What are the finest examples of 9/ll Truther stupidity that you've ever encountered? - Page 2

Dave Rogers · 14th July 2010, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by CORed

ftfy.

Awwww. I was hoping he'd figure it out for himself; there's a first time for everything.

Dave

X · 14th July 2010, 02:09 PM

Let's see...

I have had Heiwa admit that a buidling will still stand even if all but one structural support were removed, regardless of the load bearing capacity of that support.

I also recall Terral (I've seen a few posts of his pop up on CTSTDT) insisting that heat transfer throughout a metal structure instantaneously to all points. So that in order to heat the steel in one area (like, say, above a fire) to any degree, the whole structure will have to heat up with it.

Jammonius is too easy...

fess · 14th July 2010, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Good lord for the tenth time, I'm not arguing the occurence of thermal expansion, I'm questioning how such a common occurence could cause the global collapse of a building.

I suspect that in nearly every fire in a steel framed building, some thermal expansion occurs. But in WTC 7 this leads to global collapse. Not only does NIST have to prove that this is what happened, they also have to prove that the fires got hot enough and burned long enough in the necessary locations.

I'm not saying their hypothesis is impossible, but if you wish to close the case on WTC 7, not requiring some extraordinary physical evidence to back up this hypothesis is just plain stupid.

Ever talked to a firefighter? I,ve seen several concrete blocks walls fail because of steel trusses expanding.

triforcharity · 14th July 2010, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Good lord for the tenth time, I'm not arguing the occurence of thermal expansion, I'm questioning how such a common occurence could cause the global collapse of a building.

I suspect that in nearly every fire in a steel framed building, some thermal expansion occurs. But in WTC 7 this leads to global collapse. Not only does NIST have to prove that this is what happened, they also have to prove that the fires got hot enough and burned long enough in the necessary locations.

I'm not saying their hypothesis is impossible, but if you wish to close the case on WTC 7, not requiring some extraordinary physical evidence to back up this hypothesis is just plain stupid.

Well, that is mostly true Red. Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion. BUT, it is minimal at best. Maybe a few cm. at the most. And usually not over large areas.

Now, the SFRM in 7WTC was rated for about 2 hours. This gives plenty of time for evacuations and for the firefighters to extinguish the fire. Now, when that fire is allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours (3.5 Xs it's rated protection time) what do you expect to happen?

Just about any office fire will get hot enough to cause thermal expansion. Hell, a hot day in Florida causes thermal expansion in steel and concrete too.

Why is this such a suprise? Thermal expansion is deadly to steel framed structures. This has been known for years.

WildCat · 14th July 2010, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

The point isn't that Dave understands it. The point is that you don't.

Wait, RedIbis thinks once a length of steel thermally expands, it stays expanded even after it cools down again?

Really?

Dog Town · 14th July 2010, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Thermal expansion is deadly to steel framed structures. This has been known for years.

It's so cute that twoofers think, since they've never seen, or heard of something, that it can't be true/real!

Timeless, really...

RedIbis · 15th July 2010, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Well, that is mostly true Red. Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion. BUT, it is minimal at best. Maybe a few cm. at the most. And usually not over large areas.

Now, the SFRM in 7WTC was rated for about 2 hours. This gives plenty of time for evacuations and for the firefighters to extinguish the fire. Now, when that fire is allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours (3.5 Xs it's rated protection time) what do you expect to happen?

Just about any office fire will get hot enough to cause thermal expansion. Hell, a hot day in Florida causes thermal expansion in steel and concrete too.

Why is this such a suprise? Thermal expansion is deadly to steel framed structures. This has been known for years.

I wonder if Dave will pounce on you for mostly agreeing and essentially phrasing it the same way I did, namely: "Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion." This is what I stated I simply suspected.

Also, you've proven to be one of the more calm and civil posters I've encountered here, so we can have a productive discussion absent the invenctive, regardless of your unfortunate baseball loyalties.

I don't think I can restate it any more possible ways that I'm not contesting whether thermal expansion occurred in WTC 7, I'm questioning whether it resulted in what NIST said, since as you pointed out, thermal expansion happens in fires, why did it bring the bldg down in this one, since it's never brought a steel framed high rise down before?

My final point on this is that you are suggesting that the fires burned for 7 hours, do you actually think it burned in one location for that long? Of course it didn't so why suggest that the fires burned twice their rating, when the fire had to move around the floors to consume more fuel?

Oystein · 15th July 2010, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I wonder if Dave will pounce on you for mostly agreeing and essentially phrasing it the same way I did, namely: "Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion." This is what I stated I simply suspected....

Just to get this clear:

Do you suspect that some fires in steel framed structures do not cause any thermal expansion?

Or do you suppose that all fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion?

Seymour Butz · 15th July 2010, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

why did it bring the bldg down in this one, since it's never brought a steel framed high rise down before?

Because of the rare combination of long span floors, unfought fires,a composite floor system the didn't have the studs at that location, and connections that weren't designed to deal with thermal expansion.

It's all in the NIST report.

Quote:

Of course it didn't so why suggest that the fires burned twice their rating, when the fire had to move around the floors to consume more fuel?

NIST used a rather sophisticated sytem of programs (FDS and FIS, IIRC) to predict the steel/concrete temps. This takes into account all factors like fire location and duration in any location as it moved about the floor, SFRM insulation, office compartmentization, etc.

If you have a better way of predicting the floor steel and concrete temps than what NIST used, feel free to present it.

BigAl · 15th July 2010, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

My final point on this is that you are suggesting that the fires burned for 7 hours, do you actually think it burned in one location for that long? Of course it didn't so why suggest that the fires burned twice their rating, when the fire had to move around the floors to consume more fuel?

Why do you assume that after an hour or two of fire, when all fuel is consumed the floor returns to ambient in minutes and not hours, many hours?

Can we say "heat soak"? Of course we can. Maybe you can't.

Dave Rogers · 15th July 2010, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Well, that is mostly true Red. Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion. BUT, it is minimal at best. Maybe a few cm. at the most. And usually not over large areas.

I suppose RedIbis is right about one thing: this is also untrue. All fires in all structures cause thermal expansion. Other than some extremely exotic materials, any form of heating of any kind of structure causes thermal expansion. The belief among truthers that thermal expansion was made up by NIST is one of the most bizarre developments in the sorry saga of 9/11 truth.

Dave

CORed · 15th July 2010, 09:38 AM

Replying to OP here. There is so much in the truther world that is mind-boggling in its stupidity that it is difficult to choose, but I'm going to have to go with Jammonius refering to the plane in the videos as a "shadow thingy". Of course, the whole thread where he cited videos of the planes hitting the towers as evidence that no plane hit the towers was one of the most astounding exercises in self-debunking I have ever seen.

grandmastershek · 15th July 2010, 09:41 AM

too many to list.

but my fav is a guy i know in real life. it's been 10 months and he still thinks free fall is a speed. and just when he thought he had it, he started saying "accelerated free fall"; as if there is an unaccelerated free fall. now he's just back to calling it free fall speed.

9/11 Chewy Defense · 15th July 2010, 10:13 AM

That "No Planes" were involved, but thousands managed see & hear the planes with their eyes & ears.

That "holograms" were used to disguise "missiles".

That Flight 93 was "shot down" near Shanksville, PA. (I live 20 miles North of the town & Flt. 93 wasn't "shot down". At Johnstown Airport, we only got Apache Helicopters & even they wouldn't have brought down Flt. 93, due to the fact that they fly slow to catch a plane going 500 mph. Beat that Truthers!)

You all know the rest!

RedIbis · 15th July 2010, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I suppose RedIbis is right about one thing: this is also untrue. All fires in all structures cause thermal expansion. Other than some extremely exotic materials, any form of heating of any kind of structure causes thermal expansion. The belief among truthers that thermal expansion was made up by NIST is one of the most bizarre developments in the sorry saga of 9/11 truth.

Dave

Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion. Who said that NIST made up thermal expansion?

What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse.

But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims.

Oystein · 15th July 2010, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion. Who said that NIST made up thermal expansion?

What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse.

But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims.

Do you have an alternative theory that explains all the known facts as well as the NIST model, and is better supported?

We're dying to hear it!

If you don't have any such theory, is it then fair to say that your personal incredulity about the NIST model is no better supported than the model itself?

