• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22][W:565]

Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Fledermaus said:
We didn't have a campfire.

We had a burning building.

I suspect WTC7 had far more potential for heating the steel, eh?
Click to expand...
Historically office fires in buildings don't generate enough energy in a given location to heat the steel in that location to the point of failure.

The way you are answering tells me you don't have and don't understand the details on this type of thing and you are just guessing.
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Tony Szamboti said:
Historically office fires in buildings don't generate enough energy in a given location to heat the steel in that location to the point of failure.

The way you are answering tells me you don't have and don't understand the details on this type of thing and you are just guessing.
Click to expand...

Strange how people disagree.

Like the folks who wrote the report.
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Tony Szamboti said:
Historically office fires in buildings don't generate enough energy in a given location to heat the steel in that location to the point of failure.

The way you are answering tells me you don't have and don't understand the details on this type of thing and you are just guessing.
Click to expand...


"The computer modeling completed to date supports the conclusion that 7WTC would have collapsed as a result of typical office contents fires because of several design/construction failures..."

Guess where this was found...
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Fledermaus said:


"The computer modeling completed to date supports the conclusion that 7WTC would have collapsed as a result of typical office contents fires because of several design/construction failures..."

Guess where this was found...
Click to expand...

It is from either the NIST WTC 7 report or ARUP analysis and they are talking about thermal expansion causing the collapse initiation, not heat weakening. So you are off base here.

Additionally, the walk-off to the west postulated by NIST in that report has been shown to be impossible due to the girder being trapped by the side plates of column 79 and stiffeners on the girder which would preclude a flange failure if the girder were somehow able to move its web past the edge of the seat.

The ARUP analyses have a problem once the girder is off its seat as it does not provide enough load to the next floor down to shear the girder seat and cause a cascading collapse of floors to leave column 79 unsupported. Thus there is no buckling of column 79 and no collapse propagation.
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Tony Szamboti said:
It is from the NIST WTC 7 report and it is talking about thermal expansion causing the collapse initiation, not heat weakening. So you are off base here.

Additionally, the walk-off to the west postulated by NIST in that report has been shown to be impossible due to the girder being trapped by the side plates of column 79 and stiffeners on the girder which would preclude a flange failure if the girder were somehow able to move its web past the edge of the seat.

So you are quoting a report about a different failure mechanism than what the blacksmith is postulating and the report you quote has been shown to be non-explanatory.
Click to expand...

Strike one.... Try again.
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Fledermaus said:
Strike one.... Try again.
Click to expand...

I edited my post above to include ARUP. Regardless of which report it is they do not support your thermal weakening assumptions and are problematic themselves.

The blacksmith is off base and so are you. In fact, you were both picked off.
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Tony Szamboti said:
I edited my post above to include ARUP. Regardless of which report it is they do not support your thermal weakening assumptions and are problematic themselves.

The blacksmith is off base and so are you. In fact, you were both picked off.
Click to expand...

TRANSLATION: The experts (once again) disagree with you....
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Fledermaus said:
TRANSLATION: The experts (once again) disagree with you....
Click to expand...

The ARUP analysis does not support your heat weakening assumption and there is a problem with the Nordenson analysis in it where it cannot break the girder below free, so no collapse propagation will result in their analysis. I would say the heat weakening you and the blacksmith are postulating for the cause of the collapse has been shown to be groundless.
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Tony Szamboti said:
The ARUP analysis does not support your heat weakening assumption and there is a problem with the Nordenson analysis in it where it cannot break the girder below free, so no collapse propagation will result in their analysis. I would say the heat weakening you and the blacksmith are postulating for the cause of the collapse have been shown to be groundless.
Click to expand...

"My" heat weakening?

Not "my" heat weakening.

Everyone who understands steel vs. fire heat weakening.

What does ARUP conclude was the reason for WTC7's collapse?


Ah, a little reading....

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...aBase/TestData/FullScaleFireTestBRE215741.pdf
 
Last edited:
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Fledermaus said:
"My" heat weakening?

Not "my" heat weakening.

Everyone who understands steel vs. fire heat weakening.

What does ARUP conclude was the reason for WTC7's collapse?


Ah, a little reading....

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...aBase/TestData/FullScaleFireTestBRE215741.pdf
Click to expand...

ARUP doesn't have a mechanism for continuing the collapse past a girder falling off its seat. The Nordenson analysis has a serious error. See https://www.metabunk.org/does-the-e...rder-calculations-demonstrate-anything.t7185/
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Fledermaus said:
What does ARUP conclude was cause of the collapse?
Click to expand...

The Nordenson error was recently found and it negates anything ARUP originally concluded. It is a reality that you have no mechanism for a natural fire induced collapsed in WTC 7.
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Tony Szamboti said:
The Nordenson error was recently found and it negates anything ARUP originally concluded. It is a reality that you have no mechanism for a natural fire induced collapsed in WTC 7.
Click to expand...

What does ARUP conclude was cause of the collapse?

It is a simple question.

What does ARUP conclude was cause of the collapse?

I know why you won't answer.
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Fledermaus said:
The link you provided does nothing to debunk fire as a cause.
Click to expand...

It shows ARUP does not have a fire induced mechanism which produces a collapse propagation, and we know the NIST walk-off to the west is impossible, so you have no mechanism to start a collapse due to fire.
 
Last edited:
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Tony Szamboti said:
It shows ARUP does not have a fire induced mechanism which produces a collapse propagation, and we know the NIST walk-off to the west is impossible, so you have no mechanism to start a collapse due to fire.
Click to expand...

What did ARUP conclude was the cause of collapse?
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Tony Szamboti said:
ARUP doesn't have a conclusion now as their analysis can't show a collapse propagation.
Click to expand...

Tony, what is the cause of collapse?

According to practically everyone but you and AE911TRUTH that is.

I think it sounds like TIRE.

Fill in the blank: _ I R E

CLUE: There is NOTHING to suggest explosives, pyrotechnics, nukes, gophers or any other option.
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Fledermaus said:
What does ARUP conclude was cause of the collapse?

It is a simple question.

What does ARUP conclude was cause of the collapse?

I know why you won't answer.
Click to expand...

What does Maus conclude was the cause of the collapse?
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

What does Thoreau72 conclude was the cause of the collapse?
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Fledermaus said:
Evidence and science shows it was fire....

What is your conclusion.
Click to expand...

Except that all the other fires we know of in high rise modern buildings has never taken a building down. We just had yet another demonstration of that simple law of physics on New Years day in Dubai.

You have embraced a theory that is absurd, and has been demonstrated invalid many times, yet you kid yourself into believing you follow science. :lol:
 
Re: Viral 9/11 truth-debunking blacksmith gets it all wrong[W:22]

Thoreau72 said:
Except that all the other fires we know of in high rise modern buildings has never taken a building down. We just had yet another demonstration of that simple law of physics on New Years day in Dubai.

You have embraced a theory that is absurd, and has been demonstrated invalid many times, yet you kid yourself into believing you follow science. :lol:
Click to expand...

Do you always compare events that are not identical? What other "modern building" was first damaged by a collision? Ae the other buildings that burned of the same construction type?

Seems you have taken your points from AE911T who tends to leave out the most obvious things when trying to come up with a comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom