Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

reply to post by ANOK


So what YOU are saying is that 700-800 ton of 4-5" thick FLOORING mix concrete floor falling on to another floor etc etc and some of the floors falling from up to1400ft would survive the fall even although 1000's of tons of debris and other floors fell on them. You are joking aren't you

You know a great deal of the dust was sheetrock or would that have survived as well?

In a better picture of the the so called molten rock you can see floor truss bars and some of the steel decking! oh and the paperwork.

Originally posted by ANOK
...And why does a parking lot full of burned out cars have unburned paper all over it?

WTF are you talking about?

Originally posted by ANOK
Good questions, are you finally getting the point, or do you really think you were debunking something?

I was just playing the what IF game so far as the collapse is concerned, what would happen IF the collapse was to initiate as the OS claims. No one has explained even the collapse initiation, sagging trusses puling in columns is nonsense afaik, so really any point YOU have about the crushed floors has to come with an explanation of how it even collapsed to that point in the first place.

So no, you have shown anything that supports your claims.

edit on 3/28/2011 by ANOK because: bad engrish

Argument from personal ignorance noted.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
It wasn't fire alone YOU know that there was damage done to the building(wtc7) and it was on fire for many hours and we now what that can do!

Yeah, we know what hours of fire can't do, too, based on every other skyscraper fire in the history of mankind.

The damage to WTC7 was insignificant even according to NIST's report. It knocked out exterior structure and wouldn't have penetrated deep enough to sever any of the core columns. It did relatively less damage than the aircraft impacts to the towers, and those impacts in themselves caused relatively little damage when you count the damage and severed columns and compare that to the minimum required design factors of such a building.

If the reports are full of it, and you aren't even in agreement with the reports in the first place, what credibility do you have?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, we know what hours of fire can't do, too, based on every other skyscraper fire in the history of mankind.

Name them. Tell me what conditions and factors differ between each one.

I'll wait......

Originally posted by FDNY343
Name them. Tell me what conditions and factors differ between each one.

I'll wait......

You don't have to wait. I can make it easy on you by telling you that none of them collapsed to the ground. WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane and it wasn't the longest-burning steel skyscraper either, so I don't know what else you would be arguing unless it's that the structure is different or one of those other completely stupid arguments that makes any comparison at all between any other building impossible. The only reason you wouldn't want to actually compare to other building fires is because you don't want to have to rationalize why none of the others collapsed.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Name them. Tell me what conditions and factors differ between each one.

I'll wait......

You don't have to wait. I can make it easy on you by telling you that none of them collapsed to the ground. WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane and it wasn't the longest-burning steel skyscraper either, so I don't know what else you would be arguing unless it's that the structure is different or one of those other completely stupid arguments that makes any comparison at all between any other building impossible. The only reason you wouldn't want to actually compare to other building fires is because you don't want to have to rationalize why none of the others collapsed.

Were any of the fires unfought for 7+ hours? NO.
Any of the other structures that you can compare were not even CLOSE in construction. Most, if not ALL had concrete cores.
7WTC, did not. Neither did 1 or 2 WTC.

I don't need to rationalize why none of the others collapsed. I know why they didn't.

Different construction
Different fires
Different firefighting operations.

Go ahead and post them though.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Were any of the fires unfought for 7+ hours? NO.

Yes. One Meridian Plaza. Philadelphia, 1991. Burned for over 19 hours before the fire was extinguished, starting on the 22nd floor and spreading all the way to the 30th, was declared out of control and allowed to burn out on its own. Caracas Tower in 2004, burned for 17 hours, also largely unfought because firefighters couldn't reach the top floors.

Any of the other structures that you can compare were not even CLOSE in construction. Most, if not ALL had concrete cores.
7WTC, did not. Neither did 1 or 2 WTC.

If you want to compare to WTC1 and 2, First Interstate Bank burned for longer (3 hours 40 minutes), had a similar steel structure, all-steel core columns (no concrete), and had smaller steel cross-sections so there was less over-all steel to heat. Want to dissect that one with me?

I don't need to rationalize why none of the others collapsed. I know why they didn't.

Different construction
Different fires
Different firefighting operations.

Go ahead and post them though.

Yes, they are "different," but not in a way that makes your case look any stronger.

reply to post by bsbray11


Hmm Windsor Tower comes to mind. Gee that was hard to find. The unprotected steel members of the building collapsed within 2 hours of being totally engulfed in flames, which did not have the bonus of having a 767 crashing and burning inside. The only reason why it didnt collapse fully to the ground was the large steel-reinforced concrete core. Mind you, the core in the Windsor Tower was NOTHING like the core in the WTC Towers. There is a HUGE difference between a large concrete core, that is reinforced with steel, than a steel only core, which has only sheetrock or drywall covering the steel columns. Windsor had steel encased in concrete. Hence reinforced concrete. Here is a definition and article on what does "steel reinforced concrete" mean and what it looks like:
en.wikipedia.org...
The vertical columns of the Windsor Tower were REINFORCED CONCRETE. Also it had two heavily reinforced concrete transfer floors between the 2nd and 3rd floors and 16th and 17th floors. That is the ONLY reason why the WT did not collapse fully. The steel ONLY section collapsed rapidly, FROM FIRE ALONE. Within 2 hours of ignition, the steel started to fall apart and collapse. Would you like me to repost the exact times of the steel collapses from fire alone?
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

The WTC cores did NOT have steel columns encased in concrete, or steel reinforced concrete columns. They were steel only, naked, and only covered in drywall or sheetrock. This was dislodged and destroyed int he impact and subsequent violent swaying, shaking, and torquing of the structure, thus exposing the core columns.

Another steel structure to fail from FIRE ALONE:
McCormick Place. within 23 minutes the large heavy steel trusses holding up the roof collapsed, from FIRE ALONE.

There we go, two more instances of steel structures failing from FIRE ALONE, rapidly.

Now go and run and hide your head into the sand, and say it isnt so, like how you truthers always like to do.

reply to post by GenRadek


Bring up a building I didn't even mention and then go on an epic rant about it.


Setting up your own argument to knock down. What's that called again?


Oh yeah, a straw man.

reply to post by bsbray11


1st Interestate Bank Fire:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

The total burnout of four and a half floors did not cause damage to the main structural members due to a good application of spayed fire protection on all steelwork. There was only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor decks.

Hmm, I dont see any mention of a plane hitting it causings fires across 5-6 floors simultaniously. No mention of sub-par fireproofing, or fireproofing being dislodged in a violent impact. But it does show how well placed fireproofing that is unmolested can save a building from fires. Sorry bsbray, try again. Very good fireproofing saves building. Nothing special about that, other than fireproofing doing its job well. OH! I almost forgot!

Without the effective fire fighting on the 16th floor by the fire brigade, the fire could have spread to all floors above.

There was active firefighting going on!!! Well then golly gee wiz, we have good fireproofing plus active firefighting by firefighters, saving a building from destruction! Sorry bsbray, but be sure when trying to make a point, be sure to study the example you try to bring up as a defense, before you post it. In this case, active firefighting and good fireproofing saved a building. Tell me, where was this at any of the WTC buildings that collapsed?

reply to post by bsbray11


Oh I see, so bringing up a building that had a severe fire destroy it, causing multiple floors to collapse from fire alone, is a straw man. How so bsbray?

Windsor Tower is a textbook example of fire destroying a steel structure without any assistance from planes crashing into it, demolition charges, or very long exposure to direct fires.

You have a building, with a steel-reinforced concrete core (which means the columns were also CONCRETE, not like the columns in the core of the WTC). You have a fire which was not aided by a 767 impacting it, spilling jet fuel over multiple floors. You have steel supported floors which failed from fire alone within 2 hours of exposure. The only things that saved the building was its large reinforced concrete core and two heavily reinforced concrete transfer floors.

So please, explain how bringing up Windsor Tower is a strawman. I look forward to it.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh I see, so bringing up a building that had a severe fire destroy it, causing multiple floors to collapse from fire alone, is a straw man. How so bsbray?

Because I didn't even mention that building. So you weren't even responding to me. You were talking to yourself. You brought up your own argument and then attacked it by yourself. That's called a straw man. Did you know you were going to learn something new today?


Here's a fun page for you: The Fallacy Files! Oooh

Type: Red Herring

Etymology:

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

Quote…

When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don't worry about losing the Strawperson-American community vote.

…Unquote

Source: James Lileks, "The Daily Bleat"

www.fallacyfiles.org...

Originally posted by GenRadek
1st Interestate Bank Fire:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Thanks. It should provide another source for everything I just posted above.