BigAl · 15th July 2010, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion. Who said that NIST made up thermal expansion?

What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse.

But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims.

You could start by understanding what NIST said, not what you think they said. For starters, they didn't claim that the failure of a column initiated the collapse of WTC7.

RedIbis · 15th July 2010, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Seymour Butz

NIST used a rather sophisticated sytem of programs (FDS and FIS, IIRC) to predict the steel/concrete temps. This takes into account all factors like fire location and duration in any location as it moved about the floor, SFRM insulation, office compartmentization, etc.

You have no more way of knowing how NIST calculated the failure modes as anyone else. It's not available to you, so you must take it as a matter of faith.

funk de fino · 15th July 2010, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion. Who said that NIST made up thermal expansion?

What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse.

But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims.

Yet again you have proved you have not even read the WTC7 report. This is too funny.

Grizzly Bear · 15th July 2010, 02:35 PM

Isn't there also something referred to as flash point, or ignition point which establishes a minimum temperature at which materials begin to, and sustain combustion? Something similar to the whole issue of why windows shatter in many building fires...

Seymour Butz · 15th July 2010, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You have no more way of knowing how NIST calculated the failure modes as anyone else. It's not available to you, so you must take it as a matter of faith.

What are you babbling about?

NIST explicitly describes the failure mode.

triforcharity · 15th July 2010, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Isn't there also something referred to as flash point, or ignition point which establishes a minimum temperature at which materials begin to, and sustain combustion? Something similar to the whole issue of why windows shatter in many building fires...

Yes, also know as their ignition point. All flammable materials have an ignition point. Suprisingly, paper has one of the highest of common materials. Plastic in general light at a lower temp than paper.

Suprising? Yes. True though.
http://www.economypoint.org/i/ignition-temperature.html

Here is a neat little link I love to use.

http://webbook.nist.gov/

chippy · 15th July 2010, 09:13 PM

I once called into a conspiracy theorist radio show because they were getting all cocky about how they're right and the skeptics are wrong. By far the dumbest thing I heard was another caller who said that someone ran a test where they dropped a bowling ball through all these sheets of glass and timed it, and apparently it was longer than the time it took for the twin towers to collapse, so doesn't that prove a conspiracy? And the two hosts, after hearing the question, were totally on board with it. Comparing the collapse of one of the most intricately-designed buildings in the world with a bowling ball breaking through glass. I believe this is where I say lol.

Dave Rogers · 16th July 2010, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion.

Neither is convenient amnesia.

Dave

bill smith · 16th July 2010, 02:14 AM

I have an anecdote from the other side just for the balance.

This one always makes me laugh. It was about how small the fires really were in the Towers. I dropped a little bait by remarking that 'those fires could have been knocked down with two lines' Of course they puffed up their feathers and piled in saying how ridiculous that was and that the fires were massive. Grizzly was frantically waving his arms and warning them in the background to no avail ? I guess the PM's were flying too. Sigh....I really enjoyed hitting them between the eyes with the live audio of the fire chief on the 78th floor saying that ' there were only two isolated pockets of fire that they could knock down with two lines'

Grizzly seemed to get really mad when I said 'Good fishing today, eh Grizzly ' or words to that effect. There have been many such memorable occasions.

SanityGap · 16th July 2010, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse.

But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims.

Thermal expansion PLUS the fact that the yield strength of steel drops off dramatically at elevated temperatures. Over 800c it is reduced by 90%.

Bell · 16th July 2010, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

I have an anecdote from the other side just for the balance.

This one always makes me laugh. It was about how small the fires really were in the Towers. I dropped a little bait by remarking that 'those fires could have been knocked down with two lines' Of course they puffed up their feathers and piled in saying how ridiculous that was and that the fires were massive. Grizzly was frantically waving his arms and warning them in the background to no avail ? I guess the PM's were flying too. Sigh....I really enjoyed hitting them between the eyes with the live audio of the fire chief on the 78th floor saying that ' there were only two isolated pockets of fire that they could knock down with two lines'

Grizzly seemed to get really mad when I said 'Good fishing today, eh Grizzly ' or words to that effect. There have been many such memorable occasions.

Could you possibly locate the 78th floor for me?

Oystein · 16th July 2010, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

I have an anecdote from the other side just for the balance.

This one always makes me laugh. It was about how small the fires really were in the Towers. I dropped a little bait by remarking that 'those fires could have been knocked down with two lines' Of course they puffed up their feathers and piled in saying how ridiculous that was and that the fires were massive. Grizzly was frantically waving his arms and warning them in the background to no avail ? I guess the PM's were flying too. Sigh....I really enjoyed hitting them between the eyes with the live audio of the fire chief on the 78th floor saying that ' there were only two isolated pockets of fire that they could knock down with two lines'

Grizzly seemed to get really mad when I said 'Good fishing today, eh Grizzly ' or words to that effect. There have been many such memorable occasions.

Hehe

That one is pretty high on my list of truther stupidities.
I mean truthers misconstruing a statement about local conditions (78th floor, well below impact zone and the several floors that were heavily engulfed in massive fires) as being representative of overall conditions.

Dave Rogers · 16th July 2010, 05:46 AM

Ah yes, the classic truther stupidity of assuming that Oreo Palmer could see every floor of the South Tower from inside the 78th floor, and that his report that there were two isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor therefore meant that there were no other fires on the 79th, 80th, 81st, 82nd,....

Poor bill smith, poster-boy for the Dunning-Kroeger effect. Even when he tries to be clever he ends up making himself look stupid.

Dave

BigAl · 16th July 2010, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Hehe

That one is pretty high on my list of truther stupidities.
I mean truthers misconstruing a statement about local conditions (78th floor, well below impact zone and the several floors that were heavily engulfed in massive fires) as being representative of overall conditions.

Whenever What's-His-Name posts this crap I see 343 firemen crammed into one stairwell where they all died.

bill smith · 16th July 2010, 05:57 AM

Delete:

excaza · 16th July 2010, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

Jeez...It was only an anecdote for God's sake .I thought we were just sharing a few chuckles here..How defensive you all are.....Well maybe I would be too if I were you...lol

You were trying to be clever. It didn't work.

Edx · 16th July 2010, 06:55 AM

Stundie - arguing with Stundie is the most stupid truther Ive ever encountered.

Bill is a runner up though, it was a tough choice.

Furcifer · 16th July 2010, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Anyone remember "net force = zero"?

Yes, I adopted him. I found him wandering around YouTube and brought him here. Good times.

Coincidentally Anders seems to be spouting a refined form of "in free fall, net force = zero"

It's goin viral!

bill smith · 16th July 2010, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by excaza

You were trying to be clever. It didn't work.

That's a very interesting minimum ten-minute delay between me deleting my post and you quoting the full text of it.

How would that work now with single poster-single reply ? It's odd isn't it ?

I can't imagine any normal poster taking ten minutes over such an inane reply either

Looks like I have another interesting anecdote for the future...

TheRedWorm · 16th July 2010, 08:29 AM

Maybe he quoted it, started to reply, but had something else to attend to? I routinely do that...

bill smith · 16th July 2010, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by excaza

You were trying to be clever. It didn't work.

That's a very interesting minimum ten-minute delay between me deleting my post and you quoting the full text of it.

How would that work now with single poster-single reply ? It's odd isn't it ?

I can't imagine any normal poster taking ten minutes over such an inane reply either

Looks like I have another interesting anecdote for the future...

MikeW · 16th July 2010, 09:44 AM

Truthers aren't stupid. They know when they're spreading fictions. They just don't care.

Grizzly Bear · 16th July 2010, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Hehe

That one is pretty high on my list of truther stupidities.
I mean truthers misconstruing a statement about local conditions (78th floor, well below impact zone and the several floors that were heavily engulfed in massive fires) as being representative of overall conditions.

Looks like bills also having a few imaginary conversations going by the quote... I've had the guy on ignore for more than a year.

excaza · 16th July 2010, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

That's a very interesting minimum ten-minute delay between me deleting my post and you quoting the full text of it.

How would that work now with single poster-single reply ? It's odd isn't it ?

I can't imagine any normal poster taking ten minutes over such an inane reply either

Looks like I have another interesting anecdote for the future...

I was agonizing and agonizing over my reply, I wanted to make sure it was just right.

Actually I just got distracted, I'll be sure to ask your permission before replying next time. Let's hope your future anecdotes aren't as braindead as your last one.

I was agonizing and agonizing over my reply, I wanted to make sure it was just right.

Actually I just got distracted, I'll be sure to ask your permission before replying next time. Let's hope your future anecdotes aren't as braindead as your last one.

14th July 2010, 02:01 PM	#41
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,394	Originally Posted by CORed ftfy. Awwww. I was hoping he'd figure it out for himself; there's a first time for everything. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

14th July 2010, 02:09 PM	#42
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,127	Let's see... I have had Heiwa admit that a buidling will still stand even if all but one structural support were removed, regardless of the load bearing capacity of that support. I also recall Terral (I've seen a few posts of his pop up on CTSTDT) insisting that heat transfer throughout a metal structure instantaneously to all points. So that in order to heat the steel in one area (like, say, above a fire) to any degree, the whole structure will have to heat up with it. Jammonius is too easy...
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,127	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

14th July 2010, 03:17 PM	#43
fess Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,425	Originally Posted by RedIbis Good lord for the tenth time, I'm not arguing the occurence of thermal expansion, I'm questioning how such a common occurence could cause the global collapse of a building. I suspect that in nearly every fire in a steel framed building, some thermal expansion occurs. But in WTC 7 this leads to global collapse. Not only does NIST have to prove that this is what happened, they also have to prove that the fires got hot enough and burned long enough in the necessary locations. I'm not saying their hypothesis is impossible, but if you wish to close the case on WTC 7, not requiring some extraordinary physical evidence to back up this hypothesis is just plain stupid. Ever talked to a firefighter? I,ve seen several concrete blocks walls fail because of steel trusses expanding.
fess Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,425	__________________ My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow.

14th July 2010, 06:29 PM	#44
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	Originally Posted by RedIbis Good lord for the tenth time, I'm not arguing the occurence of thermal expansion, I'm questioning how such a common occurence could cause the global collapse of a building. I suspect that in nearly every fire in a steel framed building, some thermal expansion occurs. But in WTC 7 this leads to global collapse. Not only does NIST have to prove that this is what happened, they also have to prove that the fires got hot enough and burned long enough in the necessary locations. I'm not saying their hypothesis is impossible, but if you wish to close the case on WTC 7, not requiring some extraordinary physical evidence to back up this hypothesis is just plain stupid. Well, that is mostly true Red. Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion. BUT, it is minimal at best. Maybe a few cm. at the most. And usually not over large areas. Now, the SFRM in 7WTC was rated for about 2 hours. This gives plenty of time for evacuations and for the firefighters to extinguish the fire. Now, when that fire is allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours (3.5 Xs it's rated protection time) what do you expect to happen? Just about any office fire will get hot enough to cause thermal expansion. Hell, a hot day in Florida causes thermal expansion in steel and concrete too. Why is this such a suprise? Thermal expansion is deadly to steel framed structures. This has been known for years.
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

14th July 2010, 06:43 PM	#45
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by BigAl The point isn't that Dave understands it. The point is that you don't. Wait, RedIbis thinks once a length of steel thermally expands, it stays expanded even after it cools down again? Really?
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

14th July 2010, 06:50 PM	#46
Dog Town Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,862	Originally Posted by triforcharity Thermal expansion is deadly to steel framed structures. This has been known for years. It's so cute that twoofers think, since they've never seen, or heard of something, that it can't be true/real! Timeless, really...
Dog Town Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,862	Last edited by Dog Town; 14th July 2010 at 06:52 PM.

15th July 2010, 08:46 AM	#47
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,899	Originally Posted by triforcharity Well, that is mostly true Red. Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion. BUT, it is minimal at best. Maybe a few cm. at the most. And usually not over large areas. Now, the SFRM in 7WTC was rated for about 2 hours. This gives plenty of time for evacuations and for the firefighters to extinguish the fire. Now, when that fire is allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours (3.5 Xs it's rated protection time) what do you expect to happen? Just about any office fire will get hot enough to cause thermal expansion. Hell, a hot day in Florida causes thermal expansion in steel and concrete too. Why is this such a suprise? Thermal expansion is deadly to steel framed structures. This has been known for years. I wonder if Dave will pounce on you for mostly agreeing and essentially phrasing it the same way I did, namely: "Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion." This is what I stated I simply suspected. Also, you've proven to be one of the more calm and civil posters I've encountered here, so we can have a productive discussion absent the invenctive, regardless of your unfortunate baseball loyalties. I don't think I can restate it any more possible ways that I'm not contesting whether thermal expansion occurred in WTC 7, I'm questioning whether it resulted in what NIST said, since as you pointed out, thermal expansion happens in fires, why did it bring the bldg down in this one, since it's never brought a steel framed high rise down before? My final point on this is that you are suggesting that the fires burned for 7 hours, do you actually think it burned in one location for that long? Of course it didn't so why suggest that the fires burned twice their rating, when the fire had to move around the floors to consume more fuel?
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,899	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

15th July 2010, 08:51 AM	#48
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 15,854	Originally Posted by RedIbis I wonder if Dave will pounce on you for mostly agreeing and essentially phrasing it the same way I did, namely: "Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion." This is what I stated I simply suspected.... Just to get this clear: Do you suspect that some fires in steel framed structures do not cause any thermal expansion? Or do you suppose that all fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion?

15th July 2010, 08:57 AM	#49
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 876	Originally Posted by RedIbis why did it bring the bldg down in this one, since it's never brought a steel framed high rise down before? Because of the rare combination of long span floors, unfought fires,a composite floor system the didn't have the studs at that location, and connections that weren't designed to deal with thermal expansion. It's all in the NIST report. Quote: Of course it didn't so why suggest that the fires burned twice their rating, when the fire had to move around the floors to consume more fuel? NIST used a rather sophisticated sytem of programs (FDS and FIS, IIRC) to predict the steel/concrete temps. This takes into account all factors like fire location and duration in any location as it moved about the floor, SFRM insulation, office compartmentization, etc. If you have a better way of predicting the floor steel and concrete temps than what NIST used, feel free to present it.
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 876

15th July 2010, 08:59 AM	#50
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	Originally Posted by RedIbis My final point on this is that you are suggesting that the fires burned for 7 hours, do you actually think it burned in one location for that long? Of course it didn't so why suggest that the fires burned twice their rating, when the fire had to move around the floors to consume more fuel? Why do you assume that after an hour or two of fire, when all fuel is consumed the floor returns to ambient in minutes and not hours, many hours? Can we say "heat soak"? Of course we can. Maybe you can't.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

15th July 2010, 09:06 AM	#51
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,394	Originally Posted by triforcharity Well, that is mostly true Red. Most fires in steel framed structures do cause some thermal expansion. BUT, it is minimal at best. Maybe a few cm. at the most. And usually not over large areas. I suppose RedIbis is right about one thing: this is also untrue. All fires in all structures cause thermal expansion. Other than some extremely exotic materials, any form of heating of any kind of structure causes thermal expansion. The belief among truthers that thermal expansion was made up by NIST is one of the most bizarre developments in the sorry saga of 9/11 truth. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

15th July 2010, 09:38 AM	#52
CORed Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Central City, Colorado, USA Posts: 7,856	Replying to OP here. There is so much in the truther world that is mind-boggling in its stupidity that it is difficult to choose, but I'm going to have to go with Jammonius refering to the plane in the videos as a "shadow thingy". Of course, the whole thread where he cited videos of the planes hitting the towers as evidence that no plane hit the towers was one of the most astounding exercises in self-debunking I have ever seen.

15th July 2010, 09:41 AM	#53
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,450	too many to list. but my fav is a guy i know in real life. it's been 10 months and he still thinks free fall is a speed. and just when he thought he had it, he started saying "accelerated free fall"; as if there is an unaccelerated free fall. now he's just back to calling it free fall speed.
	__________________ For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

15th July 2010, 10:13 AM	#54
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,593	That "No Planes" were involved, but thousands managed see & hear the planes with their eyes & ears. That "holograms" were used to disguise "missiles". That Flight 93 was "shot down" near Shanksville, PA. (I live 20 miles North of the town & Flt. 93 wasn't "shot down". At Johnstown Airport, we only got Apache Helicopters & even they wouldn't have brought down Flt. 93, due to the fact that they fly slow to catch a plane going 500 mph. Beat that Truthers!) You all know the rest!

15th July 2010, 10:23 AM	#55
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,899	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I suppose RedIbis is right about one thing: this is also untrue. All fires in all structures cause thermal expansion. Other than some extremely exotic materials, any form of heating of any kind of structure causes thermal expansion. The belief among truthers that thermal expansion was made up by NIST is one of the most bizarre developments in the sorry saga of 9/11 truth. Dave Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion. Who said that NIST made up thermal expansion? What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse. But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,899	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

15th July 2010, 10:44 AM	#56
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 15,854	Originally Posted by RedIbis Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion. Who said that NIST made up thermal expansion? What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse. But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims. Do you have an alternative theory that explains all the known facts as well as the NIST model, and is better supported? We're dying to hear it! If you don't have any such theory, is it then fair to say that your personal incredulity about the NIST model is no better supported than the model itself?

15th July 2010, 10:51 AM	#57
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	Originally Posted by RedIbis Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion. Who said that NIST made up thermal expansion? What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse. But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims. You could start by understanding what NIST said, not what you think they said. For starters, they didn't claim that the failure of a column initiated the collapse of WTC7.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

15th July 2010, 11:27 AM	#58
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,899	Originally Posted by Seymour Butz NIST used a rather sophisticated sytem of programs (FDS and FIS, IIRC) to predict the steel/concrete temps. This takes into account all factors like fire location and duration in any location as it moved about the floor, SFRM insulation, office compartmentization, etc. You have no more way of knowing how NIST calculated the failure modes as anyone else. It's not available to you, so you must take it as a matter of faith.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,899	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

15th July 2010, 12:13 PM	#59
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UAE Posts: 11,938	Originally Posted by RedIbis Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion. Who said that NIST made up thermal expansion? What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse. But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims. Yet again you have proved you have not even read the WTC7 report. This is too funny.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.

15th July 2010, 02:35 PM	#60
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,775	Isn't there also something referred to as flash point, or ignition point which establishes a minimum temperature at which materials begin to, and sustain combustion? Something similar to the whole issue of why windows shatter in many building fires...
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,775	__________________ My new side hobby.... giving online game cheaters a rough time ._. Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg

15th July 2010, 04:30 PM	#61
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 876	Originally Posted by RedIbis You have no more way of knowing how NIST calculated the failure modes as anyone else. It's not available to you, so you must take it as a matter of faith. What are you babbling about? NIST explicitly describes the failure mode.
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 876

15th July 2010, 06:42 PM	#62
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear Isn't there also something referred to as flash point, or ignition point which establishes a minimum temperature at which materials begin to, and sustain combustion? Something similar to the whole issue of why windows shatter in many building fires... Yes, also know as their ignition point. All flammable materials have an ignition point. Suprisingly, paper has one of the highest of common materials. Plastic in general light at a lower temp than paper. Suprising? Yes. True though. http://www.economypoint.org/i/ignition-temperature.html Here is a neat little link I love to use. http://webbook.nist.gov/
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

15th July 2010, 09:13 PM	#63
chippy Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 521	I once called into a conspiracy theorist radio show because they were getting all cocky about how they're right and the skeptics are wrong. By far the dumbest thing I heard was another caller who said that someone ran a test where they dropped a bowling ball through all these sheets of glass and timed it, and apparently it was longer than the time it took for the twin towers to collapse, so doesn't that prove a conspiracy? And the two hosts, after hearing the question, were totally on board with it. Comparing the collapse of one of the most intricately-designed buildings in the world with a bowling ball breaking through glass. I believe this is where I say lol.
chippy Muse Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 521	__________________ http://911debunker.livejournal.com

16th July 2010, 01:31 AM	#64
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,394	Originally Posted by RedIbis Dave, Dave, Dave, semantics and strawmen are no way to have a civil discussion. Neither is convenient amnesia. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

16th July 2010, 02:14 AM	#65
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	I have an anecdote from the other side just for the balance. This one always makes me laugh. It was about how small the fires really were in the Towers. I dropped a little bait by remarking that 'those fires could have been knocked down with two lines' Of course they puffed up their feathers and piled in saying how ridiculous that was and that the fires were massive. Grizzly was frantically waving his arms and warning them in the background to no avail ? I guess the PM's were flying too. Sigh....I really enjoyed hitting them between the eyes with the live audio of the fire chief on the 78th floor saying that ' there were only two isolated pockets of fire that they could knock down with two lines' Grizzly seemed to get really mad when I said 'Good fishing today, eh Grizzly ' or words to that effect. There have been many such memorable occasions.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 16th July 2010 at 02:41 AM.

16th July 2010, 04:15 AM	#66
SanityGap Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 346	Originally Posted by RedIbis What's being questioned (I can't believe how many times I have to say this) is that thermal expansion causes column collapse and then column collapse causes global collapse. But I can see why you want to avoid defending these unsupported claims. Thermal expansion PLUS the fact that the yield strength of steel drops off dramatically at elevated temperatures. Over 800c it is reduced by 90%.
	__________________ Fundemental atheist. Prepared to kill to prove there is nothing worth dying for.

16th July 2010, 05:37 AM	#68
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 15,854	Originally Posted by bill smith I have an anecdote from the other side just for the balance. This one always makes me laugh. It was about how small the fires really were in the Towers. I dropped a little bait by remarking that 'those fires could have been knocked down with two lines' Of course they puffed up their feathers and piled in saying how ridiculous that was and that the fires were massive. Grizzly was frantically waving his arms and warning them in the background to no avail ? I guess the PM's were flying too. Sigh....I really enjoyed hitting them between the eyes with the live audio of the fire chief on the 78th floor saying that ' there were only two isolated pockets of fire that they could knock down with two lines' Grizzly seemed to get really mad when I said 'Good fishing today, eh Grizzly ' or words to that effect. There have been many such memorable occasions. Hehe That one is pretty high on my list of truther stupidities. I mean truthers misconstruing a statement about local conditions (78th floor, well below impact zone and the several floors that were heavily engulfed in massive fires) as being representative of overall conditions.

16th July 2010, 05:46 AM	#69
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,394	Ah yes, the classic truther stupidity of assuming that Oreo Palmer could see every floor of the South Tower from inside the 78th floor, and that his report that there were two isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor therefore meant that there were no other fires on the 79th, 80th, 81st, 82nd,.... Poor bill smith, poster-boy for the Dunning-Kroeger effect. Even when he tries to be clever he ends up making himself look stupid. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

16th July 2010, 05:55 AM	#70
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	Originally Posted by Oystein Hehe That one is pretty high on my list of truther stupidities. I mean truthers misconstruing a statement about local conditions (78th floor, well below impact zone and the several floors that were heavily engulfed in massive fires) as being representative of overall conditions. Whenever What's-His-Name posts this crap I see 343 firemen crammed into one stairwell where they all died.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

16th July 2010, 05:57 AM	#71
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Delete:
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 16th July 2010 at 06:05 AM.

16th July 2010, 06:07 AM	#72
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 3,593	Originally Posted by bill smith Jeez...It was only an anecdote for God's sake .I thought we were just sharing a few chuckles here..How defensive you all are.....Well maybe I would be too if I were you...lol You were trying to be clever. It didn't work.
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 3,593	__________________

16th July 2010, 06:55 AM	#73
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	Stundie - arguing with Stundie is the most stupid truther Ive ever encountered. Bill is a runner up though, it was a tough choice.
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642

16th July 2010, 07:52 AM	#74
Furcifer Guest Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 13,796	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 Anyone remember "net force = zero"? Yes, I adopted him. I found him wandering around YouTube and brought him here. Good times. Coincidentally Anders seems to be spouting a refined form of "in free fall, net force = zero" It's goin viral!
Furcifer Guest Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 13,796

16th July 2010, 08:23 AM	#75
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Originally Posted by excaza You were trying to be clever. It didn't work. That's a very interesting minimum ten-minute delay between me deleting my post and you quoting the full text of it. How would that work now with single poster-single reply ? It's odd isn't it ? I can't imagine any normal poster taking ten minutes over such an inane reply either Looks like I have another interesting anecdote for the future...
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

16th July 2010, 08:29 AM	#76
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452	Maybe he quoted it, started to reply, but had something else to attend to? I routinely do that...
	__________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah