• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split From Dick Oliver thread

RedIbis said:
Great post. You linked to this page and I didn't even quote anything. What's your point?
Click to expand...



Originally Posted by RedIbis
NIST admitted that the unique design did not contribute to the bldg's collapse. It has been and will always be nothing but a fire theory.
Click to expand...


NIST says you are wrong. They say the design did contribute to the collapse.


The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.
Click to expand...
 
BigAl said:
NIST says you are wrong. They say the design did contribute to the collapse.
Click to expand...

Really?

Special elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—also did not play a significant role in the collapse.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
Click to expand...
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me there were TWO towers built the same way, both struck by aircraft, both with uncontrolled fires, both collapsed on 9/11. That isn't one instance of a thing happening, it's two. So it already has happened multiple times; just because the multiple is small doesn't make it less multiple.
 
Really, now, expecting these benighted souls to count even up to one takes a special dispensation in tolerance. :)
 
RedIbis said:
Really?
Click to expand...

You continue to cherry pick. The page you pick text from also says this and all the aspects described here are part of the design and contributed to the fire-induced collapse.


The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.
Click to expand...
 
BigAl said:
You continue to cherry pick. The page you pick text from also says this and all the aspects described here are part of the design and contributed to the fire-induced collapse.
Click to expand...

There was nothing extraordinary about the design elements they're discussing. Those design elements which were considered unique to WTC 7 did not lead to the bldg's collapse.
 
RedIbis said:
There was nothing extraordinary about the design elements they're discussing. Those design elements which were considered unique to WTC 7 did not lead to the bldg's collapse.
Click to expand...

The "long span" was unusual.
 
RedIbis said:
Long span what?
Click to expand...

For the third time;

The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.
Click to expand...
 
Has RedIbis ben able to understand yet that it doesn't matter which type of explosive was used, if it is capable of cutting said column it would be at least 130dB?

No?

I'm shocked, shocked, shocked!
 
Profanz said:
I can come up with plenty of examples of high-rise fires. None of them collapsing to dust.
Click to expand...

We can do that as well, so what?



The assertions as to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11 are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence that proves these "assertations" are ridiculous?

And what will you do? You'll probably start in with how the towers were a unique design.
Click to expand...

Are you non-skeptic enough to say they weren't?

But then you have WTC-7 to contend with.
Click to expand...

Sure do, it's location was in very close proximity to those uniquely designed towers.

Not the same design.
Click to expand...

Yet still vulnerable to materials collision and unrestrained fire.

And according to what you claim is the truth collapsed because of a whole different first time in history excuse.
Click to expand...

Your summarized assumption doesn't explain the collective evidence. You have nothing but simplified delusional conclusion. Or in other words:


You are not a skeptic.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Has RedIbis ben able to understand yet that it doesn't matter which type of explosive was used, if it is capable of cutting said column it would be at least 130dB?

No?

I'm shocked, shocked, shocked!
Click to expand...

So according to you, regardless of the explosive or charge used, they will produce the exact same level of sound.
 
RedIbis said:
So according to you, regardless of the explosive or charge used, they will produce the exact same level of sound.
Click to expand...

No.

WildCat said:
Has RedIbis ben able to understand yet that it doesn't matter which type of explosive was used, if it is capable of cutting said column it would be at least 130dB?

No?

I'm shocked, shocked, shocked!
Click to expand...

I highlighted the important part for you. It can be greater than 130dB, but it must be at least 130dB in order to be an explosive capable of cutting any columns. It can be 130dB, it can be 160dB, it can be 200dB, or any other number above 130, but it cannot be LESS.
 
RedIbis said:
So according to you, regardless of the explosive or charge used, they will produce the exact same level of sound.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If you used a really small charge, it would be quieter. Then again, it wouldn't cut column 79.

The point is that any explosive charge capable of cutting column 79 will produce roughly the same level of sound, which is somewhere in the range 130 to 140dB. Since we know that levels of sound many orders of magnitude lower were picked up on video cameras running at the time, we can be certain that any sound comparable in intensity to 130dB would have been picked up very strongly.

What's remarkable, though, about RedIbis's line of argument is that it's as absurd in its own way as anything jammonius has ever come up with. He's not arguing that a fairly quiet noise might possibly have been missed. He's arguing, in effect (though he'd probably stretch sophistry to its breaking point to deny it), that the loudest noise to have been generated in NYC on 9/11 could have been missed by any and all sound recording equipment running at the time. It's not just wrong, it's impressively stupid.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom