The great thermite debate.

doc111

Well-Known Member
I watched all the videos and found out that masonry construction is not anywhere near as strong as steel construction. Glad you were able to admit that there is no such info on skyscraper collapse.
I never said there wasn't such info. I am simply unable to obtain such info at this particular juncture. You haven't conceded shit, why should I? lol! :-P

Here is one more link that shows several examples of partial collapses occurring in highrise, steel structures which pre-date 9/11.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-149/issue-1/features/dangers-of-high-rise-firefighting.html

I am going to consult a few of my firefighter brothers at the FDNY to see if they can provide me a PDF or something that actually pre-dates 9/11 which deals with the danger of catastrophic structural failures in highrises like the ones we saw on 9/11. There just isn't much in the way of similar disasters though.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
A section of ceiling having pieces fall out and strike firefighters is not a Collapse, a retaining wall falling down is not a building collapse either. A suspended ceiling falling down isn't a collapse either, its a suspended ceiling made of acoustic tile. I don't know how you are reading that article and coming to the conclusion that just because something inside the building falls apart that it means the entire building has just suffered a partial collapse. Just because my Jenga pile looks like its about to fall over does not make me exclaim that my actual house has succumbed to a near partial collapse.

How do you know it was written before 9/11?
 

dukeanthony

New Member
A section of ceiling having pieces fall out and strike firefighters is not a Collapse, a retaining wall falling down is not a building collapse either. A suspended ceiling falling down isn't a collapse either, its a suspended ceiling made of acoustic tile. I don't know how you are reading that article and coming to the conclusion that just because something inside the building falls apart that it means the entire building has just suffered a partial collapse. Just because my Jenga pile looks like its about to fall over does not make me exclaim that my actual house has succumbed to a near partial collapse.

How do you know it was written before 9/11?
NO but as stated. Look at support beams. If you see new wood that means it is moving. And a lot of Building collapses are caused by steel beams that heat and expand pushing the exterior walls over during a fire
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
NO but as stated. Look at support beams. If you see new wood that means it is moving. And a lot of Building collapses are caused by steel beams that heat and expand pushing the exterior walls over during a fire
AHHH yes, the steel expansion theory, which was used for the very first time in history to explain the WTC 7 collapse. Just one, not a lot.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
A section of ceiling having pieces fall out and strike firefighters is not a Collapse, a retaining wall falling down is not a building collapse either. A suspended ceiling falling down isn't a collapse either, its a suspended ceiling made of acoustic tile. I don't know how you are reading that article and coming to the conclusion that just because something inside the building falls apart that it means the entire building has just suffered a partial collapse. Just because my Jenga pile looks like its about to fall over does not make me exclaim that my actual house has succumbed to a near partial collapse.


How do you know it was written before 9/11?
Those ARE indeed PARTIAL collapses. Again, you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about and are picking and choosing what you are taking from the article. There were more severe PARTIAL collapses mentioned in that article. I didn't put it up for you to pick apart. It's already QUITE apparent that you are going to find some miniscule flaw with whatever link or evidence anybody puts up so as far as me debating this issue with you?????? I'm finished. A 46 story skyscraper could collapse tomorrow and I'd be willing to bet you'd say something along the lines of "It's not the same thing. A 46 story steel framed skyscraper is NOT a 47 story steel framed skyscraper!" lmfao!!!!! I distinctly recall stating that the actual article wasn't pre-9/11 but most of the partial highrise collapses mentioned WERE pre-9/11. If you can find any article dealing with collapse of ANYTHING prior to 9/11, good fucking luck! As soon as you input anything collapse related, especially highrise/skyscraper, the only articles that come up are dealing with 9/11. If you put "pre-911" into the search the only thing that comes up is 9/11 related sites, so the only info I will be able to have any hope of finding will have to come straight from the source. We all know that there has never been an event to compare to this. This phenomenon of skyscrapers collapsing is a new phenomenon, but skyscrapers don't have a really long history. And what percentage of buildings are steel framed highrises? Collapses are relatively rare events, but it doesn't mean they can't happen. Let me ask you this? Would you eat your words if and when a skyscraper were to collapse in the future? I seriously doubt it. You would probably just make some lame excuse about how someone must've brought it down or whatever. :roll:

