Weakened steel, NIST report, and Dubai tower fire[W:226]

gerrycan said:

No. I am stating where NISTs WTC7 analysis is flawed, making their stated hypothesis for the collapse impossible.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

You and others do bring up a good point Mike, about the subtle differences in design between the buildings we discuss. However, the differences are not really apples and oranges. It's more like Granny Smith apples compared to some other variety of apple. They are both apples, but there are small differences.

Both these incidents involved tall, modern, steel and concrete buildings. One employed the exoskeleton, the other did not. One was 30+ years old, the other almost brand new. One was struck by an airplane, one was not. One was nearly completely engulfed in flames for 24 hours or more, the other had small fires on about 10% of the vertical structure for 2 hours max. One had reports of explosion in the basement prior to the airplane strike, and the other we're not sure if it even had basements.

So if fire weakens steel to the point of failure as NIST claims, WTF happened in Dubai? The NIST hypothesis was proved wrong again, that's what happened.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Thanks for the candor.

I also assume that you are aware that the engineers who built the towers were quickly on the record stating that the towers had been designed and built to withstand the strike of an airliner, which the buildings did.

And that the reason offered by NIST for the collapse was fires that weakened the steel, causing a collapse at near free fall rates.

And that the only cases on record of a modern steel high rise building collapsing like that due to fire were all in the same city block on the same day?

Thus WTC is a major statistical anomaly, and that the NIST effectively put forth a conclusion first, and then tried to adjust "facts" to reach that conclusion.

The Dubai event clearly demonstrates that the NIST hypothetical is invalid. It being invalid was determined long before the
Dubai event, but that event simply proved its invalidity. The NIST machinations were an insult to the scientific method.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

You and others do bring up a good point Mike, about the subtle differences in design between the buildings we discuss. However, the differences are not really apples and oranges. It's more like Granny Smith apples compared to some other variety of apple. They are both apples, but there are small differences.

Both these incidents involved tall, modern, steel and concrete buildings. One employed the exoskeleton, the other did not. One was 30+ years old, the other almost brand new. One was struck by an airplane, one was not. One was nearly completely engulfed in flames for 24 hours or more, the other had small fires on about 10% of the vertical structure for 2 hours max. One had reports of explosion in the basement prior to the airplane strike, and the other we're not sure if it even had basements.

So if fire weakens steel to the point of failure as NIST claims, WTF happened in Dubai? The NIST hypothesis was proved wrong again, that's what happened.

Click to expand...

mike2810 said:

Let us say the NIST explanation is wrong for discussion. Does that in itself prove that a fire induced collapse did not take place?

Click to expand...

gerrycan said:

No, it proves that the NIST explanation is wrong.

Click to expand...

mike2810 said:

Let us say the NIST explanation is wrong for discussion. Does that in itself prove that a fire induced collapse did not take place?

Much like those who support CD, but can't say what the explosive was.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Well, the NIST approach was wrong from the start because it violated one of the fundamental tenets of the scientific method. That is, it did not examine all the facts observed and then eventually form a hypothesis. It did the opposite--it started with the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse, and then tried to work backwards, as it were, to find facts that would support that hypothesis. There were no facts to support it. Indeed, all the facts we know suggest some sort of CD hypothesis.

And part of the evidence is the obvious political nepotism and incest involved in having NIST do it in the first place.

In short, there are no actual facts that a fire-induced collapse had happened. Simply put, fire induced collapses (in the hypothetical) do not blow huge pieces outwards hundreds of feet impaling into other buildings. Fire induced collapse does not (hypothetically) happen at near free fall rates. Indeed, in reality fire-induced collapse in that sort of building is unprecedented. Dubai demonstrated that fact.

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

Wow...

All that denial of evidence.

Tell me HD.

What controlled demolition results in the so-called huge pieces being blown out?

What is the mechanism for that?

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

So fire wasn't at fault in WTC7?

What was?

Click to expand...

gerrycan said:

NISTs explanation is impossible. I expect a hypothesis from an agency such as NIST to be at least possible.
I don't know "what was", but I know "what is" with NISTs explanation and they need to redo it.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

I've asked you and others many times that very same question Maus, and you've never been able to answer it. And now you're asking me the question I asked you. :lamo

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

So, fire was or was not the cause of the collapse?

We have evidence of fire.

We have zero evidence of any other contributors.

And "impossible"?

I really don't think so.

You are awfully sure it was "impossible" but you cannot even state whether or not fire was the core cause.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Well, the NIST approach was wrong from the start because it violated one of the fundamental tenets of the scientific method. That is, it did not examine all the facts observed and then eventually form a hypothesis. It did the opposite--it started with the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse, and then tried to work backwards, as it were, to find facts that would support that hypothesis. There were no facts to support it. Indeed, all the facts we know suggest some sort of CD hypothesis.

And part of the evidence is the obvious political nepotism and incest involved in having NIST do it in the first place.

In short, there are no actual facts that a fire-induced collapse had happened. Simply put, fire induced collapses (in the hypothetical) do not blow huge pieces outwards hundreds of feet impaling into other buildings. Fire induced collapse does not (hypothetically) happen at near free fall rates. Indeed, in reality fire-induced collapse in that sort of building is unprecedented. Dubai demonstrated that fact.

Click to expand...

Mark F said:

If I may,... can we get back to the OP of this thread which was a comparison of the recent building fire in Dubai to building collapses on 9/11 involving the weakening of steel due to heat?

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

There is no comparison.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Considering the recent fire at the Dubai tower, is it possible to infer that the theory and explanation advanced by NIST is invalid or inaccurate?

If it is true that office fires can weaken steel in 1 hour or 2, leading to collapse, why was that not demonstrated in the Dubai event which burned for a day or more?

I assume that any interested posters will already be aware of the Dubai fire and also the gist of the NIST report.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Casper said:

They forgot to add the Jet Fuel in Dubai, let us know when they try that.

Click to expand...

Mark F said:

If I may,... can we get back to the OP of this thread which was a comparison of the recent building fire in Dubai to building collapses on 9/11 involving the weakening of steel due to heat?

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Yes, the jetfuel that was 90% consumed in the fireball. That's what happens, you know, when a tank of fuel goes from 400 knots to 0 in a second or two--it is atomized and the droplets ignite in a fireball.

But you do bring up a good point. Since 911 and the much vaunted NIST report, rumor has it that some demolition companies are considering changing their methods and techniques. Instead of spending weeks or months meticulously and scientifically preparing a building for demolition, they are considering just pouring some jetfuel around inside and light it off. Let it burn for an hour or two, and voila, complete and symmetrical collapse at near free fall speeds. Awesome, eh? :lamo

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Yes you certainly may. Have you anything of substance to offer?

Click to expand...

Casper said:

A fireball burning at what temperature? Now Back to the conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

Thoreau72 said:

Shucks Casper, there for a moment I thought you were a serious poster...

Click to expand...