what is.

This is all, of course, a complicated way of saying that there has to be a first time for everything--otherwise, nothing could ever happen.

Your response, Truthers?

[gumboot]

The problem is the Conspiracy Theorist argument is that no building had collapsed from fire prior to 9/11. That essentially slips them out of the circular reasoning noose.

-Gumboot

[Hokulele]

No, the problem with this argument is the futility of using logic when discussing things with CTists.

[Mangoose]

there's a bigger flaw with this argument: namely, the WTC itself. The WTC would obviously meet criteria X, whatever X happened to be. This means that the World Trade Center itself would falsify the warrant.

Yup, for everything there is a first time. The first occurrence of anything falsifies the claim that X could not happen.

burnvictim77 made a similar point in pointing to the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, which was the first time a bridge ever collapsed due to wind-induced harmonic resonance. And due to the mind-boggling complexity of airliner mechanical systems, I think that often airliners that crash because of mechanical trouble do so through a unique confluence of factors, that is, it is the first time a plane crashes for precisely that set of contributing factors.

[stilicho]

This argument is similar to the 'unprecedented put options' canard. The fact is, 'unusual put options' are traded daily on the world's derivative exchanges.

It's also similar to the arguments that begin "what are the chances..." Using that type of reasoning you could argue against your own existence very easily.

[bonkey]

What steel-construction high-rises have previously been collapsed through a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collaopse here> made to look like fire.

What??? None???

You mean its the first time a building with <insert criteria here> has ever been collapsed by conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire?

Well, gosh. That pretty much proves that you must be wrong and that it couldn't have been collapsed by a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire.

What's that, I hear you say? My logic is stupid? Say no more. I agree completely.

[Anti-sophist]

Let's talk the Truther argument that the WTC couldn't have collapsed due to fire because "it's never happened before". The traditional method of debunking this involves pointing to examples like the Kader Toy Factory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory) or this tower in Egypt. (http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/Cairo-Suburb-Building-Fire--Collapse-Kills-14/46$25161)

I think the primary mistake is believing this actually refutes their argument. As you've pointed out, it doesn't work. I am of the opinion that it doesn't refute their argument, either. Now, that withstanding, when a truther lies and says "no steel frame structure has ever collapsed", yes, you can bring up one of numerous examples. But the kernel of their argument... their premise.. is correct. It has never happened before. So, to me, trying to argue that it has is a bit silly. I mean, in a sense, they are right. It has never happened.

The reason the argument is terrible is because their implication is what is absurd. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't make it impossible. _EVERYTHING_ that has ever happened happened once, for the first time.

[Totovader]

There's two methods that I think are effective against this claim- one of them addresses another circular reasoning fallacy within the claim:

1) To claim that something has "never happened before" and it's therefore impossible would mean that the towers did not exist: these towers were unique, nothing like them had ever been built before.

2) To get to the heart of the claim and where it originated is to address the claim that structural steel does not melt from fire. The claim is obviously false, but the reason we do not see many examples of it it because ALMOST ALL fires are a) protected by fireproofing, and b) fought by firefighting efforts. The ONLY examples we have where this has not happened are the ones mentioned. If conspiracists try to move the goalpost, that's what I point out: the reasoning behind their argument. I often hear the claim in response to the Kader toy factory that it was "poorly constructed"- apparently conspiracists think that's their only defense, but it only works in the favor of supporting the fact that fire can weaken steel- and did.

[Dave Rogers]

I often hear the claim in response to the Kader toy factory that it was "poorly constructed"- apparently conspiracists think that's their only defense, but it only works in the favor of supporting the fact that fire can weaken steel- and did.

The claim that the Kader toy factory was poorly constructed is an interesting one, that merits some careful examination. The Kader toy factory violated local building codes in two respects. One of these respects, if I recall correctly, related to the provision of external walkways and can have had no possible implication for the susceptibility of the building to fire damage. So let's look at the other violation.

This was, in fact, that local building codes required multi-storey buildings to be concrete-framed because of the susceptibility of steel-framed buildings to fire damage. In other words, the way in which conspiracists claim to Kader toy factory to have been poorly constructed is that it possessed the very steel framing that they claim cannot collapse due to fire. So while, on the face of it, the "Kader toy factory violated building codes" appears to have some spurious validity, with a moment's critical examination it becomes self-debunking, and spectacularly so.

As for the "never happened before" argument, I'm a research scientist, so if I thought things couldn't happen because they've never happened before, I'd be out of a job.

Dave

[X]

The problem is the Conspiracy Theorist argument is that no building had collapsed from fire prior to 9/11. That essentially slips them out of the circular reasoning noose.

-Gumboot

When they say this, aren't they in effect admitting that the WTC buildings did collapse due to fire?

[Cuddles]

What steel-construction high-rises have previously been collapsed through a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collaopse here> made to look like fire.

What??? None???

You mean its the first time a building with <insert criteria here> has ever been collapsed by conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire?

Well, gosh. That pretty much proves that you must be wrong and that it couldn't have been collapsed by a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire.

What's that, I hear you say? My logic is stupid? Say no more. I agree completely.

I like this argument. Don't bother trying to debunk the argument, just point out that their own logic says that it couldn't possibly have been a conspiracy.

[Totovader]

;3160578']When they say this, aren't they in effect admitting that the WTC buildings did collapse due to fire?

Yes- it's a risky venture, but they try to create enough doubt that it couldn't happen by trying a bit of concession which they think will reward them via argument from incredulity. The problem is- they can't possibly be consistent with the claim: One minute they'll be rolling their eyes saying "first time in history", and the next they'll be talking about free fall speed and squibs.

[defaultdotxbe]

just respond with this:

for the entirety of human civilization the human race boasted no structures with a room higher than 400m, then suddenly in 1974 we are to two believe we had 2?

the towers never existed

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What steel-construction high-rises have previously been collapsed through a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collaopse here> made to look like fire.

What??? None???

You mean its the first time a building with <insert criteria here> has ever been collapsed by conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire?

Well, gosh. That pretty much proves that you must be wrong and that it couldn't have been collapsed by a conspiracy-hidden <insert truther reason for collapse here> made to look like fire.

What's that, I hear you say? My logic is stupid? Say no more. I agree completely.
The reason the argument is terrible is because their implication is what is absurd. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't make it impossible. _EVERYTHING_ that has ever happened happened once, for the first time.


Yep. Just throw it back at them:
- No skyscraper the size of the Twin Towers have ever been demolished prior to 9/11, therefore the Twin Towers were not demolished (still leaves WTC7 open for them, though).

- No controlled demolition prior to 9/11 has ever employed thermite, therefore thermite was not used to bring down any of the towers.

- Etc...

;3160578']When they say this, aren't they in effect admitting that the WTC buildings did collapse due to fire?


Yeah, but they only use it to make the "official story" sound outrageous: "It had never happened before 9/11, so why should we believe it happened on 9/11?"

It's stupid and illogical, but not at all surprising.

[technoextreme]

I think the primary mistake is believing this actually refutes their argument. As you've pointed out, it doesn't work. I am of the opinion that it doesn't refute their argument, either. Now, that withstanding, when a truther lies and says "no steel frame structure has ever collapsed", yes, you can bring up one of numerous examples. But the kernel of their argument... their premise.. is correct. It has never happened before. So, to me, trying to argue that it has is a bit silly. I mean, in a sense, they are right. It has never happened.

The reason the argument is terrible is because their implication is what is absurd. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't make it impossible. _EVERYTHING_ that has ever happened happened once, for the first time.

Actually your wrong. 9/11 was not the first time a steel structure collapsed from fire. In fact it's pretty common among bridges. Kuwait has numerous buildings that were decimated because of Iraq setting fires. In reality as other people have pointed out previous events can be used to debunk. Even though a bridge is not a skyscrapper it does show that steel has no inherrent ability to disperse heat which protects the structure.

[pgwenthold]

Yep. Just throw it back at them:
- No skyscraper the size of the Twin Towers have ever been demolished prior to 9/11, therefore the Twin Towers were not demolished (still leaves WTC7 open for them, though).

- No controlled demolition prior to 9/11 has ever employed thermite, therefore thermite was not used to bring down any of the towers.




Ding Ding Ding!

This is the correct answer.

I always find it absolutely hilarious to hear someone claim it was thermite because buildings falling due to fire "have never happend before." I have asked this, and of course never gotten an answer: Give a single example of a building demolition that was done using thermite?

The stupid thing is, you know, there could actually be an example of it (I don't think there is), but even if there were, these idiots wouldn't know of it because they are blowing out their arse.

[Alareth]

I never believed the truthers were right before therefore I never can.

[CHF]

From what I gather, virtually everything that happened on 9/11 was unprecedented.

So am I surprised that I'd see unprecedented building collapses on that same day? No, not really.

[1337m4n]

In response to all the non-answers I am getting in this thread, (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107419) I have decided to bump this.

I'd like to see how JHarrow and LastChild respond to this.

[LastChild]

My claim is no steel constructed high-rise building has ever suffered global collapse from fire. It has never happened. Now correct me if I’m wrong but even according to the official 9/11 theory I don’t believe the towers are said to have collapsed from fire alone either. So talk about your “ circular reasoning”.

This is pretty much what you get here at JREF…

Debunker:” You toofers are always claiming fire can’t destroy a building”

Me: “No that’s not what I said at all.”

Debunker:“Well then look at this Windsor building. What have you huff huff got to say about that moonbat huf huff…?

Me: “What am I suppose to say about it? Did it suffer global collapse?”

Debunker:“Ah no but but if it can suffer partial collapse from a fire why can’t it suffer complete collapse from a fire?!? huff huff fart burp take that moonbat!” Besides it was built different then the WTC! Ha ha! Got Ya!

Me: “So then why did you post it as a comparison?”

Debunker: “Never mind that twoofer! Stop dodging and just answer the question tick tick snort huff burp…”

Me: “Well maybe if the foundation was involved it could possibly cause collapse of the rest of the building but even that has never happened that I know of. I’ll tell you what why don’t you point to a steel constructed high-rise suffering complete global collapse from a fire alone ever in the history of the world?”

Debunker:” No fair No fair! Just because its neeeeever happen doesn’t meeean it can’t eeeeeever happen. See you’re debunked! Ha Ha I’m gonna stundie you and everyone’s gonna laugh at you. Take that toofer!!! I… Wha…? HUH??... Yeah Ma I’ll be right up I’m pawning a twoofer on the computer and… huh ? NO I’m not looking at porn! Yeah I told you I did I’ll be right up Ma… All right Ma I told you I’m busy right now. Ah all right Ma! Excuse me twoofer? That was my Mommy… and ah um I gotta go up stairs and wash the brown spots out of my underwear. So you got lucky this time twoofer! Oh yeah TWOOFER I almost forgot what about the Kader toy factory and the highway overpass? Seeee? It can happen! HA! HA! ”

Me: “Not really and they’re not exactly high-rise buildings either are they…?”

Debunker: Stop Stop moving the goal posts! Listen Toofer I’m gonna .. huh? YEAH MOM I’LL BE RIGHT UP! AND YES I DID MY HOMEWORK! Ahhh man….. I can’t ever have any FUN!

[JHarrow]

My claim is no steel constructed high-rise building has ever suffered global collapse from fire. It has never happened. Now correct me if I’m wrong but even according to the official 9/11 theory I don’t believe the towers are said to have collapsed from fire alone either. So talk about your “ circular reasoning”.

This is pretty much what you get here at JREF…


That is comedy gold.

[defaultdotxbe]

My claim is no steel constructed high-rise building has ever suffered global collapse from fire. It has never happened. Now correct me if I’m wrong but even according to the official 9/11 theory I don’t believe the towers are said to have collapsed from fire alone either.
then your claim is at best a non sequitor and at worst a blatant strawman

[JHarrow]

LastChild thankyou for my new signature

[LastChild]

LastChild thankyou for my new signature

Don't mention it twoofer. lol

[JHarrow]

Don't mention it twoofer. lol

It was such a perfect parody. Sadly, you haven't even had to exagerate it much at all.


Now take that toofer, you liar!

[Corsair 115]

My claim is no steel constructed high-rise building has ever suffered global collapse from fire. It has never happened.And before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk no one had ever achieved flight in a heavier-than-air craft before. Before Sputnik no man-made object had ever been put into orbit around the Earth.

What's your fixation with something never having happened before? There's always a first time for something to occur.

[LastChild]

And before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk no one had ever achieved flight in a heavier-than-air craft before. Before Sputnik no man-made object had ever been put into orbit around the Earth.

What's your fixation with something never having happened before? There's always a first time for something to occur.

It would seem that the whole entire official version of events regarding 9/11 is what has the fixation with the “first time things have ever happened”. In fact without a strong belief of coincidence, a strong willingness for suspension of disbelief, and there’s a “first time for everything” mentality the official version wouldn't fly at all. If the official version was the Wright brother’s plane it would have crashed and burned without ever getting off the ground killing both of them. It’s that lame. It's that much of a disaster.

[Garb]

It would seem that the whole entire official version of events regarding 9/11 is what has the fixation with the “first time things have ever happened”. In fact without a strong belief of coincidence, a strong willingness for suspension of disbelief, and there’s a “first time for everything” mentality the official version wouldn't fly at all. If the official version was the Wright brother’s plane it would have crashed and burned without ever getting off the ground killing both of them. It’s that lame. It's that much of a disaster.

I'm pretty sure this thread is not about the validity of the "official story".

It's about the argument that because something has never happened, it cannot happen.

[1337m4n]

Have they actually attempted to refute my OP yet? I'm too lazy to take them off Ignore only to put them right back on if indeed they haven't.

[CHF]

It would seem that the whole entire official version of events regarding 9/11 is what has the fixation with the “first time things have ever happened”. In fact without a strong belief of coincidence, a strong willingness for suspension of disbelief, and there’s a “first time for everything” mentality the official version wouldn't fly at all. If the official version was the Wright brother’s plane it would have crashed and burned without ever getting off the ground killing both of them. It’s that lame. It's that much of a disaster.

Meanwhile, the twoofers - after six years of research - still don't even have a friggin' narrative.

:dl:

[CHF]

My claim is no steel constructed high-rise building has ever suffered global collapse from fire. It has never happened. Now correct me if I’m wrong but even according to the official 9/11 theory I don’t believe the towers are said to have collapsed from fire alone either. So talk about your “ circular reasoning”.

Are you the same LastChild who admitted on another thread that since you've never seen the circumstances of 9/11 other than on 9/11, that you have no idea how those circumstances should have played out?

Now here you are, once again ignoring the jet impacts and the fact that the events of 9/11 were unprecedented. Here you are, yet again, making a big deal about unprecedented events resulting in unprecedented things.

You really are hopeless.

[Newtons Bit]

Let's take a look at the Ronan Point Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point) example? There was a small gas explosion that destroyed one small section of wall on the 18th floor. It caused a progressive collapse that carried down to the bottom of the building.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Ronan_Point_-_Daily_Telegraph.jpg/200px-Ronan_Point_-_Daily_Telegraph.jpg

On 9/11, one floor was destroyed by impact from a plane and the subsequent fire. It caused a progressive collapse that carried down to the bottom of the building.

It is not a new concept. We in the engineering field have known about it for a long time.

[JHarrow]

Let's take a look at the Ronan Point Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point) example? There was a small gas explosion that destroyed one small section of wall on the 18th floor. It caused a progressive collapse that carried down to the bottom of the building.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Ronan_Point_-_Daily_Telegraph.jpg/200px-Ronan_Point_-_Daily_Telegraph.jpg

On 9/11, one floor was destroyed by impact from a plane and the subsequent fire. It caused a progressive collapse that carried down to the bottom of the building.

It is not a new concept. We in the engineering field have known about it for a long time.

That building seems to still be there.

[CHF]

That building seems to still be there.

Swoooosh! Another point flies over JH's head!

He's trying to help you understand what "progressive collapse" means.

[LastChild]

Let's take a look at the Ronan Point Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point) example? There was a small gas explosion that destroyed one small section of wall on the 18th floor. It caused a progressive collapse that carried down to the bottom of the building.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Ronan_Point_-_Daily_Telegraph.jpg/200px-Ronan_Point_-_Daily_Telegraph.jpg


Yes let's take a look why don't we?

"Only a few weeks after the occupants had moved in, a gas explosion demolished a load bearing wall, causing the collapse of one entire corner of the building. Four people were killed in the collapse, and seventeen were injured."

What else have we got here?

"Ronan Point, named after Harry Ronan was part of the wave of tower blocks built in the 1960s as cheap, affordable prefabricated housing for inhabitants of the West Ham region of London."

An explosion. Just like a bomb. To a cheap piece of crap building. Is this the best you can do? Why is that? In fact why don't you just compare the WTC to a CD? The debunker in the other thread was comparing to the Windsor tower and was implying that a fire to a few floors near the top could globally collapse a steel structure high-rise. At least I think that's what he was trying to do but I don't know because the Windsor didn't suffer global collapse either.

On 9/11, one floor was destroyed by impact from a plane and the subsequent fire. It caused a progressive collapse that carried down to the bottom of the building.

The WTC suffered a global collapse as in nothing left at all in less then an hour.

It is not a new concept. We in the engineering field have known about it for a long time.

Then model a steel structure high-rise suffering global collapse from damage to a few floors near the top. In fact why don't you just go out back and burn down your barbeque? Use all the lighter fluid you like. Let me know how it goes. It shouldn't be hard for all you genius's in the engineering field to at least model it all the way through. BTW what's taking so long on that WTC7 report? Got any inside skinny on that one? I mean it's not complicated is it? Are you really positive how that ones gonna come out?

[JHarrow]

Trust a debunker to use a prefabricated crap building that wasn't destroyed by an explosion to prove the wtc should have collapsed from fire LOL

[LastChild]

Trust a debunker to use a prefabricated crap building that wasn't destroyed by an explosion to prove the wtc should have collapsed from fire LOL

What’s this open mic night for the wannabe duh bunka’s?

WHAT TIME DOES THE REAL DEBUNKING START?

Any day now. Any day…

[JHarrow]

What’s this open mic night for the wannabe duh bunka’s?

WHAT TIME DOES THE REAL DEBUNKING START?

Any day now. Any day…

The real debunking will start when the wtc7 report comes out. I mean they wouldn't delay it again would they....

[CHF]

LastChild,

if the events of 9/11 were without precedence then how do you know how it should have panned out?

Are you basing your beliefs on a series of other situations that do not match the events of 9/11? It sure looks that way.

[CHF]

Trust a debunker to use a prefabricated crap building that wasn't destroyed by an explosion to prove the wtc should have collapsed from fire LOL

But remember.....the steel portion of the Mardid tower collapsing from fire shows that steel buildings cannot collapse from fire. :rolleyes:

[JHarrow]

The steel portion collapsed after hours of an inferno.

The steel building that was wtc2 collapsed after 56 minutes.

[CHF]

The steel portion collapsed after hours of an inferno.

The steel building that was wtc2 collapsed after 56 minutes.

Forgetting the planes again, are we?

:dl:

[JHarrow]

Forgetting the planes again, are we?

:dl:

Wow those goalposts move fast.

The towers survived the plane impacts.

[CHF]

Wow those goalposts move fast.

The towers survived the plane impacts.

Might a gaping hole in the exterior support structure effect the ability of that building to hold up in the midst of a raging fire?

NO, of course not!

[GreNME]

Why are you guys encouraging the trolls?

[CHF]

Why are you guys encouraging the trolls?

Sometimes it's fun to shoot fish in a barrel. :D

[JHarrow]

Sometimes it's fun to shoot fish in a barrel. :D

When will you be starting? Or do you like being the fish?

[CHF]

What do you think, JH....might that massive hole in the exterior support structure have weakened the building at all?

[Arus808]

Wow those goalposts move fast.

The towers survived the plane impacts.

that isn't moving goalposts; the towers survived the impacts initially; the subsequent fire and damage from those impacts lead to collapse.

Stop separating out the events into their "own" event and sayng that "event" could not have collapse;then say they have no relation to each other. A combination of events lead the collapse of the towers.

[JHarrow]

What do you think, JH....might that massive hole in the exterior support structure have weakened the building at all?

You got calcs to back it up this time?

[Newtons Bit]

You got calcs to back it up this time?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267

[Newtons Bit]

Swoooosh! Another point flies over JH's head!

He's trying to help you understand what "progressive collapse" means.

I am underwhelmed by their reading comprehension. The CONCEPT of a building suffering a progressive collapse is not new. Almost all structures that have suffered from progressive collapse are different forms of construction.

[Newtons Bit]

Then model a steel structure high-rise suffering global collapse from damage to a few floors near the top. In fact why don't you just go out back and burn down your barbeque? Use all the lighter fluid you like. Let me know how it goes. It shouldn't be hard for all you genius's in the engineering field to at least model it all the way through. BTW what's taking so long on that WTC7 report? Got any inside skinny on that one? I mean it's not complicated is it? Are you really positive how that ones gonna come out?

You tell me that the Ronan Point Tower isn't relevant, and then you use a barbecue for your analogy? :boggled:

[CHF]

You got calcs to back it up this time?

Looks like Newton Bits took care of that.

BTW, I directed you to calculations last time as well. You just couldn't be bothered clicking on the link.

[rwguinn]

You tell me that the Ronan Point Tower isn't relevant, and then you use a barbecue for your analogy? :boggled:

A closer analogy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sab2Ltm1WcM)

now, you troofers--is there any subject you can stick to? You have 20 or 30 threads dealing with the collapse--this is about circular reasoning of "It has never happened before, so it can't"
Next off topic is getting reported.
Suicide by mod--the troofer's choice...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I see JHarrow has regurgitated another classic, truther brain-breaker...

"Plane impact = no collapse
Fire = no collapse
Therefore, plane impact + fire = no collapse"

In other words, 2+2 is not greater than 3!

[Corsair 115]

It would seem that the whole entire official version of events regarding 9/11 is what has the fixation with the “first time things have ever happened”. In fact without a strong belief of coincidence, a strong willingness for suspension of disbelief, and there’s a “first time for everything” mentality the official version wouldn't fly at all. That's only partially correct at best. And in any case, so what? Extraordinary events can happen at any time; read a little history and you'll see that for yourself quite easily.

[tsig]

That is comedy gold.

Got some land in Florida you might be interested in.

[chillzero]

Keep it civil, and on topic, please.

[1337m4n]

Keep it civil, and on topic, please.

Yes, thank you Chillzero.



I'm waiting for someone to try to refute my argument in the OP: Saying the Towers couldn't have collapsed because nothing like it has ever happened is circular logic. It's also ignoring the fact that if there weren't a first time for everything, nothing would happen, ever.

[jaydeehess]

Concerning WTC 7 and my (and many other's) marathon with Christopher 7
I incorporated 1337's thoughts.
http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3483978&postcount=4374

there is the bald fact that each of the collapsed buildings also suffered physical damage before the fires began. In fact WTC 7 was evacuated several hours before it actually collapsed partially because of the concern that it was going to. Concern about the stability of the structure was raised shortly after the collapse of WTC 1. Then the fires went to work on the structure.

Chris's point of contention is mainly that the collapse would not have proceeded exactly as NIST sets out in the preliminary report. It may very well not have and THAT is precisley the reason they stated that more research needed to be done.
Chris also claims definitatively that fire could not reduce the strength of the large columns enough to cause them to fail yet in that completely ignores or minimizes the effect that the debris damage to the structure would have had. In all previous fires, in buildings that start out intact, the load on heated members would be just as designed. That simply cannot be said to have been the case in any of the WTC structures.
Chris states that certain things have never occured before and when shown them to have he ups the ante to include new parameters. The end result of such an arguement would be to state that no identical building to WTC 7 has ever collapsed due to fire. This means that the contention, "this has never happened before" is warrented by the criteria that an identical building to WTC 7 has never collapsed before so WTC 7 could not have collapsed. That is the definition of circular reasoning.

<<snip>>

We do not have an identical building to WTC 7 to compare to. We do however have the Windsor and the towers that we can take certain lessons from as well as the many examples of other steel structures that have suffered complete collapse even with no prior physical damage, such as the Kader Toy factory.

Has it never happened before? Not exactly as occured in Manhattan on Sept 11/01, but other incidents point to a confluence of insults to the structures involved being able to cause it to happen. The frank fact of these cases is that the events that caused the collapses of 3 of the WTC structures have never come together before. What is also shown is that other WTC structures that suffered similar or worse debris damage and or similar fires did not collapse but were so badly damaged that they had to be pulled down. That they were considered too dangerous to even enter to place explosives in them. They were, basically in danger of collapsing spontaneously many days/weeks after Sept. 11/01. This is also true of the Windsor despite its robust concrete core columns.

[jaydeehess]

The steel portion collapsed after hours of an inferno.

The steel building that was wtc2 collapsed after 56 minutes.

A tree will survive having a large chunk of wood take out of it. It will also survive having a second large chunk taken out of it. It will continue to survive these whacks from an axe and one can they remove fully half the diameter of the trunk and leave that tree standing. However if the wind comes up it is quite likely to fail catastrophically and fall over (please do not behave like a proverbial fish in a barrel and state that it does not fall through itself).

By your reasoning the tree, since it survived the original structure insult of the axe blows, should have been able to withstand the second insult of the wind load.

[Tippit]

Yup, for everything there is a first time. The first occurrence of anything falsifies the claim that X could not happen.



No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time. Some things are clearly beyond the realm of physical possibility, and some things that are less well understood can be labeled unlikely.

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one. It brings with it a host of new questions as to safety, and new methods of demolition. The idea that steel buildings can't collapse from fire is subject to much uncertainty it seems, but we seem to have a basic understanding of both the properties of fire and steel under certain conditions, based on empirical, physical constraints. This is probably enough to warrant at least an eyebrow being raised as to what happened on 9/11.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

[rwguinn]

No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time. Some things are clearly beyond the realm of physical possibility, and some things that are less well understood can be labeled unlikely.

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one. It brings with it a host of new questions as to safety, and new methods of demolition. The idea that steel buildings can't collapse from fire is subject to much uncertainty it seems, but we seem to have a basic understanding of both the properties of fire and steel under certain conditions, based on empirical, physical constraints. This is probably enough to warrant at least an eyebrow being raised as to what happened on 9/11.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.
:dl: :dl: :dl:
the cue sack is not only empty, it is non-existent

[beachnut]

Meanwhile, the twoofers - after six years of research - still don't even have a friggin' narrative.

:dl:
No evidence, just talk. It is amazing they ignore the 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT KE events at the towers. And the jet fuel, the heat of 315 tons of TNT. They also ignore the effectively zero firefighting due to damage. Unlike all the buildings which they present as their failed logic fires, which all were fought successfully, except for the those high-rise buildings that were too weak to use ever again. Faulty logic, zero knowledge on 9/11 add up to 9/11 truth cult of fact less ideas.

[Newtons Bit]

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

You seem to be forgetting the "controlled" part of controlled demolition. CD firms are paid well not to bring down a building, but to bring it down and not cause billions of dollars of damage to adjacent property. People like you always forget about that.

Edit: I have to wonder what the liability insurance premiums for taking down a building in NYC would be. If it was legal.

[GStan]

No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time. Some things are clearly beyond the realm of physical possibility, and some things that are less well understood can be labeled unlikely.

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one. It brings with it a host of new questions as to safety, and new methods of demolition. The idea that steel buildings can't collapse from fire is subject to much uncertainty it seems, but we seem to have a basic understanding of both the properties of fire and steel under certain conditions, based on empirical, physical constraints. This is probably enough to warrant at least an eyebrow being raised as to what happened on 9/11.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

My bolding. Undoubtedly, the liability of damages to surrounding buildings from such uncontrolled controlled demolitions will adversely impact that same bottom line.

