900 replies to this topic

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 19 November 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

The better question LG, is whether it was a drone or actually carrying passengers?  And were there any sensitive financial records in the building?

Actually, in the context of this conversation I think the only question is whether this is at all an analog to WTC.  It wasn't hit by a plane and is a little over a third of the height in WTC in stories.  Taking all of the evidence into account, it appears that sometimes fire alone causes steel structures to collapse and sometimes it doesn't.  So?  Why do only CTs cherry-pick from this fact and to make what argument exactly?

[flyingswan]

Liquid Gardens, on 19 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Actually, in the context of this conversation I think the only question is whether this is at all an analog to WTC.

You may have missed my post #702 above, it wasn't even a steel-framed building.

[Liquid Gardens]

flyingswan, on 19 November 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

You may have missed my post #702 above, it wasn't even a steel-framed building.

Thanks swan, I read too fast and did miss that your post was in reference to the same building, I was looking for a strike three.  As in:

- not hit by a plane (or damaged at all except from fire I believe) - strike one
- less than half the height of WTC in stories - strike two
- not even a steel-framed building - strike three

One wonders why it was posted in the first place.

[Babe Ruth]

Liquid Gardens, on 19 November 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Thanks swan, I read too fast and did miss that your post was in reference to the same building, I was looking for a strike three.  As in:

- not hit by a plane (or damaged at all except from fire I believe) - strike one
- less than half the height of WTC in stories - strike two
- not even a steel-framed building - strike three

One wonders why it was posted in the first place.

So maybe the question then becomes: are concrete buildings more or less susceptible to fire damage than steel buildings?

Being neither an architect nor an engineer, I don't know the answer.

Are you suggesting that taller buildings fall more quickly or more slowly than shorter buildings?

Edited by Babe Ruth, 19 November 2012 - 07:15 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 November 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

So maybe the question then becomes: are concrete buildings more or less susceptible to fire damage than steel buildings?

Being neither an architect nor an engineer, I don't know the answer.

I am very sure the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Institute of Architects can help you out.

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 19 November 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

So maybe the question then becomes: are concrete buildings more or less susceptible to fire damage than steel buildings?

Being neither an architect nor an engineer, I don't know the answer.

Are you suggesting that taller buildings fall more quickly or more slowly than shorter buildings?

No, overall I'm suggesting that there is a fundamental inconsistency in how 'precedent' for collapses of buildings from fire is often treated by some CTs.  When an example like the Dubai high-rise is presented, this is presumably supposed to say something meaningful about WTC (I'm guessing here, the initial post on this forgot to include a specific argument along with the snark), such as how unlikely it is that WTC did collapse, or something.  When examples of buildings, made of steel no less, are provided showing collapse just from fire, CTs change the standards of their argument and all of a sudden discover nuance and structural specifics and (rightly IMO) point out how the WTC is so different from whatever fire-based collapse example is provided.  This just happens to be one of the more blatantly inconsistent and least analogous examples.

Interesting question, are concrete buildings more or less likely than steel ones to withstand a fire-based collapse, I'm not sure of the answer either not being an engineer or architect myself.  I'm of the uneducated opinion though that there are enough variations in the structures of buildings that it is not valid and a little silly to draw specific conclusions from one building collapsing to another one with different attributes not collapsing, pretty much period.  Especially for us laymen, a group that I'm pretty sure includes Little Fish.

[W Tell]

flyingswan, on 18 November 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I meant the metal structure supporting whatever ceiling was present.  I doubt very much if many ceiling tiles would remain in place seeing how close the area was to the impact level.

I see what you mean. It's a good point. But I'd like to add that the steel in those grid systems, though they do their job well, is flimsy. It's easily bent with human hands and is suspended with wire. I don't see the support system hanging around (pun intended) as just the panels were displaced by the impact. It would be toast to.

I say this as someone that's been hired to install a few of them, so I know the material. But I don't feel a few installs makes me an expert . (I personaly think most places wouldn't even bother finishing off the ceiling if the room was just to store batteries)

[W Tell]

flyingswan, on 18 November 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I'm not sure I get what your point is about the height.  The colour at the top corresponds to too low a temperature to be molten steel, so a lower melting-point metal is a good fit.  The area of the building where the flow comes from contained both a UPS room with a lot of battery lead and aluminium from the aircraft.  Either would provide the required large amount of molten material.

Like I said, your picture doesn't do it justice. Here's another shot of it that doesn't even show the impact zone.



Whatever dropped that far was very hot. Enough to keep it's color after free falling through the air 700 to 800 feet. Makes it worse if people want to call these droplets, you haven't but some have, since the larger the mass the longer it takes to cool.

I suppose what I'm getting at is... you can't show a picture of it falling fifty feet and claim it's aluminum and lead, when a much better shot of the spill shows that whatever spilled from that corner retained it's color ..if not to the ground, dang near to it.  Molten aluminum does not have this charecteristic. The battery banks and molten lead won't have this charecteristic either. ( We still have not decided if the batteries were even a factor.)

[W Tell]

skyeagle409, on 18 November 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

If that material was molten, it would not have retained its shape and would have pooled as a blob on the ground.





The rails buckled due to heat, not from movement on the ground.

Don't want to get into it. You're comparing railroad tracks to skyscrapers.  That's worse than apples and oranges. IMO.

Edited by W Tell, 20 November 2012 - 02:07 AM.

