|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 20, 2006 19:14:01 GMT -4
If there are examples of previous steel framed highrise collapses from fire, then please cite them. The steel-framed exterior sections of the Windsor Tower's upper floors to collapsed due to fire. Do you dispute this?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Aug 20, 2006 23:57:13 GMT -4
This building came virtually straight down in about 7 seconds, with absolutely no video or photographic evidence to lend the slightest support for the theory that fire and damage caused the collapse. Except of course for the first penthouse that fell into the building a full 6 seconds before the rest of the building showing that the collapse had been progressing internally 6 seconds longer than CTs want you to believe. ,,,,,,,,,,, and the seismic recordings of the collapse of #7 show it taking 16 seonds from start to finish. Given that the tower's seismic readings are quite obviously shorter than the actuall collapse time, one has to assume that #7 took at least 16 seconds. In other words things were falling apart inside well before the penthouse sank.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Aug 21, 2006 0:01:43 GMT -4
If there are examples of previous steel framed highrise collapses from fire, then please cite them. The steel-framed exterior sections of the Windsor Tower's upper floors to collapsed due to fire. Do you dispute this? Indeed it is very ironic that Ct's use the Windsor example to try and state that highrises don't globally collapse. The only reason that the Windsor did not suffer a much greater collapse is the FACT of its concrete core columns. The steel that did collapse did not fall completely onto the next lower floor because the flooring connections to the concrete core did not fail nor did the core concrete columns themselves. The partial collapse of the Windsor illustrates that steel will indeed be affected by heat enough to cause it to fail structurally.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 21, 2006 9:59:01 GMT -4
It can, but it doesn't have to. There is no simple formula that says when a building must collapse; it depends on the materials, the design, the fire load, the fireproofing and suppression systems, the air handling systems, changes to the building design (e.g., WTC7), the firefighting effort, even environmental conditions like wind. You can't reduce it to a simple "if A, then collapse; if not A, then no collapse".
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 21, 2006 14:53:11 GMT -4
While not a demonstration that all (or even similar) steel-framed structures will collapse because of fire, Windsor certainly falsifies the claim "No seel-framed highrise structure has ever collapsed due to fire."
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 21, 2006 15:09:25 GMT -4
Oh, I agree. The conspiracist take on this reminds me strongly of the creationist response to demonstrated instances of evolution: "oh, but that's microevolution." But conspiracists don't even have as lame a theory as "irreducible complexity" to back up their claims. It's all magic invisible explosives and magic invisible cruise missiles and magically unnoticed demolition preparations and magic disappearing passengers and on and on.
It's just inconceivable to them that bad intelligence and bureaucracy and surprise and "fighting the last war" mindsets could have allowed a determined group of terrorists to pull off a novel attack. They have to believe it was an "inside job", so they won't just sprinkle on the magic conspiracy dust to make it happen in their view; they'll trowel it on with a shovel.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 21, 2006 16:35:18 GMT -4
I quite like the ironry in their total distrust of "The Government" but also their total belief in "The Government"'s omniscience, omnipotence and ability to conduct flawless operations.
It's an intersting juxaposition when compared to those that accept the scientific version of events but who also believe that any goverment on a regular and routinue basis cocks even the most simple to do things up.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Aug 22, 2006 21:14:00 GMT -4
I quite like the ironry in their total distrust of "The Government" but also their total belief in "The Government"'s omniscience, omnipotence and ability to conduct flawless operations. It's an intersting juxaposition when compared to those that accept the scientific version of events but who also believe that any goverment on a regular and routinue basis cocks even the most simple to do things up. Flawless except for the obvious violations of Newtonian physics that somehow haven't been spotted by a single civil engineer anywhere on the planet!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 26, 2006 1:09:33 GMT -4
Do you know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of the assumption that, because I support the "official story," I must support the current administration.
I believe they lied, or at least had faulty intelligence--which is almost worse--to get us sucked into a never-ending civil war in another country, one that they're dragging my boyfriend into. In fact, I could go on for days about the failings of the current administration. But I won't; I don't think I have to. I think my point is made.