Plus, they'll have to buy a 767 to crash into the building for each new demolition contract. I hear they are quite expensive. Your claim is rejected.

[Corsair 115]

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.That should be a few carefully set HUGE fires along with SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE IMPACT OF LARGE AIRLINERS MOVING AT HIGH RATES OF SPEED.

[CHF]

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

Yeah and don't forget to tell them about the plane impacts....oh and make sure that all the buildings that are demolished with this technique have the same design as the WTC towers (no concrete supports).

Oh and don't forget to tell those in the CD indistry that it also involves destroying most of the neighbourhood in the process.

[soylent]

No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time.

Relativistic mass of a proton can indeed be far higher than the relativistic mass of lawrencium.

It's entirely possible that something like hydrogen-263(which has a higher rest mass than a common isotope of lawrencium) can exists for a brief instant between the core and solid crust of a neutron star where big globs of neutrons are possible.

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one.

Windsor tower.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

Controlled being the key word. Wouldn't want to cause billions in damage to nearby buildings would we?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Tippit
No, in fact for most "things" there will never be a "first time". For instance, an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, on any planet, anywhere, at any point in time.
Relativistic mass of a proton can indeed be far higher than the relativistic mass of lawrencium.

It's entirely possible that something like hydrogen-263(which has a higher rest mass than a common isotope of lawrencium) can exists for a brief instant between the core and solid crust of a neutron star where big globs of neutrons are possible.




Perhaps it should read that "an atom of hydrogen will never be heavier than an atom of Lawrencium, in any frame of reference in which Newtonian physics predominates." That would nicely incorporate the space and time elements of September 11/2001 in which the events we are speaking of occured.

[Beerina]

The idea that metal weakens when heated is hardly a new one. It preceeds Jesus walking the earth by millenia.

In any case, IIRC, the progressive collapse was deliberately designed into the WTC so that, should it start to collapse, it would fall straight down rather than tipping over and compounding the disaster.

Thus I would not rely on heating and softening metal as a general method of inducing the destruction of buildings. Even in this case, designed for it, one of the two towers' collapse had the top dozen floors or so tip over and fall off the building.

And on top of all that, explosions would guarantee all support structures fail at the same (or proper) moments, which mere heating would not allow.

[Newtons Bit]

In any case, IIRC, the progressive collapse was deliberately designed into the WTC so that, should it start to collapse, it would fall straight down rather than tipping over and compounding the disaster.

Like hell it was.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one.

Absolutely false. You are making a fool of yourself.

I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

If I were a demolition contractor and I wanted to destroy a building the same size and type as WTC7, in the same manner as WTC7 was destroyed, I would need to spend 2 to 3 billion (I have NO idea how much a WTC class skyscraper would cost today, so I'm making a wild guess) dollars building a 110 storey tower across the street from it. Then I would need to buy a 200 million dollar airliner to smash into the newly built tower, knocking it into the building I was contracted to destroy.

So I've spent 2.2 billion+ dollars destroying a 50ish storey office building.

Where is my profit margin in all that, Tip?

[jaydeehess]

The idea that metal weakens when heated is hardly a new one. It preceeds Jesus walking the earth by millenia.

Quite true

In any case, IIRC, the progressive collapse was deliberately designed into the WTC so that, should it start to collapse, it would fall straight down rather than tipping over and compounding the disaster.

Preposterous and utterly wrong.

Thus I would not rely on heating and softening metal as a general method of inducing the destruction of buildings.

Good call, wrong reason.

Even in this case, designed for it, one of the two towers' collapse had the top dozen floors or so tip over and fall off the building.

Really???????

And on top of all that, explosions would guarantee all support structures fail at the same (or proper) moments, which mere heating would not allow.

Now all you need do is definitivly illustrate that explosves were used.

[stilicho]

It would seem that the whole entire official version of events regarding 9/11 is what has the fixation with the “first time things have ever happened”. In fact without a strong belief of coincidence, a strong willingness for suspension of disbelief, and there’s a “first time for everything” mentality the official version wouldn't fly at all. If the official version was the Wright brother’s plane it would have crashed and burned without ever getting off the ground killing both of them. It’s that lame. It's that much of a disaster.
You are aware that some engineers did try to recreate the Wright brothers' flight in a replica, on its hundredth anniversary, and it didn't fly. Given that "evidence", are you so certain now that the Wright brothers' attempt didn't end in disaster?

[Tippit]

That should be a few carefully set HUGE fires along with SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE IMPACT OF LARGE AIRLINERS MOVING AT HIGH RATES OF SPEED.

And the flight number of the airliner that hit WTC 7 was?

[ElMondoHummus]

And the flight number of the airliner that hit WTC 7 was?

Why in God's name do you truthers keep saying that? No plane hit WTC 7, huge chunks of the main towers did!

Good God... Just how dishonest is it to keep asking that question, knowing full well where the damage to WTC 7 came from?

[jaydeehess]

And the flight number of the airliner that hit WTC 7 was?

WTC1, it wasn't moving as fast as Flt 11 or 175, but consisted of denser and heavier material.

Was that so hard?

[johnny karate]

And the flight number of the airliner that hit WTC 7 was?

Tippit, many, many firefighters have gone on record as witnesses to the extent of damage of WTC7 suffered from falling debris. Even more importantly, in six years not a single one of them has come forward to express the slightest bit of doubt or suspicion regarding this aspect of the official story.

If the conspiracy theory you support is true, how do you account for this?

[1337m4n]

Why in God's name do you truthers keep saying that? No plane hit WTC 7, huge chunks of the main towers did!

Good God... Just how dishonest is it to keep asking that question, knowing full well where the damage to WTC 7 came from?

You've hit the nail on the head; the Twoof Movement relies on dishonesty. If somebody could place a curse sort of like in the movie "Liar Liar" that forced them all to be intellectually honest, the Twoof Movement would be dead in a week.

Tweeter do you retract your intellectual dishonesty?

[Tippit]

Why in God's name do you truthers keep saying that? No plane hit WTC 7, huge chunks of the main towers did!

Good God... Just how dishonest is it to keep asking that question, knowing full well where the damage to WTC 7 came from?

There is a link in this forum to an episode of "Hardfire" featuring your beloved Mark Roberts, and a New York city fireman, where there was a consensus that fire caused building 7 to collapse, not the damage to the facade. I know the WTC 7 building was on fire, I know that the facade was damaged. I don't believe, nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse in the manner it did in several hours.

[Whiplash]

Your inability to believe or accept that is irrelevant to whether that is exactly what happened or not. That's simply argument from incredulity, and it's unlikely you even have the experience or eductation to even make such a conclusion. If you did, you'd realize you were wrong, and not be arguing it.

[Wildy]

WTC1, it wasn't moving as fast as Flt 11 or 175, but consisted of denser and heavier material.

Was that so hard?

