FREE TAPATALK APP

A W Smith · 9th March 2009, 08:08 PM

Insist loudly on a Minor Point logical fallacy noted

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

So it's not a relevant example of what is claimed to have happened to any three of the global collapses that occurred on 9/11.

Thank you.

See how Gravy never really debunks anything? lol

Maybe they aren't comparable after all? One fire was started by an overheating coffee maker. The other by a 757 fully loaded with an accelerant flying into the buildings at top speed. Wonder which stands a better chance of survival HI?

Homeland Insurgency · 9th March 2009, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Maybe they aren't comparable after all? One fire was started by an overheating coffee maker. The other by a 757 fully loaded with an accelerant flying into the buildings at top speed. Wonder which stands a better chance of survival HI?

You forget AW that not all buildings on 9/11 were hit by a plane.

Gravy · 9th March 2009, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Maybe they aren't comparable after all? One fire was started by an overheating coffee maker. The other by a 757 fully loaded with an accelerant flying into the buildings at top speed. Wonder which stands a better chance of survival HI?

That depends on how fast the coffee maker was traveling.

Homeland Insurgency · 9th March 2009, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

yes it is a relevent example to bolster the global collapses on 9/11.

this clearly shows that steel can fail in a fire and lead to collapse.

the first significant difference between the example gravy posted and the towers or WTC 7 is construction. The building in the above video is clearly not a long span truss construction maening that there are columns fairly evenly spaced throughout the building rather than being concentrated in a central core

The Windsor is the same type of example. Steel failed and in that case both the post/beam construction and the concrete core columns arrested the collapses.

Furthermore, of course, in the case of the WTC towers we have multi-level fires all being started at the same time rather than the typical office fire for which such a multi-level involvement would take hours as opposed to seconds, AND the fact that the fire floors also suffered structural loss due to the fact that a large aircraft going several hundred miles per hour hit each of them. they started their instantaneous, multi-level office fire phases with the initial condition of several damaged and severed columns. Those are TWO conditions that you will not find occuring in any other office fire that has ever occured.

WTC 7 also started with physical damage BUT its major failing was in the assymettric placing of floor beams and girders which allowed for greater movement of those members due to thermal expansion. Thermal expansion is relevent to the OP. In fact I posted a few examples of thermal expansion causing railway tracks to warp sufficiently enough to cause derailments. Such expansion occured due solely to the rails being heated by the Sun.

Others here have posted about the effect of higher heat on steel. heat produced only by the burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

Your thoughts on this HI?

My thoughts are that steel structure high-rise buildings are usually large buildings. Fires are usually isolated. So collapsing the entire building because of isolated damage and fire is unlikely if not impossible. Just like the video Gravy displayed.

Three times in one day for two different given reasons is impossible.

You're all supposed to be the critical thinkers around here aren't you? Why does a crazy twoofer like me need to rub your nose in this very smelly fact?

How does it smell debunker?

autumn1971 · 9th March 2009, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

My thoughts are that steel structure high-rise buildings are usually large buildings. Fires are usually isolated. So collapsing the entire building because of isolated damage and fire is unlikely if not impossible. Just like the video Gravy displayed.

Three times in one day for two different given reasons is impossible.

You're all supposed to be the critical thinkers around here aren't you? Why does a crazy twoofer like me need to rub your nose in this very smelly fact?

How does it smell debunker?

So you are on the record as agreeing that a hydrocarbon fire can cause steel stuctures to fail.

The complete destruction of particular buildings is not at issue in this thread.

Homeland Insurgency · 9th March 2009, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by autumn1971

So you are on the record as agreeing that a hydrocarbon fire can cause steel stuctures to fail.

The complete destruction of particular buildings is not at issue in this thread.

It depends. Is it a steel structured dog house or a high-rise?

Why is it you can't come up with a valid comparison in over a one hundred year history of steel structured high-rise fires?

A W Smith · 9th March 2009, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

It depends. Is it a steel structured dog house or a high-rise?

Why is it you can't you come up with a valid comparison in over a one hundred year history of steel structured high-rise fires?

did you read the op?

Quote:

One of the tiresome refrains of the third-string truthers who pass through here like meat through the sausage grinder is that a hydrocarbon fire can never make steel fail.

We have shown in this thread that yes, fire can cause steel to fail. Now that you are agreeing with it, you move the goalposts to a "first time time in history" fallacy , which is a topic thats been covered and debunked in other threads. So either start a new thread or bump an old one.
Fair enough?

UNLoVedRebel · 9th March 2009, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

What happened to the progressive collapse?

The progressive collapse happened at 0:46 of the video.

Grizzly Bear · 9th March 2009, 09:03 PM

Lest anyone forgotten the exchange I had with this guy back in January:

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Contrary to what you imply, there's a first time for everything.

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Well you believe that.

I don't.

LINK

Stop wasting time on him... no matter how clear the point of the OP is, he doesn't care... He doesn't think first times apply to architectural or engineering applications regardless of the record concerning the material in question being known to fail at different severities. If he doesn't understand that after having that explained to him multiple times, then let him learn on his own.

A W Smith · 9th March 2009, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Lest anyone forgotten the exchange I had with this guy back in January:

LINK

Enough said... stop wasting time on him... no matter how clear the point of the OP is, he doesn't care... He doesn't think first times apply to architectural or engineering applications. If he doesn't understand that after having that explained to him multiple times, then let him learn on his own.

But we certainly enjoy kicking his truther ass and watching him run from threads.

Homeland Insurgency · 9th March 2009, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

The progressive collapse happened at 0:46 of the video.

Nope. The building was still there.

It's not a comparison to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11 three times for two different reasons.

Just can't get around it can you or anyone else for that matter?

I mean really who is trying to move the goal posts?

It ain't me.

Homeland Insurgency · 9th March 2009, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

But we certainly enjoy kicking his truther ass and watching him run from threads.

You have never been anything but kicked in your sorry existence.

I'm sorry. For you.

UNLoVedRebel · 9th March 2009, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Nope. The building was still there.

Yup. You don't appear to know what a progressive collapse is. The Ronan Point collapse was a progressive failure, and much of that building remained standing.

Wiki-Wiki

Quote:

Under the action of gravity the flank walls fell away, leaving the floors above unsupported. This caused the progressive collapse of the whole south-east corner of the building.

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

So we can rule out engineering as your degree.

BenBurch · 9th March 2009, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

You have never been anything but kicked in your sorry existence.

I'm sorry. For you.

Just like a Bushista Neocon. You lose, and then declare victory. But its OK if you "catapult the propaganda" hard enough, eh? KKKarl Rove would be PROUD of you, son.

Homeland Insurgency · 9th March 2009, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

Yup. You don't appear to know what a progressive collapse is. The Ronan Point collapse was a progressive failure, and much of that building remained standing.

Wiki-Wiki

Oh my God. Are you insane?

Ronan Point was a 23-storey tower block in Newham, East London, which suffered a fatal partial collapse due to a natural gas explosion 16 May 1968.

Ronan Point, named after Harry Ronan (a former Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London Borough of Newham), 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. The tower was built by Taylor Woodrow Anglian, using a technique known as Large Panel System building or LPS. This involved casting large concrete prefabricated sections off-site, then bolting them together to construct the building.

And it wasn't even a global collapse. And there was an explosion involved!

Do you not know how to google?

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

So we can rule out engineering as your degree.

Why is that? When will you be getting your degree? Be sure to show your classmates my posts.

Homeland Insurgency · 9th March 2009, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Just like a Bushista Neocon. You lose, and then declare victory. But its OK if you "catapult the propaganda" hard enough, eh? KKKarl Rove would be PROUD of you, son.

I'm a liberal Ben. You sound confused. Try to work it out.

UNLoVedRebel · 9th March 2009, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Nope. The building was still there.

[i]Ronan Point was a 23-storey tower block in Newham, East London, which suffered a fatal partial collapse due to a natural gas explosion 16 May 1968.

This sparked a gas explosion, which blew out the load bearing flank walls, removing the structural supports to the four flats above. It is believed that the weakness was in the joints connecting the vertical walls to the floor slabs. Under the action of gravity the flank walls fell away, leaving the floors above unsupported. This caused the progressive collapse of the whole south-east corner of the building.

So you just admitted both the video gravy cited and the Ronan Point were a progressive collapses.

BenBurch · 9th March 2009, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

I'm a liberal Ben. You sound confused. Try to work it out.

Sorry, no liberal does that dirty sort of maneuver. We're about HONESTY.

Homeland Insurgency · 9th March 2009, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

So you just admitted both the video gravy cited and the Ronan Point were a progressive collapses.

Progressive in it's isolated area. It did not trigger global collapse.

This does not happen.

Homeland Insurgency · 9th March 2009, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Sorry, no liberal does that dirty sort of maneuver. We're about HONESTY.

I am being honest. What maneuver?

UNLoVedRebel · 9th March 2009, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Progressive in it's isolated area. It did not trigger global collapse.

This does not happen.

So you're claiming that only explosives can cause a global collapse of high rise structures?

Gravy · 9th March 2009, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

So you just admitted both the video gravy cited and the Ronan Point were a progressive collapses.

I think he left out the part that said the collapse started on the 18th floor by a relatively minor gas explosion (the woman who struck the match wasn't badly hurt).

funk de fino · 10th March 2009, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

I am being honest. What maneuver?

You're certainly honest in showing us you did not know what a progressive collapse was. Well done.

Minadin · 10th March 2009, 01:31 AM

One of the first notions you are disabused of in your structural courses in architecture or engineering school is that steel structure is inherently fireproof because it's not combustible. It does not take long. Once you look at the science you feel fairly dumb for ever considering the idea.

Architect · 10th March 2009, 02:41 AM

Homeland Insurgency

Let's break this down. The first issue is whether you accept that structural steelwork is, in general, susceptible to fire induced failure. Set to one side the "complete structural failure" issue.

If you don't accept this, then can you please explain in some detail why this might be, including reference to the very specific points identified in the OP and my own subsequent post.

chillzero · 10th March 2009, 04:30 AM

Keep it civil and on topic, or the thread will be closed.

Posted By:chillzero

BenBurch · 10th March 2009, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Architect

... Let's break this down. ...

It is clear he has conceded this argument.

Sunstealer · 10th March 2009, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

So we can rule out engineering as your degree.

We can rule out any pass in any Maths or science exam. I have yet to see a truther do anything, but the most rudimentary calculation and they often get that wrong too.

Why don't they enrol at the Open University or take night classes. Hell even a trip to a metallurgical lab at a university and witness tensile tests on steel samples at 20, 200, 400, 600°C to actually witness the results with the first year undergraduates in their first month.

Hell it would only cost about £10, 000 for 6 samples to be machined and then tested at whatever temps they liked to prove it themselves. Why do they refuse to donate monies for this sort of research if it's so important.

I'd rather see truther posts that do not answer the questions removed rather than binning the whole thread.

jaydeehess · 10th March 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

My thoughts are that steel structure high-rise buildings are usually large buildings. Fires are usually isolated. So collapsing the entire building because of isolated damage and fire is unlikely if not impossible. Just like the video Gravy displayed.

In the case of 3 buildings on 9/11 the fires were NOT isolated. They were widespread, over several floors. That takes care of one point.

Quote:

Three times in one day for two different given reasons is impossible.

Care to back that up with some sort of bassis for stating that it is "impossible?
Care to explain why a collapse that essentially saw a ten storey building collapse onto a 90 storey building COULD not , SHOULD not, WOULD not cause the complete destruction of the 90 storey building?
Care to tell us where the NIST eport on WTC 7 indicating that thermal expansion coupled with assymettric beam/girder placement COULD not , SHOULD not, WOULD not account for the complete destruction of that building?
Please include in your explanation detail that relates to the specific construction techniques in the structures.

Quote:

You're all supposed to be the critical thinkers around here aren't you? Why does a crazy twoofer like me need to rub your nose in this very smelly fact?

How does it smell debunker?

It smells like you soiled yourself CT. You utterly refuse to take the sum total of the evidence available and chose instead to nit pick at details which you dismiss on either a confirmation bias or personal incedulity.

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

It depends. Is it a steel structured dog house or a high-rise?

Why is it you can't come up with a valid comparison in over a one hundred year history of steel structured high-rise fires?

Why is it that there has never been a case of
1) a large modern jetliner deliberatly flown into a very tall structure at high speed
2) a huge office fire in a structure that was built with an assymettric column/beam system

What we can, and have come up with are many examples of steel failing due to heat weakening and/or thermal expansion.

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Nope. The building was still there.

It's not a comparison to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11 three times for two different reasons.

Just can't get around it can you or anyone else for that matter?

I mean really who is trying to move the goal posts?

It ain't me.

It has been pointed out before that he 'first time' arguement is a fallacy.
Will you get around to explaining why the shuttle Columbia suffered a complete loss when hit by foam/ice on lift off when there were many instances of such impacts on previous missions that came through OK?

Originally Posted by Architect

Homeland Insurgency

Let's break this down. The first issue is whether you accept that structural steelwork is, in general, susceptible to fire induced failure. Set to one side the "complete structural failure" issue.

If you don't accept this, then can you please explain in some detail why this might be, including reference to the very specific points identified in the OP and my own subsequent post.

That IS the topic of the OP. Perhaps HI will address it by either confirming or denying that steel can and has failed due to hydrocarbon fires.

jaydeehess · 10th March 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Progressive in it's isolated area. It did not trigger global collapse.

This does not happen.

It therefore is a progressive collapse. It began as a local collapse and that triggered the failure of other portions of the structure. That is the definition of progression!

You are correct in that it was not a progression to global collapse.
However the structure did not concentrate all of its columns in a small central core area. Evenly spacing columns greatly affects the ability to halt a progressive collapse because smaller sections of flooring fall at any one moment. In the case of a long span floor a very large amount of mass falls at the same time creating a much larger impulse that is to be absorbed by the lower structure and at the same time the lower structure, if also long span in nature, has less ability to absorb such an impulse.
Use of concrete columns also aids in reducing the damage as they are not as affected by heat damage as steel columns.

So, once again, do you know of a tall, long span structure that had a large fire that did not suffer at least a partial failure?

Architect · 10th March 2009, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Architect

Homeland Insurgency

Let's break this down. The first issue is whether you accept that structural steelwork is, in general, susceptible to fire induced failure. Set to one side the "complete structural failure" issue.

If you don't accept this, then can you please explain in some detail why this might be, including reference to the very specific points identified in the OP and my own subsequent post.

Homeland Insurgency

Can I press you for a response to this, please?

Architect · 10th March 2009, 04:32 PM

Can I also just flag up to one and all (again) Gravy's rather extensive page of links to papers (and the like) on the fire performance of steel:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/fire...erformanceofst

BenBurch · 11th March 2009, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Architect

Homeland Insurgency

Can I press you for a response to this, please?

*> pin dropping <*

jaydeehess · 12th March 2009, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

*> pin dropping <*

It certainly did get quiet here .

Architect · 12th March 2009, 03:31 PM

Indeed.

Klimax · 13th March 2009, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

It certainly did get quiet here .

Originally Posted by Architect

Indeed.

Do you need some loud sounds?

Tandem Thinking · 13th March 2009, 08:55 PM

Apparently, the conspiracy that fire weakens steel has been going on since 1910:

Fire Weakens New Manhattan Bridge

Not only that, but the flames were giving off thick clouds of black smoke, clearly, the fire was oxygen starved.

Gravy · 13th March 2009, 10:05 PM

Funny, I was just reading that article last week, TT. There's a similar one about the Williamsburg Bridge from a few years earlier. Less damage to that one though.

Architect · 14th March 2009, 03:18 AM

And still no sign of any Truthers here. How very peculiar.

BenBurch · 14th March 2009, 08:39 AM

Some gratuitous steam engine photos I tool last summer;

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/RGNalbum/

More coming as soon as I make an album of the steam thresher show...

9th March 2009, 08:08 PM	#81
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	homeland insurgency, debunked once again Insist loudly on a Minor Point logical fallacy noted Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency So it's not a relevant example of what is claimed to have happened to any three of the global collapses that occurred on 9/11. Thank you. See how Gravy never really debunks anything? lol Maybe they aren't comparable after all? One fire was started by an overheating coffee maker. The other by a 757 fully loaded with an accelerant flying into the buildings at top speed. Wonder which stands a better chance of survival HI?
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. Last edited by A W Smith; 9th March 2009 at 08:18 PM.

9th March 2009, 08:11 PM	#83
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by A W Smith Maybe they aren't comparable after all? One fire was started by an overheating coffee maker. The other by a 757 fully loaded with an accelerant flying into the buildings at top speed. Wonder which stands a better chance of survival HI? That depends on how fast the coffee maker was traveling.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

9th March 2009, 08:27 PM	#85
autumn1971 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,465	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency My thoughts are that steel structure high-rise buildings are usually large buildings. Fires are usually isolated. So collapsing the entire building because of isolated damage and fire is unlikely if not impossible. Just like the video Gravy displayed. Three times in one day for two different given reasons is impossible. You're all supposed to be the critical thinkers around here aren't you? Why does a crazy twoofer like me need to rub your nose in this very smelly fact? How does it smell debunker? So you are on the record as agreeing that a hydrocarbon fire can cause steel stuctures to fail. The complete destruction of particular buildings is not at issue in this thread.
	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

9th March 2009, 08:46 PM	#86
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by autumn1971 So you are on the record as agreeing that a hydrocarbon fire can cause steel stuctures to fail. The complete destruction of particular buildings is not at issue in this thread. It depends. Is it a steel structured dog house or a high-rise? Why is it you can't come up with a valid comparison in over a one hundred year history of steel structured high-rise fires?
	Last edited by Homeland Insurgency; 9th March 2009 at 09:09 PM.

9th March 2009, 08:55 PM	#87
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency It depends. Is it a steel structured dog house or a high-rise? Why is it you can't you come up with a valid comparison in over a one hundred year history of steel structured high-rise fires? did you read the op? Quote: One of the tiresome refrains of the third-string truthers who pass through here like meat through the sausage grinder is that a hydrocarbon fire can never make steel fail. We have shown in this thread that yes, fire can cause steel to fail. Now that you are agreeing with it, you move the goalposts to a "first time time in history" fallacy , which is a topic thats been covered and debunked in other threads. So either start a new thread or bump an old one. Fair enough?
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

9th March 2009, 08:10 PM	#82
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by A W Smith Maybe they aren't comparable after all? One fire was started by an overheating coffee maker. The other by a 757 fully loaded with an accelerant flying into the buildings at top speed. Wonder which stands a better chance of survival HI? You forget AW that not all buildings on 9/11 were hit by a plane.

9th March 2009, 08:18 PM	#84
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by jaydeehess yes it is a relevent example to bolster the global collapses on 9/11. this clearly shows that steel can fail in a fire and lead to collapse. the first significant difference between the example gravy posted and the towers or WTC 7 is construction. The building in the above video is clearly not a long span truss construction maening that there are columns fairly evenly spaced throughout the building rather than being concentrated in a central core The Windsor is the same type of example. Steel failed and in that case both the post/beam construction and the concrete core columns arrested the collapses. Furthermore, of course, in the case of the WTC towers we have multi-level fires all being started at the same time rather than the typical office fire for which such a multi-level involvement would take hours as opposed to seconds, AND the fact that the fire floors also suffered structural loss due to the fact that a large aircraft going several hundred miles per hour hit each of them. they started their instantaneous, multi-level office fire phases with the initial condition of several damaged and severed columns. Those are TWO conditions that you will not find occuring in any other office fire that has ever occured. WTC 7 also started with physical damage BUT its major failing was in the assymettric placing of floor beams and girders which allowed for greater movement of those members due to thermal expansion. Thermal expansion is relevent to the OP. In fact I posted a few examples of thermal expansion causing railway tracks to warp sufficiently enough to cause derailments. Such expansion occured due solely to the rails being heated by the Sun. Others here have posted about the effect of higher heat on steel. heat produced only by the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. Your thoughts on this HI? My thoughts are that steel structure high-rise buildings are usually large buildings. Fires are usually isolated. So collapsing the entire building because of isolated damage and fire is unlikely if not impossible. Just like the video Gravy displayed. Three times in one day for two different given reasons is impossible. You're all supposed to be the critical thinkers around here aren't you? Why does a crazy twoofer like me need to rub your nose in this very smelly fact? How does it smell debunker?