I think it's clear to anyone else that has read those links that you are either not reading, or not comprehending the entire articles. Cherry picking information is weak sauce bro. It's been a very eye opening experience for me nonetheless.:peace:

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-149/issue-1/features/dangers-of-high-rise-firefighting.html

COLLAPSE
At the 1 New York Plaza high-rise fire in New York City in 1970, the major structural damage was floor collapse. Twenty thousand square feet of concrete and steel floor deck and 150 steel floor beams were replaced. The fire caused the floor above to buckle, crack, and heave upward. Floors and partition walls were slanted upward and sideways. No floor slab collapsed, but firefighters could not safely enter the floor area that was cracked and buckled upward because of the collapse potential.
The floor of a skeleton steel-frame high-rise structure is usually corrugated steel 10-foot by 12-foot sheets covered with two or three inches of concrete. This combination steel and concrete floor deck is supported by steel beams in a gridiron design. When the heat from a fire destroys the ceiling and heats up the underside of a floor`s corrugated steel, the section of concrete above will crack at the seams and buckle upward; then, a section of floor will sag as the steel beams below also warp, twist, and buckle.
At the Banker`s Trust Company Building fire in New York City in 1993, an officer reported that the floor above the fire he was searching was beginning to buckle and sag. He noticed file cabinet doors suddenly opening. Entire lengths of the file drawers rolled out of the cabinets. After the fire was extinguished, the cause of the file drawers` opening was found to be sagging and collapsing floors. As the steel and concrete sections of floor sagged, cabinet drawers slanted downward and rolled out.
At a high-rise fire in Montreal, Canada, that burned several floors, a 10-foot by 12-foot section of floor collapsed to the floor below. Thus, be aware that a fire-resistive high-rise building can experience fire spread from floor to floor as well as collapse in a fire.
Wall collapse. At the One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, sections of the granite wall collapsed. Flames spreading upward from window to window on the outside of the structure heated the granite facade. Large chunks of heated granite weighing 20 to 30 pounds came crashing down on the sidewalk, narrowly missing firefighters. (Stone and concrete are subject to spalling--the collapse of masonry sections caused by the expansion of moisture inside the stone or concrete--when heated.)
Ceiling collapse. At a five-alarm fire in 1990 in the Empire State Building, a reinforced concrete and steel structure, pieces of the concrete ceiling collapsed on firefighters advancing a hoseline. If a concrete structure does not have a drop ceiling, its ceiling will be directly heated by fire. Spalling will occur. Chunks of concrete ceiling will collapse on the helmets of firefighters advancing an attack hoseline. Concrete pieces weighing 10 to 20 pounds falling 10 feet can cause serious injury.
Suspended ceiling collapse. High-rises can have lightweight suspended ceilings. A thin metal and wire grid system holds removable panels. If flames heat the supports, the suspended ceiling can collapse. Firefighters can become entangled in the thin metal framework and suspension wire, or in falling electrical conduit, after a collapse, trapping them in a flaming room or hallway. Thus, the injury a firefighter receives from a suspended ceiling collapse may come not from being crushed but from smoke and burns following the collapse. When searching a floor at a high-rise fire, lift a panel of the suspended ceiling with a six-foot pike pole. Fire may be spreading in the space above the ceiling, over your head.
Fluorescent light fixture collapse. Even before spalling occurs, large, heavy, suspended fluorescent light fixtures can collapse during a fire. These fixtures can weigh 20 to 30 pounds and are suspended by wire or chain and fastened into the concrete ceiling by lead fasteners or anchors. The heat from a fire will quickly melt the lead fastenings, and the light fixture can fall. Concrete structures such as public schools, hospitals, and high-rise office buildings have these collapse dangers in their halls.
You seem to think a suspended ceiling collapse isn't a big deal? I've known more than a few firefighters who were killed when they were entagled in the wiring from a suspended ceiling collapse. Granted, that wasn't what I was hoping you'd take from the article, but you seem to scoff at some of these dangers that kill firemen. I think this perfectly illustrates exactly how much you know about firefighting. :dunce:
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
NO but as stated. Look at support beams. If you see new wood that means it is moving. And a lot of Building collapses are caused by steel beams that heat and expand pushing the exterior walls over during a fire
Here is yet another link which shows how steel frame buildings NEVER collapse! lol!

/sarcasm


http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-159/issue-6/features/the-dangers-of-lightweight-steel-construction.html

I'm sure I'll be told by a doubter how "They aren't skyscrapers........blah, blah, blah!" I mean, everybody knows that steel doesn't melt in a fire so how can it possibly collapse, right?


 

dukeanthony

New Member
AHHH yes, the steel expansion theory, which was used for the very first time in history to explain the WTC 7 collapse. Just one, not a lot.
DUDE?
Its one of the first things you learn In carpentry apprentice programs is to leave enough room for expansion in walls for steel supporting beams, Its written into every building code in the USA
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
DUDE?
Its one of the first things you learn In carpentry apprentice programs is to leave enough room for expansion in walls for steel supporting beams, Its written into every building code in the USA
What are you talking about? Things don't expand with heat! lmfao!!!!!!!!!:mrgreen:
 

dukeanthony

New Member
Its been 30 years But I believe you need to leave out 1 1/2 inches free play on each side of the I beam to allow for expansion from FIRE
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Its been 30 years But I believe you need to leave out 1 1/2 inches free play on each side of the I beam to allow for expansion from FIRE
...........yet another example of how steel framed highrise buildings cannot possibly collapse due to fire alone. :o

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

There is a video of the actual collapse embedded in the page of the link I provided above. Of course the laws of physics are going to be different since this building wasn't 47 or 110 stories. Steel can actually fail in buildings that have far less structural load above but it's not possible in very tall skyscrapers with massive loads above the damaged and burning sections. lol!:roll:
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
This logic of things MUST occur in the exact same manner every time, or something happening for the first time so it MUST be impossible is severely flawed. How many firsts have there been throughout history? People who know very little about collapse, building construction, fire, etc., are seeing things like Loose Change and are convinced that this event was a conspiracy. People don't like to be wrong about things, I get that, but we've heard things like "ordinary fires won't weaken steel to the point of failure" and numerous cases of steel failing have been shown debunking that claim. Yet somehow it's not the same because the circumstances weren't identical? That whole line of thinking debunks the claim by itself and the truthers don't even see it! lmfao!!!!! Buildings have flaws, sometimes by design, other times from shoddy workmanship. OCCASIONALLY, everything is done properly and the extraordinary happens and the buildings still fall. I've been in fires where the buildings burned for several hours and didn't collapse and I've been to fires in similar construction types and building sizes where they burned for an hour and collapsed! Sometimes, days after the fire, a structure will collapse without warning. Why some of these things happen isn't completely understood. It's not a perfect science and it's extremely difficult to test for all variables on such a massive scale. The NIST report isn't perfect and there are things that I and many others disagree with. (See link below)

Critiques of NIST's WTC investigation by knowledgeable people who are not conspiracy theorists







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


FACT: Fire weakens steel and can do so to the point of catastrophic structural failure.


FACT: Dramatic cases of steel structures collapsing from fire alone have been shown as evidence.

These 2 facts alone debunk the claim that no highrise structure has ever collapsed from fire alone, and that fire cannot weaken steel to the point of failure.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
This logic of things MUST occur in the exact same manner every time, or something happening for the first time so it MUST be impossible severely flawed. How many firsts have there been throughout history? People who know very little about collapse, building construction, fire, etc., are seeing things like Loose Change and are convinced that this event was a conspiracy. People don't like to be wrong about things, I get that, but we've heard things like "ordinary fires won't weaken steel to the point of failure" and numerous cases of steel failing have been shown debunking that claim. Yet somehow it's not the same because the circumstances weren't identical? That whole line of thinking debunks the claim by itself and the truthers don't even see it! lmfao!!!!! Buildings have flaws, sometimes by design, other times from shoddy workmanship. OCCASIONALLY, everything is done properly and the extraordinary happens and the buildings still fall. I've been in fires where the buildings burned for several hours and didn't collapse and I've been to fires in similar construction types and building sizes where they burned for an hour and collapsed! Sometimes, days after the fire, a structure will collapse without warning. Why some of these things happen isn't completely understood. It's not a perfect science and it's extremely difficult to test for all variables on such a massive scale. The NIST report isn't perfect and there are things that I and many others disagree with. (See link below)

Critiques of NIST's WTC investigation by knowledgeable people who are not conspiracy theorists







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


FACT: Fire weakens steel and can do so to the point of catastrophic structural failure.


FACT: Dramatic cases of steel structures collapsing from fire alone have been shown as evidence.

These 2 facts alone debunk the claim that no highrise structure has ever collapsed from fire alone, and that fire cannot weaken steel to the point of failure.

i doubt very much our own private gomer is going to pay the slightest attention to that
 

dukeanthony

New Member
Sadly, I think you are correct. :-(

Are my links and pics working for you? :confused:
Working as in Functional
As far as Changing my mind?
No.
I am not an idiot that believes a Skyscraper can withstand the impact of a million pound aircraft at 400 miles an hour and a fire fed by thousands of gallons of Jet Fuel
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Working as in Functional
As far as Changing my mind?
No.
I am not an idiot that believes a Skyscraper can withstand the impact of a million pound aircraft at 400 miles an hour and a fire fed by thousands of gallons of Jet Fuel
lol! Yes, functional? I didn't think your mind needed changing.;-)
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
..........never mind that the building had several overt signs of collapse hours before it came down. The buildings didn't suddenly come down. The whole process of collapse took several hours. Structural members were weakening and failing inside building 7 for at least a few hourse before it came down. More convenient ignoring of facts or did you miss all that? I personally saw these signs! Numerous firemen saw these signs. They woudln't have been there in a demo would they? Or was this more "window dressing" to cover whatever shadow group perpetrated this true intentions? :roll:
Here is a transcript of a FDNY Deputy Chief talking about the bulging he noticed between floors 10-13.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html


 

doc111

Well-Known Member
And here is even MORE transcript of an interview with some of the chiefs and firefighters that were working around WTC 7 on 9/11 who saw or heard some of the signs of an impending collapse.

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm


Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was,but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle:
I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
 

hazyintentions

Well-Known Member
This logic of things MUST occur in the exact same manner every time, or something happening for the first time so it MUST be impossible is severely flawed. How many firsts have there been throughout history? People who know very little about collapse, building construction, fire, etc., are seeing things like Loose Change and are convinced that this event was a conspiracy. People don't like to be wrong about things, I get that, but we've heard things like "ordinary fires won't weaken steel to the point of failure" and numerous cases of steel failing have been shown debunking that claim. Yet somehow it's not the same because the circumstances weren't identical? That whole line of thinking debunks the claim by itself and the truthers don't even see it! lmfao!!!!! Buildings have flaws, sometimes by design, other times from shoddy workmanship. OCCASIONALLY, everything is done properly and the extraordinary happens and the buildings still fall. I've been in fires where the buildings burned for several hours and didn't collapse and I've been to fires in similar construction types and building sizes where they burned for an hour and collapsed! Sometimes, days after the fire, a structure will collapse without warning. Why some of these things happen isn't completely understood. It's not a perfect science and it's extremely difficult to test for all variables on such a massive scale. The NIST report isn't perfect and there are things that I and many others disagree with. (See link below)

Critiques of NIST's WTC investigation by knowledgeable people who are not conspiracy theorists







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


FACT: Fire weakens steel and can do so to the point of catastrophic structural failure.


FACT: Dramatic cases of steel structures collapsing from fire alone have been shown as evidence.

These 2 facts alone debunk the claim that no highrise structure has ever collapsed from fire alone, and that fire cannot weaken steel to the point of failure.

Why is it that anyone who doesn't feel the NIST report or 9/11 commission report is inaccurate or incomplete is automatically a conspiracy theorist?

I don't have a definite idea of who could've pulled this off, I would suspect a 3rd party that indirectly involved the US government. The motive? How about the 2.3 trillion dollars that went missing very shortly before the only building (WTC 7) was destroyed?

We have a murder weapon and motive. It's too bad the court's have already ruled on this one.
 
Top