Well clearly it was a plane designed to look like the debris from one of the towers flew into WTC 7. :D

[1337m4n]

There is a link in this forum to an episode of "Hardfire" featuring your beloved Mark Roberts, and a New York city fireman, where there was a consensus that fire caused building 7 to collapse, not the damage to the facade. I know the WTC 7 building was on fire, I know that the facade was damaged. I don't believe, nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse in the manner it did in several hours.

Changing the subject cause you know you've lost, eh? Let's recap:

You
I'm sure those in the controlled demolition industry are overjoyed to know that a few carefully set fires will replace their previous methods of demolition, as it will undoubtedly mean more for their bottom line going forward.

Here you are making the ludicrous claim that if fire could damage steel, that's how demolition companies would destroy buildings. Note that you ignore structural damage.

Corsair
That should be a few carefully set HUGE fires along with SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE IMPACT OF LARGE AIRLINERS MOVING AT HIGH RATES OF SPEED.

Corsair correctly points out that you ignored structural damage.

You
And the flight number of the airliner that hit WTC 7 was?

You again, this time implying that WTC 7 was undamaged.

ElMondo
Why in God's name do you truthers keep saying that? No plane hit WTC 7, huge chunks of the main towers did!

Good God... Just how dishonest is it to keep asking that question, knowing full well where the damage to WTC 7 came from?

ElMondo correctly pointing out your intellectual dishonesty.

You
There is a link in this forum to an episode of "Hardfire" featuring your beloved Mark Roberts, and a New York city fireman, where there was a consensus that fire caused building 7 to collapse, not the damage to the facade. I know the WTC 7 building was on fire, I know that the facade was damaged. I don't believe, nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse in the manner it did in several hours.

And that brings us back to you. Please compare this quote to the first two quotes in this chain and note how unrelated they are. You were exposed as a charlatan so now you are attempting to change the subject. Nice try.

Actually I should say change the subject AGAIN, because this thread was already was off topic to begin with. The point of the OP was: To say that the WTC collapses didn't happen because nothing like them has ever happened before is a fallacy of circular logic.

Are you going to dispute that, ever?

[jaydeehess]

There is a link in this forum to an episode of "Hardfire" featuring your beloved Mark Roberts, and a New York city fireman, where there was a consensus that fire caused building 7 to collapse, not the damage to the facade. I know the WTC 7 building was on fire, I know that the facade was damaged. I don't believe, nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse in the manner it did in several hours.

Changing the topic as has been pointed out. Nevertheless this is again an example of minimizing of things that are inconvenient to the TM.

WTC 7 was unstable from the moments after WTC 1 collapsed as evidenced by the fact that many firemen stated that it was creaking and groaning and was unstable, and that a transit was used to determine just how far the building was moving/bulging/leaning.

The SW corner of the structure was ripped away for over a dozen storeys.

Evidence of damage to the core of the building exists in that elevator cars were ejected from their shafts.

[1337m4n]

nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse in the manner it did in several hours.

I also wanted to ask...

Is it your claim that the members of the FDNY are not rational people?

Is it your claim the the demolition experts of Protec are not rational people?

[jberryhill]

The idea that modern steel buildings can collapse from fire is a new one.

Um.... not since one of the first ones collapsed from fire - the Equitable Insurance Building in 1912. After that, it became common to fireproof the steel members of steel buildings. Why do you suppose they do that?

And, can someone give me the total count of steel-hulled passenger steamships which have been sunk by icebergs?

You think ice cuts steel?

This notion that anyone thought that icebergs were a hazard to steel-hulled passenger steamships prior to the Titanic is nonsense, since no such thing had ever happened before.

[johnny karate]

There is a link in this forum to an episode of "Hardfire" featuring your beloved Mark Roberts, and a New York city fireman, where there was a consensus that fire caused building 7 to collapse, not the damage to the facade. I know the WTC 7 building was on fire, I know that the facade was damaged. I don't believe, nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse in the manner it did in several hours.

Tippit, in six years not a single firefighter who was on the scene that day has come forward to express the slightest bit of doubt or suspicion regarding the official story. Not a single one.

How do you account for this?

[LastChild]

Tippit, in six years not a single firefighter who was on the scene that day has come forward to express the slightest bit of doubt or suspicion regarding the official story. Not a single one.

How do you account for this?

Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters.
http://911research.com/cache/post911/commission/workdayminnesota_fdny.html

9/11 Truth: Firemen Describe Pre-Collapse WTC Explosions
Firefighters and other emergency workers describe the events immediately preceding the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
deys8AxfVQw


Interview with John Schroeder 911 FIREMAN
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Firefighter John Schroeder, assigned to Engine Company 10 directly across the street from the World Trade Center complex, ... all » holds back tears and describes his first-hand experience on Sept. 11th. His story directly contradicts many aspects of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks and corroborates many other eyewitnesses testimony.
DBb00PQR1zo

[defaultdotxbe]

Why in God's name do you truthers keep saying that? No plane hit WTC 7, huge chunks of the main towers did!

Good God... Just how dishonest is it to keep asking that question, knowing full well where the damage to WTC 7 came from?
whats more dishonest is that to most of them the planes are inconsequential anyway, the twin towers WERE hit by planes, and collapsed, and CTers still cry foul

[CHF]

Give us a break, LC!

John Schroeder???

That's the guy who admits that his memory is shot - apparently to the point of not knowing which tower collapsed first!!! Oh and his testimony isn't backed up other FDNY.

Imagine what you'd say if the "official story" relied on people like that.

[LastChild]

Give us a break, LC!

John Schroeder???

That's the guy who admits that his memory is shot - apparently to the point of not knowing which tower collapsed first!!! Oh and his testimony isn't backed up other FDNY.

Imagine what you'd say if the "official story" relied on people like that.

So it's not that there isn't a firefighter that....

has come forward to express the slightest bit of doubt or suspicion regarding the official story. Not a single one.

it's that if one does some coward somewhere might try and label them as a liar or mentally deficient in some way?

Is that the point you’re trying to make?

[CHF]

OK LC: a firefighter has come forward to support the "truth." And he's clearly mentally unwell.

Congratulations.

You tell me: did the north tower collapse first? What would you say if the "official story" claimed that it did?

[LastChild]

OK LC: a firefighter has come forward to support the "truth." And he's clearly mentally unwell.

Congratulations.

You tell me: did the north tower collapse first? What would you say if the "official story" claimed that it did?

Why would I be surprise if they got yet another thing wrong?

[CHF]

Why would I be surprise if they got yet another thing wrong?

I guess that's your way of admitting that John Schroeder hasn't a clue.

So why did you cite him?

[johnny karate]

Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters.
http://911research.com/cache/post911/commission/workdayminnesota_fdny.html

9/11 Truth: Firemen Describe Pre-Collapse WTC Explosions
Firefighters and other emergency workers describe the events immediately preceding the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
deys8AxfVQw




Interview with John Schroeder 911 FIREMAN
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Firefighter John Schroeder, assigned to Engine Company 10 directly across the street from the World Trade Center complex, ... all » holds back tears and describes his first-hand experience on Sept. 11th. His story directly contradicts many aspects of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks and corroborates many other eyewitnesses testimony.
DBb00PQR1zo

I hate to break it to you, sport, but we were talking about WTC7 specifically. Next time you butt into a discussion, you might want to pay a little closer attention to what is actually being discussed.

But hey, let's look at the information you linked anyway.

First link: An article about firefighter's very legitimate complaints about equipment failures, etc. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Second link: Firefighter's oral history, which DRG then interprets for us. Which is of course exactly what I was looking for: another CTer telling me what firefighter's think. Nice try, but no.

Third link: John Schroeder's interview in which he relates his experiences on 9/11. None of which contradict any part of the official version. I have no opinion on the state of his mental health, but I'd be curious as to how confused and bewildered he would be if were interviewed by honest people without an agenda that could have informed him of the phenomena behind the experiences that confused and bewildered him.

Why don't I see John Schroeder's name on the front page of the New York times for spearheading a movement to reveal the "truth" behind 9/11?

Why isn't he being featured on every major media outlet in the world as the hero that came forward and pulled back the curtain on a heinous conspiracy to murder thousands?

Why is the only place I see this man's so-called doubts expressed in an edited interview with leading questions conducted by people trying to sell conspiracy DVDs?

I'll give you a little credit, though. This one is closer to the mark. But you still fail.

[lapman]

My claim is no steel constructed high-rise building has ever suffered global collapse from fire. It has never happened. Now correct me if I’m wrong but even according to the official 9/11 theory I don’t believe the towers are said to have collapsed from fire alone either. So talk about your “ circular reasoning”.
Yet the first claim was that no steel building has ever suffered global collapse from fire. The Kader Toy Factory fire is shown, you then move the goal posts and say high-rise building. Yet no high-rise building has ever had a top-down controlled demolition performed on it, yet that's ok because a 4 story, completely stripped building did. It has been shown that steel structures do not hold up well to fires. You just won't accept that.

[peteweaver]

That building seems to still be there.

'Scuse me for stating the obvious, but what about the corner of it which failed due to gas explosion & collapsed?!! :eye-poppi

[Sabrina]

Jharrow's been banned, pete.

Seems he was pdoh.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Jharrow's been banned, pete.

Seems he was pdoh.


Just because I had to see for myself: JHarrow has been banned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107847).

Keep it up, kid! You'll bring down that fascist regime in no time...

[EventHorizon]

Jharrow's been banned, pete.

Seems he was pdoh.

That's too bad; he was one of the dopiest truthers I've seen in quite some time.

[LastChild]

'Scuse me for stating the obvious, but what about the corner of it which failed due to gas explosion & collapsed?!! :eye-poppi

What about it? I think more then one corner on one building collapsed on 9/11 and they weren't exactly cheap piece of crap prefab low cost construction either.

[LastChild]

Yet the first claim was that no steel building has ever suffered global collapse from fire.

I didn't claim that.


The Kader Toy Factory fire is shown, you then move the goal posts and say high-rise building.

No not just that. There was no fire proofing and it wasn't even yet repaired from a previous fire and the entire building was engulfed in flames. This does not compare in any way to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11. It is only pointed to for lack of any real comparison.


Yet no high-rise building has ever had a top-down controlled demolition performed on it, yet that's ok because a 4 story, completely stripped building did. It has been shown that steel structures do not hold up well to fires. You just won't accept that.

You just won't accept that a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top of a sky scraper has never caused an entire building to turn into a pile of smoking rubble and dust. And never has happened and it never will. That's why you are left pointing to third world toy factories and highway overpasses.

[Redtail]

You just won't accept that a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top of a sky scraper has never caused an entire building to turn into a pile of smoking rubble and dust. And never has happened and it never will. That's why you are left pointing to third world toy factories and highway overpasses.

You just won't accept that no other buildings were hit as hard by structural damage and fire. I understand mind you. It would suck to dedicate my life to a cause that wasn't going anywhere and never will.

Then again you're just posting on websites playing "inforwarrior". CoX is much more fun.

[LastChild]

You just won't accept that no other buildings were hit as hard by structural damage and fire. I understand mind you. It would suck to dedicate my life to a cause that wasn't going anywhere and never will.

Then again you're just posting on websites playing "inforwarrior". CoX is much more fun.

Why would I have to accept that when I've already shown it not to be true? Skyscrapers have been hit by jets, missiles, earthquakes, much worse files, you name it, and they never wound up looking like what happen 3 times on 9/11 for two different reasons.

[Unsecured Coins]

I didn't know earthquakes crashed into buildings...

stupid government schools...

[Redtail]

Why would I have to accept that when I've already shown it not to be true? Skyscrapers have been hit by jets, missiles, earthquakes, much worse files, you name it, and they never wound up looking like what happen 3 times on 9/11 for two different reasons.

I don't recall any skyscrapers being hit by large passenger jets going as fast as possible resulting in massive fires, could you post that info please?

Oh and the info about the missiles the size of a 767 that hit the skyscrapers packed with incendaries.

Oh and the ones that were hit by earthquakes and massive fires near the top of the buildings.

I mean this would be good info.

[Redtail]

I didn't know earthquakes crashed into buildings...

stupid government schools...

Don't feel bad I didn't know files were dangerous to buildings.:D

[jaydeehess]

I don't recall any skyscrapers being hit by large passenger jets going as fast as possible resulting in massive fires, could you post that info please?

.

The 747 that hit the German apartment building did in fact collapse the part of the building it hit. If Last Child wants to say it did not collapse the entire structure then it will illustrate once again how very bad at this he is.

That apartment building was a very wide complex more akin to the Pentagon's style than the towers or WTC 7.

[jaydeehess]

You just won't accept that a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top of a sky scraper has never caused an entire building to turn into a pile of smoking rubble and dust. And never has happened and it never will. That's why you are left pointing to third world toy factories and highway overpasses.

You just won't accept that this confluence of structural insults has never happened before.

It is obvious, even using that vaunted intellectual weapon of the Truth Movers, 'common sense' that significant structural damage will be done to any building hit by an aircraft moving at 450-500 MPH. Therefore that structure starts out with significant compromise to its structural system as fires attack it. We know for fact that heat weakens steel. We know for fact that creep will shorten columns and that floors will sag.

Thus you now illustrate for us the point made in the OP of this thread.

[Corsair 115]

Skyscrapers have been hit by jets, missiles, earthquakes, much worse files, you name it, and they never wound up looking like what happen 3 times on 9/11 for two different reasons.Note the bolded part. Please list all the cases of skyscrapers being hit by jets prior to 9/11 and the specific details of each incident. Offhand, I don't recall any such cases prior to 9/11, but perhaps there have been a few that I am not aware of.

I do recall the case of the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building, but that was a piston-engined aircraft, as was the aircraft which was flown into the building in Tampa and Corey Lidle's crash in New York.

A piston-engined aircraft is most certainly not a jet.

[1337m4n]

Lastchild: Re-read my OP. Your entire argument is a fallacy of circular logic. Do you dispute that?

[1337m4n]

nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse in the manner it did in several hours.


Is it your claim that the members of the FDNY are not rational people?

Is it your claim the the demolition experts of Protec are not rational people?

Bump for this as well.

[The Doc]

The retort to this argument can be much more basic.

There's a first time for everything. End of discussion.

[Dave Rogers]

You just won't accept that a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top of a sky scraper has never caused an entire building to turn into a pile of smoking rubble and dust.

Wrong. You just won't accept that it's happened twice.

Dave

[westprog]

There is a link in this forum to ... a New York city fireman, where there was a consensus that fire caused building 7 to collapse...I don't believe, nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse...

Those dumb ol' firemen, eh? Irrational and credulous. What do they know about fires making buildings collapse?

[jaydeehess]

I do recall the case of the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building, but that was a piston-engined aircraft, as was the aircraft which was flown into the building in Tampa and Corey Lidle's crash in New York.

.

The largest of those three would be the B25 and it's max weight about the same as the mass of a fuel load on a 757 and it flew into the ESB at a speed roughly equivalent to the landing speed of a 757 while trying to climb.

[lapman]

I didn't claim that.I thought that was you. My bad

No not just that. There was no fire proofing and it wasn't even yet repaired from a previous fire and the entire building was engulfed in flames. This does not compare in any way to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11. It is only pointed to for lack of any real comparison.
The fire proofing was supposedly removed from the steel by the crash. So it would be a fair comparison.
You just won't accept that a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top of a sky scraper has never caused an entire building to turn into a pile of smoking rubble and dust. And never has happened and it never will. That's why you are left pointing to third world toy factories and highway overpasses.Then again, there has never been a skyscraper that has suffered the damage and fires the WTC did. Don't quote the Empire State Building crash. The fire and damage was nowhere near what the towers suffered and they had that fire under control in 19 minutes.

[jaydeehess]

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/B-25_bomber

The kinetic energy of the 767 was approx 120 times greater than the kinetic energy of the B25.

Despite this one engine of the B25 did travel through the ESB and land accross the opposite street.
The B25 was carrying approx 125 gallons of fuel while the 767 was carrying approx 10,000 gallons of fuel IIRC.
Despite this the B25 crash ignited fire accross the 79th floor and as far down as the 75th floor. Given that there was 80 times more fuel dumped in the WTC towers one could expect a much greater spread of fire in the building.



,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but then you knew all of this Last Child because you have been told this before, likely again and again, and again.

ETA: I see that I typed "757" in the previous post,,, my bad.

[1337m4n]

Bumping for ergo and RedIbis who have decided to resurrect the stupid "never happened before" canard yet again.

[Mr.D]

Bumping for ergo and RedIbis who have decided to resurrect the stupid "never happened before" canard yet again.

Is this the first time you've ever done that?

[Grizzly Bear]

Just to point out how utterly retarded the "first time in history argument" is... By the same logic everything on this entire planet is a ruse because everything that happened for the first time in history is obviously impossible on the grounds that they have no prior precedent. In laymen terms they call this a paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox).

I know it's been pointed out before but since you bumped the thread...

[WTC Dust]

Let's talk the Truther argument that the WTC couldn't have collapsed due to fire because "it's never happened before". The traditional method of debunking this involves pointing to examples like the Kader Toy Factory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory) or this tower in Egypt. (http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/Cairo-Suburb-Building-Fire--Collapse-Kills-14/46$25161) This method has proven ineffective because the Truthers always manage to move the goalposts: first it's "no steel building has collapsed due to fire", then when you provide examples like the Kader Toy Factory it becomes "no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire", then when you provide the Windsor building it becomes "no steel skyscraper has ever COMPLETELY collapsed due to fire", etc. The Truthers can theoretically keep moving the goalposts like this until they demand an identical collapse of an identically designed building.

Instead, there's a better way. You can show with simple logic that the "never happened before" argument is a circular reasoning fallacy. First, we consider their claim:

CLAIM: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.

Next, we work in the supporting "never happened before" argument:

CLAIM: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.
--WARRANT: No building with (insert criteria X here) has ever collapsed from fire.

This is the basis of the Truthers' case. Although one could easily point out that the claim doesn't follow from the warrant, there's a bigger flaw with this argument: namely, the WTC itself. The WTC would obviously meet criteria X, whatever X happened to be. This means that the World Trade Center itself would falsify the warrant. So within the warrant to this argument is the inherent assumption that the WTC did not collapse from fire:

CLAIM: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.
--WARRANT: No building with (insert criteria X here) has ever collapsed from fire.
----SUPPORTING ASSUMPTION: The World Trade Center did not collapse from fire.


...and now the problem is obvious: the warrant used to support the claim is essentially the same as the claim itself. The WTC did not collapse from fire, because it did not collapse from fire. If that's not circular reasoning, I don't know what is.

This is all, of course, a complicated way of saying that there has to be a first time for everything--otherwise, nothing could ever happen.

Your response, Truthers?

You might claim that I am "moving the goalposts" when I say that no other building was destroyed in the same manner as the WTC buildings were.

Maybe the Murrah building (but only because the Murrah building looked like post-attack WTC 6).

[WTC Dust]

The problem is the Conspiracy Theorist argument is that no building had collapsed from fire prior to 9/11. That essentially slips them out of the circular reasoning noose.

-Gumboot

I don't see that as a problem with the questions about 9/11.

If no other buildings were destroyed that way prior to 9/11 or after 9/11, it's a legitimate issue.

Why believe something that has never happened before or since, especially when planes have on more than one occassion crashed into buildings without the resulting damage that was seen on 9/11.

[Architect]

Structural analsysis.

(Web) fairy stories about weapons for which no evidence exists.

People who design tall buildings for a living.

Incompetent charlatans who play games with boxes.

Voluminous scientific analysis.

Wild hand-waving by pharmacists.


Yup, I know which side I'm going with.

[Travis]

I don't see that as a problem with the questions about 9/11.

If no other buildings were destroyed that way prior to 9/11 or after 9/11, it's a legitimate issue.

Why believe something that has never happened before or since, especially when planes have on more than one occassion crashed into buildings without the resulting damage that was seen on 9/11.


A B25 is so different in terms of kinetic energy to a 767 that it isn't even funny.

Or do you know of other instances where steel skyscrapers had unfought fires that survived?

[fess]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Empire State building was constructed a little differently than the twin towers.:)

[ozeco41]

I don't see that as a problem with the questions about 9/11......but what you see is not the problem even if it is a problem for your understanding.

..If no other buildings were destroyed that way prior to 9/11 or after 9/11, it's a legitimate issue.

Why believe something that has never happened before or since, especially when planes have on more than one occassion crashed into buildings without the resulting damage that was seen on 9/11. No "it" is not the legitimate issue where the "it" you refer to is being the first instance. The legitimate issue is "why did the WTC buildings collapse on 9/11?" And that legitimate issue has been extensively addressed. If you question the accepted explanations it is your burden of proof to show what is wrong with those explanations and provide a better explanation.

Being the first instance is irrelevant as is your reference to other and different planes crashing into other and different buildings.

[Travis]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Empire State building was constructed a little differently than the twin towers.:)

Indeed, it had masonry incorporated into it as was required by building codes of the time. It was also framed quite differently.