9th March 2009, 08:58 PM	#88
UNLoVedRebel Hard Knocks Doctorate Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: School of Hard Knocks Posts: 5,512	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency What happened to the progressive collapse? The progressive collapse happened at 0:46 of the video.
	__________________ "All the Officialiers here typically have rancid alien avatars or else some kind of violent military-type avatar. Once again affirming my contention that 9/11 Officialiers are the most violent, murderous, group of people in the United States. Both statistically confirmed, but also anecdotally affirmed in almost every case of active pro-Officialers." - FloydGoethe

9th March 2009, 09:03 PM	#89
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	Lest anyone forgotten the exchange I had with this guy back in January: Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear Contrary to what you imply, there's a first time for everything. Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency Well you believe that. I don't. LINK Stop wasting time on him... no matter how clear the point of the OP is, he doesn't care... He doesn't think first times apply to architectural or engineering applications regardless of the record concerning the material in question being known to fail at different severities. If he doesn't understand that after having that explained to him multiple times, then let him learn on his own.
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 9th March 2009 at 09:05 PM.

9th March 2009, 09:06 PM	#90
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear Lest anyone forgotten the exchange I had with this guy back in January: LINK Enough said... stop wasting time on him... no matter how clear the point of the OP is, he doesn't care... He doesn't think first times apply to architectural or engineering applications. If he doesn't understand that after having that explained to him multiple times, then let him learn on his own. But we certainly enjoy kicking his truther ass and watching him run from threads.
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

9th March 2009, 09:12 PM	#91
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel The progressive collapse happened at 0:46 of the video. Nope. The building was still there. It's not a comparison to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11 three times for two different reasons. Just can't get around it can you or anyone else for that matter? I mean really who is trying to move the goal posts? It ain't me.

9th March 2009, 09:14 PM	#92
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by A W Smith But we certainly enjoy kicking his truther ass and watching him run from threads. You have never been anything but kicked in your sorry existence. I'm sorry. For you.

9th March 2009, 09:17 PM	#93
UNLoVedRebel Hard Knocks Doctorate Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: School of Hard Knocks Posts: 5,512	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency Nope. The building was still there. Yup. You don't appear to know what a progressive collapse is. The Ronan Point collapse was a progressive failure, and much of that building remained standing. Wiki-Wiki Quote: Under the action of gravity the flank walls fell away, leaving the floors above unsupported. This caused the progressive collapse of the whole south-east corner of the building. Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency So we can rule out engineering as your degree.
	__________________ "All the Officialiers here typically have rancid alien avatars or else some kind of violent military-type avatar. Once again affirming my contention that 9/11 Officialiers are the most violent, murderous, group of people in the United States. Both statistically confirmed, but also anecdotally affirmed in almost every case of active pro-Officialers." - FloydGoethe Last edited by UNLoVedRebel; 9th March 2009 at 09:29 PM.

9th March 2009, 09:26 PM	#94
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,490	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency You have never been anything but kicked in your sorry existence. I'm sorry. For you. Just like a Bushista Neocon. You lose, and then declare victory. But its OK if you "catapult the propaganda" hard enough, eh? KKKarl Rove would be PROUD of you, son.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

9th March 2009, 09:27 PM	#95
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel Yup. You don't appear to know what a progressive collapse is. The Ronan Point collapse was a progressive failure, and much of that building remained standing. Wiki-Wiki Oh my God. Are you insane? Ronan Point was a 23-storey tower block in Newham, East London, which suffered a fatal partial collapse due to a natural gas explosion 16 May 1968. Ronan Point, named after Harry Ronan (a former Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London Borough of Newham), 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. The tower was built by Taylor Woodrow Anglian, using a technique known as Large Panel System building or LPS. This involved casting large concrete prefabricated sections off-site, then bolting them together to construct the building. And it wasn't even a global collapse. And there was an explosion involved! Do you not know how to google? Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel So we can rule out engineering as your degree. Why is that? When will you be getting your degree? Be sure to show your classmates my posts.

9th March 2009, 09:32 PM	#96
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by BenBurch Just like a Bushista Neocon. You lose, and then declare victory. But its OK if you "catapult the propaganda" hard enough, eh? KKKarl Rove would be PROUD of you, son. I'm a liberal Ben. You sound confused. Try to work it out.

9th March 2009, 09:35 PM	#98
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,490	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency I'm a liberal Ben. You sound confused. Try to work it out. Sorry, no liberal does that dirty sort of maneuver. We're about HONESTY.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

9th March 2009, 09:36 PM	#99
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel So you just admitted both the video gravy cited and the Ronan Point were a progressive collapses. Progressive in it's isolated area. It did not trigger global collapse. This does not happen.

9th March 2009, 09:39 PM	#100
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by BenBurch Sorry, no liberal does that dirty sort of maneuver. We're about HONESTY. I am being honest. What maneuver?

9th March 2009, 09:59 PM	#101
UNLoVedRebel Hard Knocks Doctorate Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: School of Hard Knocks Posts: 5,512	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency Progressive in it's isolated area. It did not trigger global collapse. This does not happen. So you're claiming that only explosives can cause a global collapse of high rise structures?
	__________________ "All the Officialiers here typically have rancid alien avatars or else some kind of violent military-type avatar. Once again affirming my contention that 9/11 Officialiers are the most violent, murderous, group of people in the United States. Both statistically confirmed, but also anecdotally affirmed in almost every case of active pro-Officialers." - FloydGoethe

9th March 2009, 11:20 PM	#102
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel So you just admitted both the video gravy cited and the Ronan Point were a progressive collapses. I think he left out the part that said the collapse started on the 18th floor by a relatively minor gas explosion (the woman who struck the match wasn't badly hurt).
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

10th March 2009, 01:27 AM	#103
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency I am being honest. What maneuver? You're certainly honest in showing us you did not know what a progressive collapse was. Well done.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

10th March 2009, 01:31 AM	#104
Minadin Hiding his Head in the Sane Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,473	One of the first notions you are disabused of in your structural courses in architecture or engineering school is that steel structure is inherently fireproof because it's not combustible. It does not take long. Once you look at the science you feel fairly dumb for ever considering the idea.
	__________________ Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish your opinions. If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are. Support the democratic freedom of the people of Iran.

10th March 2009, 02:41 AM	#105
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,487	Homeland Insurgency Let's break this down. The first issue is whether you accept that structural steelwork is, in general, susceptible to fire induced failure. Set to one side the "complete structural failure" issue. If you don't accept this, then can you please explain in some detail why this might be, including reference to the very specific points identified in the OP and my own subsequent post.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

10th March 2009, 05:56 AM	#107
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,490	Originally Posted by Architect ... Let's break this down. ... It is clear he has conceded this argument.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th March 2009, 10:12 AM	#108
Sunstealer Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,612	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel So we can rule out engineering as your degree. We can rule out any pass in any Maths or science exam. I have yet to see a truther do anything, but the most rudimentary calculation and they often get that wrong too. Why don't they enrol at the Open University or take night classes. Hell even a trip to a metallurgical lab at a university and witness tensile tests on steel samples at 20, 200, 400, 600°C to actually witness the results with the first year undergraduates in their first month. Hell it would only cost about £10, 000 for 6 samples to be machined and then tested at whatever temps they liked to prove it themselves. Why do they refuse to donate monies for this sort of research if it's so important. I'd rather see truther posts that do not answer the questions removed rather than binning the whole thread.

10th March 2009, 12:03 PM	#109
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,964	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency My thoughts are that steel structure high-rise buildings are usually large buildings. Fires are usually isolated. So collapsing the entire building because of isolated damage and fire is unlikely if not impossible. Just like the video Gravy displayed. In the case of 3 buildings on 9/11 the fires were NOT isolated. They were widespread, over several floors. That takes care of one point. Quote: Three times in one day for two different given reasons is impossible. Care to back that up with some sort of bassis for stating that it is "impossible? Care to explain why a collapse that essentially saw a ten storey building collapse onto a 90 storey building COULD not , SHOULD not, WOULD not cause the complete destruction of the 90 storey building? Care to tell us where the NIST eport on WTC 7 indicating that thermal expansion coupled with assymettric beam/girder placement COULD not , SHOULD not, WOULD not account for the complete destruction of that building? Please include in your explanation detail that relates to the specific construction techniques in the structures. Quote: You're all supposed to be the critical thinkers around here aren't you? Why does a crazy twoofer like me need to rub your nose in this very smelly fact? How does it smell debunker? It smells like you soiled yourself CT. You utterly refuse to take the sum total of the evidence available and chose instead to nit pick at details which you dismiss on either a confirmation bias or personal incedulity. Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency It depends. Is it a steel structured dog house or a high-rise? Why is it you can't come up with a valid comparison in over a one hundred year history of steel structured high-rise fires? Why is it that there has never been a case of 1) a large modern jetliner deliberatly flown into a very tall structure at high speed 2) a huge office fire in a structure that was built with an assymettric column/beam system What we can, and have come up with are many examples of steel failing due to heat weakening and/or thermal expansion. Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency Nope. The building was still there. It's not a comparison to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11 three times for two different reasons. Just can't get around it can you or anyone else for that matter? I mean really who is trying to move the goal posts? It ain't me. It has been pointed out before that he 'first time' arguement is a fallacy. Will you get around to explaining why the shuttle Columbia suffered a complete loss when hit by foam/ice on lift off when there were many instances of such impacts on previous missions that came through OK? Originally Posted by Architect Homeland Insurgency Let's break this down. The first issue is whether you accept that structural steelwork is, in general, susceptible to fire induced failure. Set to one side the "complete structural failure" issue. If you don't accept this, then can you please explain in some detail why this might be, including reference to the very specific points identified in the OP and my own subsequent post. That IS the topic of the OP. Perhaps HI will address it by either confirming or denying that steel can and has failed due to hydrocarbon fires.

10th March 2009, 12:13 PM	#110
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,964	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency Progressive in it's isolated area. It did not trigger global collapse. This does not happen. It therefore is a progressive collapse. It began as a local collapse and that triggered the failure of other portions of the structure. That is the definition of progression! You are correct in that it was not a progression to global collapse. However the structure did not concentrate all of its columns in a small central core area. Evenly spacing columns greatly affects the ability to halt a progressive collapse because smaller sections of flooring fall at any one moment. In the case of a long span floor a very large amount of mass falls at the same time creating a much larger impulse that is to be absorbed by the lower structure and at the same time the lower structure, if also long span in nature, has less ability to absorb such an impulse. Use of concrete columns also aids in reducing the damage as they are not as affected by heat damage as steel columns. So, once again, do you know of a tall, long span structure that had a large fire that did not suffer at least a partial failure?

10th March 2009, 01:36 PM	#111
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,487	Originally Posted by Architect Homeland Insurgency Let's break this down. The first issue is whether you accept that structural steelwork is, in general, susceptible to fire induced failure. Set to one side the "complete structural failure" issue. If you don't accept this, then can you please explain in some detail why this might be, including reference to the very specific points identified in the OP and my own subsequent post. Homeland Insurgency Can I press you for a response to this, please?
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

10th March 2009, 04:32 PM	#112
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,487	Can I also just flag up to one and all (again) Gravy's rather extensive page of links to papers (and the like) on the fire performance of steel: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/fire...erformanceofst
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

11th March 2009, 09:46 PM	#113
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,490	Originally Posted by Architect Homeland Insurgency Can I press you for a response to this, please? > pin dropping <
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

12th March 2009, 03:17 PM	#114
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,964	Originally Posted by BenBurch > pin dropping < It certainly did get quiet here .

12th March 2009, 03:31 PM	#115
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,487	Indeed.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

13th March 2009, 12:10 PM	#116
Klimax NWO cyborg (3930K inside) Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9 Posts: 7,987	Originally Posted by jaydeehess It certainly did get quiet here . Originally Posted by Architect Indeed. Do you need some loud sounds?
	__________________ ModBorg Engine: Ibalgin 400

13th March 2009, 08:55 PM	#117
Tandem Thinking Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: North of the Great White North Posts: 242	Apparently, the conspiracy that fire weakens steel has been going on since 1910: Fire Weakens New Manhattan Bridge Not only that, but the flames were giving off thick clouds of black smoke, clearly, the fire was oxygen starved.
	__________________ RANDOM SMILEY ALERT Feeling Uninspired? malarianomore.org