However, it doesn't affect the science. Claiming it does is putting motive ahead of evidence, which is no way to run an investigation. It's absolutely shameful to claim that thousands of highly-qualified professionals in relevant fields are all somehow lying, especially given that their supposed lies are then being used for future building standards, and if those standards are flawed, they could cause even more deaths.
If the evidence is followed, the answer is really remarkably simple. 19 men hijacked four airplanes. Two of them crashed, one each, into WTC 1 and 2. Due to the horrible structural damage and raging fires, they collapsed, dropping flaming debris (which would be a good name for a band) onto WTC 7, which burned pretty much unchecked then collapsed itself. The unique architecture of the buildings didn't help, either.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Aug 26, 2006 20:12:49 GMT -4
Do you know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of the assumption that, because I support the "official story," I must support the current administration. I believe they lied, or at least had faulty intelligence--which is almost worse--to get us sucked into a never-ending civil war in another country, one that they're dragging my boyfriend into. In fact, I could go on for days about the failings of the current administration. But I won't; I don't think I have to. I think my point is made.. In the words of Smokey Robinson "I Second that Emotion" It's also more than ironic that they say this it seems more like projection. Most (all?) of them start with the assumption that the towers fell due to CD and work from there. Fetzer was so frustrated by the lack of expert support for their theories he said something about there being some "special place in hell" for structural engineers, I guess even Cuban, Palestinian and Iranian etc. engineers must be in on it because so far none have voiced support for such theories. Interestingly he went into a similar rant against pilots when he couldn't find any to back his theories about the Wellstone crash.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 27, 2006 23:11:29 GMT -4
Again, I want to emphasize that the physical models built and tested all failed to substantiate the "fire and impact damage" theory of collapse for the three buildings.
Scientific method demands that a theory must be tested for reproducibility and repeatability.
None of the models constructed to test the fire/damage collapse theory managed to support (sorry for the pun) that theory in multiple tests.
And again I ask - is that not a very important finding?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Aug 27, 2006 23:59:32 GMT -4
Do you know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of the assumption that, because I support the "official story," I must support the current administration. . Amen to that sister. Hope your bf manages to keep his head down at all the right times.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 28, 2006 1:17:43 GMT -4
Again, I want to emphasize that the physical models built and tested all failed to substantiate the "fire and impact damage" theory of collapse for the three buildings. Scientific method demands that a theory must be tested for reproducibility and repeatability. None of the models constructed to test the fire/damage collapse theory managed to support (sorry for the pun) that theory in multiple tests. And again I ask - is that not a very important finding? I think I'm really tired of this garbage. The true believers of the controlled demolition theory are going to keep chasing their own tails on this crap forever, but I'm done responding. It's obviously a waste of time. I'm with gillianren on this issue - I don't agree with the current administration, but that doesn't automatically mean that I believe lit the fuse to drop the towers, literally of metaphorically. The PNAC documents refer to needing a new pearl harbor to acheive certain sociopolitical goals quickly, as opposed to more slowly. The name of the group is Project for a new american century, not for next news cycle. The 9/11 attack by al Qaeda terrorists handed a dramatic event to them on a plate, but forced them to go into Afghanistan when what they wanted all along was to invade Iraq. Afghanistan Where? What are we doing there? Have you heard anything about it in the news? NO! It's been virtually abandoned as an effort and kept out of the news spotlight because it's largley irrelevant to whatever it is that they're really up to, which is probably securing access to a large reserve of oil to fuel the next three wars. Instead they keep the "war on terror" against "Al qaida in Iraq" in the public consciousness. Meanwhile some people are obviously triggering on the rampant lying from Bush and secrecy from the Cheney administration and freaking out, but asking all the wrong questions. Instead of questioning the "quote - unquote" fire and structural damage, perhaps you should ask yourself how many new terrorists have gotten combat training in Iraq, and why the borders are still unsecured. Physical models indeed. I hope turbonium isn't referring to the flaming chickenwire model.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Aug 28, 2006 2:47:52 GMT -4
which is probably securing access to a large reserve of oil to fuel the next three wars. The oil was quite secure before. All that was needed was to buy it, at a price substantially lower than that of invading oil-producing countries. . .
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 28, 2006 4:12:11 GMT -4
Turbonium: The steel-framed exterior sections of the Windsor Tower's upper floors to collapsed due to fire. Do you dispute this?
|
|