[skyeagle409]

W Tell, on 20 November 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

Don't want to get into it. You're comparing railroad tracks to skyscrapers.  That's worse than apples and oranges. IMO.

Metal is metal. Ever wondered why the airframe of the SR-71 is built the way it is? It has to do with heat expansion, as is the case with structural steel columns when they are subject to high heat.

[skyeagle409]

W Tell, on 20 November 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Like I said, your picture doesn't do it justice. Here's another shot of it that doesn't even show the impact zone.



Whatever dropped that far was very hot. Enough to keep it's color after free falling through the air 700 to 800 feet. Makes it worse if people want to call these droplets, you haven't but some have, since the larger the mass the longer it takes to cool.

I suppose what I'm getting at is... you can't show a picture of it falling fifty feet and claim it's aluminum and lead, when a much better shot of the spill shows that whatever spilled from that corner retained it's color ..if not to the ground, dang near to it.  Molten aluminum does not have this charecteristic....

Yes it does, and I have seen burning aircraft before.



And remember, the WTC buildings were observed buckling just prior to their collapse, which is a clear indication that the structures of the WTC buildings were in the process of failing as the fires raged on.

Quote

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 November 2012 - 03:33 AM.

[flyingswan]

W Tell, on 20 November 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Whatever dropped that far was very hot. Enough to keep it's color after free falling through the air 700 to 800 feet. Makes it worse if people want to call these droplets, you haven't but some have, since the larger the mass the longer it takes to cool.

The videos show a highly irregular flow, so no problem in it showing at various times different temperatures or lump sizes and hence falling different distances before it cools.  The point is that in the picture where you can see it cooling, the bottom part of the flow has the same colour as the aluminium cladding of the building.

[Babe Ruth]

Liquid Gardens, on 19 November 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

No, overall I'm suggesting that there is a fundamental inconsistency in how 'precedent' for collapses of buildings from fire is often treated by some CTs.  When an example like the Dubai high-rise is presented, this is presumably supposed to say something meaningful about WTC (I'm guessing here, the initial post on this forgot to include a specific argument along with the snark), such as how unlikely it is that WTC did collapse, or something.  When examples of buildings, made of steel no less, are provided showing collapse just from fire, CTs change the standards of their argument and all of a sudden discover nuance and structural specifics and (rightly IMO) point out how the WTC is so different from whatever fire-based collapse example is provided.  This just happens to be one of the more blatantly inconsistent and least analogous examples.

Interesting question, are concrete buildings more or less likely than steel ones to withstand a fire-based collapse, I'm not sure of the answer either not being an engineer or architect myself.  I'm of the uneducated opinion though that there are enough variations in the structures of buildings that it is not valid and a little silly to draw specific conclusions from one building collapsing to another one with different attributes not collapsing, pretty much period.  Especially for us laymen, a group that I'm pretty sure includes Little Fish.

I would have to agree with your last paragraph there--specific conclusions may not be valid, and you and I are not educated sufficiently to make specific conclusions.

But as to the "precedent" in your first paragraph, aren't we just talking about statistics?  If it is true that no modern(term should be defined) steel and concrete buildings have fallen thusly from fire, then the WTC buildings certainly present a huge anomaly from the statistical perspective.  And then probability might come into play....?

That is, if it never happened before, isn't it a bit strange for it to happen 3 times in one afternoon?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 20 November 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

That is, if it never happened before, isn't it a bit strange for it to happen 3 times in one afternoon?

Nope, because it has been revealed that terrorist planned to use airliners as weapons. In fact, terrorist planned to fly an airliner into the Eiffel Tower, but that hijacking was broken up.

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 20 November 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

But as to the "precedent" in your first paragraph, aren't we just talking about statistics?  If it is true that no modern(term should be defined) steel and concrete buildings have fallen thusly from fire, then the WTC buildings certainly present a huge anomaly from the statistical perspective.  And then probability might come into play....?

That is, if it never happened before, isn't it a bit strange for it to happen 3 times in one afternoon?

This is starting to overlap some of the topics I'm discussing with Q and to whom I'm starting to gradually put together a more thorough response, but real quick here's my issue with what you and I are discussing.  Compare these two arguments:

1:
CT: This Dubai high-rise is yet another example of how buildings don't collapse from fire, thereby making the WTC collapses a 'huge anomaly" and improbability
LG: In order for precedent to be of any use, you have to compare like to like, and this example is so significantly different from WTC and 9/11 that how it behaves tells us almost nothing of how WTC should behave.
CT: (unknown response, assuming it's along the lines of 'well it's close enough')

2:
LG: Look at the pictures sky has been kind enough to take the time to post showing steel buildings collapsing from fire alone, not even including a plane ramming it, I guess it's not true that there is no precedent for these collapses.
CT: In order for precedent to be of any use, you have to compare like to like, and these examples are so significantly different from WTC and 9/11 that how they behave tells us almost nothing of how WTC should behave.
LG: Then if we're going to be consistent, we can disregard the Dubai high-rise and all your other non-collapse examples also then as irrelevant 'precedents', since 9/11 was a unique event.

We require accurate precedents for the structure of and what happened to WTC in order to find anything 'strange' about their collapses, and this Dubai example is a pretty blatant example of cherry-picking of what's going to 'count' as a precedent and what is not.  And when you're dealing with as chaotic an event as 9/11, it is very difficult to identify meaningful precedents for either position that have any relevance anyway.