Hmm, I dont see any mention of a plane hitting it

Nor was there any serious structural damaged caused by the fire. The WTC theory is that the fire caused serious problems besides what the planes did, remember? Because after the planes hit... they were still standing?

Without the effective fire fighting on the 16th floor by the fire brigade, the fire could have spread to all floors above.

There was active firefighting going on!!!

OMGASM. So was there in the WTC towers. Guess what? First Interstate Bank burned about twice as long, and there was less steel to heat. Are you going to orgasm over those facts too?

Well then golly gee wiz, we have good fireproofing

Just like the WTC. You have no proof that all the fireproofing was knocked off by the planes either.

reply to post by bsbray11


Here is what you said:

You don't have to wait. I can make it easy on you by telling you that none of them collapsed to the ground. WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane and it wasn't the longest-burning steel skyscraper either, so I don't know what else you would be arguing unless it's that the structure is different or one of those other completely stupid arguments that makes any comparison at all between any other building impossible. The only reason you wouldn't want to actually compare to other building fires is because you don't want to have to rationalize why none of the others collapsed.

Which is in reference to what you said earlier:

Yeah, we know what hours of fire can't do, too, based on every other skyscraper fire in the history of mankind.

So I brought up Windsor Tower, which had its steel structure fail from fire alone. However, I also added in why it didnt collapse right away, in relation to why the WTCs did collapse.

You then went on to mention to mention 1st Interstate Bank fire, which you obviously did not research at all, so I cleared that up. Also you mentioned One Meridian Fire, which was saved by water sprinklers and firefighting, and 8 floors were affected, with four experiencing total burnout. And there was fear of pancake collapse as well. However, it was a steel skeletal design, not like WTC1,2 or 7. Also, no substation under it.

Also I mentioned McCormick Place because it had a large heavy steel trussed roof, which failed within 28 minutes of fire. It collapsed.

You were going on and on about how fire cannot affect steel structures, and how long it takes for anything to happen, and I showed you how wrong you were and how your examples were wrong as well.

But nice try trying to hide the facts and label it a straw man. Anything to smokescreen the facts.

reply to post by bsbray11


I can see that reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it bsbray?

Do you know why I posted the link?

Nor was there any serious structural damaged caused by the fire. The WTC theory is that the fire caused serious problems besides what the planes did, remember? Because after the planes hit... they were still standing?

Hmm did you read it at all? Let me repost the important part:

The total burnout of four and a half floors did not cause damage to the main structural members due to a good application of spayed fire protection on all steelwork.

Let me make the important part more obvious for you, since you somehow missed it, or ignored it:

The total burnout of four and a half floors did not cause damage to the main structural members due to a good application of spayed fire protection on all steelwork.

Also:

Without the effective fire fighting on the 16th floor by the fire brigade, the fire could have spread to all floors above.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

bsbray:
OMGASM. So was there in the WTC towers. Guess what? First Interstate Bank burned about twice as long, and there was less steel to heat. Are you going to orgasm over those facts too?

Now, where was the actual fire fighting in either WTC tower or WTC7? You know what effective firefighting means right? It means putting water on the fire. Not standing around with your hands in your pockets because there is no water to fight with. Were there active firefighters, with hoses on the floors where the fires were most intense? Were there helicopters dropping water on the fires? Were there aerial ladders shooting water into the burning buildings? Can you show me either pictures, video, or even reports from the NYFD which they were actively pouring water onto the fires prior to collapse? Any will do, I'll wait.

bsbray:
Just like the WTC. You have no proof that all the fireproofing was knocked off by the planes either

ah yes of course, there is no way crappy fireproofing will budge when impacted by 500mph impact of a 767. No way!!! Even though it was reported that it was known fireproofing in the WTC were A) Sub-par; B) too thinly applied; C) falling off or missing on inspected members; D) the blown on fireproofing itself was of crappy quality. But I guess you somehow missed or ignored all those times it was posted on ATS. But hey, it is easy to overlook things when you dont wish to see them, especially if they are against your beliefs.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Which is in reference to what you said earlier:

Yeah, we know what hours of fire can't do, too, based on every other skyscraper fire in the history of mankind.

So I brought up Windsor Tower

Exactly, which I made no mention of. You could include any skyscraper you want when I say none of the rest have collapsed to the ground from fire, but it was your choice to bring up the Windsor Tower, so don't you think it's a little moronic to then go on criticizing the comparison when you were the only one to mention that particular building in the first place?

It's a straw man. Yes, you posted a logical fallacy. You do it all the time really, in every post I can remember seeing if you want to be frank about it. Get over it.

You then went on to mention to mention 1st Interstate Bank fire, which you obviously did not research at all

Obviously not since I recited a number of facts that you only confirmed with your link. That makes tons of sense. You pointed out nothing that wasn't also relevant to the WTC Towers. Stop stroking your own ego.

You were going on and on about how fire cannot affect steel structures, and how long it takes for anything to happen, and I showed you how wrong you were and how your examples were wrong as well.

How did you do that? With the example you brought up that I didn't even mention? No, that's just you talking to yourself again.

The First Interstate Bank burned for almost twice as long and the fire did nothing. Are you going to prove that all the fireproofing was blown off of the WTC Towers now, or just keep babbling about how you didn't post a straw man when you obviously did?

Originally posted by GenRadek
I can see that reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it bsbray?

projection

I don't think you would really want to compare reading comprehension.

ah yes of course, there is no way crappy fireproofing will budge when impacted by 500mph impact of a 767. No way!!! Even though it was reported that it was known fireproofing in the WTC were A) Sub-par; B) too thinly applied; C) falling off or missing on inspected members; D) the blown on fireproofing itself was of crappy quality. But I guess you somehow missed or ignored all those times it was posted on ATS.

I did. So what are your sources for all of that?

This is what the spray-on fireproofing looked like:




Yet you are claiming the WTC Towers had no fireproofing.


Why? Because even though the buildings were designed to sway and absorb hurricane-force winds, the insane ungodly astronomical shock of the giant plane hitting the tiny building blew all the fireproofing off, of course. And sarcasm is your proof of this. Well going by that reasoning, I guess my sarcasm just debunked your sarcasm. Too bad sarcasm isn't really proof of anything in the first place.

reply to post by bsbray11


No no, you were saying how fire cannot affect steel buildings at all. I posted some examples of ones that were. However, what you call "critisizing" wha I said, I was actually clarifiying the important facts and details that were no doubt going to be questioned by truthers, or pointed out. So I took the liberty to nip it in the bud and explain the differences, so that no one can come and say, "Oh, well Windsor still didnt collapse from fire alone," which is true, however, the steel only sections did fail, and failed rapidly from fire alone. You wanted a steel structure failing from fire alone, I delivered, with an explanation of the details that are relevant.
WTC did not have a reinforced concrete core, neither did WTC7. Windsor did. But its steel only section collapsed, something that YOU said cannot happen.

It is sad that you failed to even understand the argument and label it as a strawman.

reply to post by bsbray11


Nice picture of it during construction, how about how it looked later on?



also:
the man who saw it with his own eyes:

Roger Morse on the fireproofing on WTC prior to 9/11
Roger Morse:

I investigated the fireproofing in both World Trade Center towers over approximately a 10-year period between the early 1990s and early June 2000, the last time I was in the towers.


There were problems with the fireproofing in the World Trade Towers that may have rendered them vulnerable to fire. These problems are not unique to the WTC; I have observed similar problems with the fireproofing in many high-rise buildings in the United States and Europe.

---------------------

At the same hearing, Roger Morse, an architect who investigated the WTC's fireproofing from the early 1990s to June 2001, said that the towers suffered from the same sorts of deficiencies as many other high-rise office buildings in the United States and Europe. He noted that fireproofing on long-span joists was often "extremely thin" (less than the 3/4 inch specified in the FEMA/ASCE report) and that some structural elements were never fireproofed in places because ductwork prevented ready access. Moreover, he observed that fireproofing on the columns had been coming off because it had been applied over the rust that had built up on the columns, and the rust was flaking from the steel. (Building codes don't get into this degree of specificity, but such practices go against the manufacturer's recommendations.) Finally, he observed that inspectors assess fireproofing before construction has finished, and that fireproofing is often damaged prior to occupancy.

www.securitymanagement.com...

more

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by GenRadek
No no, you were saying how fire cannot affect steel buildings at all.

Are those my exact words? No. If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be complaining about me twisting your words too. What was that about reading comprehension? Right, I told you that you wouldn't actually want to compare.

I posted some examples of ones that were.

Thanks. You still were responding to your own comparison, not the ones I mentioned in my own post.