Discussion of reasons why folks believe what they do and supported by factual evidence...

[camlok]

Here's a better question for you to answer since you say fires affect steel structures similarly.

Why did the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel remain standing and did not suffer even a partial collapse, but the Madrid Windsor Tower partially collapsed?

The issue is,

Why didn't the much much greater debris damage and the much much stronger fires cause the collapse of WTCs 5 & 6?

 

[camlok]

Completely incorrect!

How come some buildings partially collapse and some don't?

You are way short of providing the necessary evidence for your empty contention to be addressed.

I thought you said fire affects all steel framed buildings in a similarly?

What is a "similarly"?

 

[gamolon]

The issue is,

Why didn't the much much greater debris damage and the much much stronger fires cause the collapse of WTCs 5 & 6?

They are all different structures. You cannot say that all structures will react almost the same from the affects of fire. Hence the proof of the three buildings I gave you examples of. Why the different results if fire effects buildings in a similar fashion.

 

[mike2810]

Completely incorrect!

How come some buildings partially collapse and some don't? I thought you said fire affects all steel framed buildings in a similarly?

I agree with you. He is incorrect. Every fire is unique based on its available fuel, oxygen, heat and chemical chain reaction to sustain the fire. Fires consume fuel. Fires transfers energy in the form of heat by radiation, convection and conduction.

His statements are way to vague and non specific to make a global statement regarding fire affects on buildings.

 

[gamolon]

What is a "similarly"?

Take out the "in a".

 

[camlok]

No, what I am saying is that is part of the equation that supports the idea that fire was the reason for the collapse. The reason above all the other theories/reasons.

You have given no evidence to support this.

But they still made those observations no matter how many people saw it or if it was documented.

But there is no evidence of explosives.

There is voluminous evidence for explosives. In the testimonies of hundreds of firefighters interviewed about a year after 911. These were sworn testimonies. In videos on 911, reports from media, reactions by people to sounds of explosions, William Rodriguez's sworn testimony of huge explosions before the WTC1 plane hit,
people badly burned and killed by these explosions.


I agree, which is what I am trying to figure out in this thread. Not to prove anything, but which theory has the most supporting evidence to make it more believable than the others.

That is clearly the one that describes the controlled demolition. How else do you explain;

1. the nanothermite
2. the molten/vaporized steel
3. the by products of thermitic reactions. NO thermite of any kind should have been at WTC.
4. the molten molybdenum
5. the vaporized steel
6. the accelerating speed of the twin towers
7. the free fall of WTC7
8. the molten steel for months after
9. the molten iron flowing from WTC2
10. ...


But you CAN'T treat it the same way. You have proof of fire because... well... there was fire. You DON'T have proof of explosives at this particular time.

Yes, there is solid proof of explosives, see above.

 

[gamolon]

The issue is,

Why didn't the much much greater debris damage and the much much stronger fires cause the collapse of WTCs 5 & 6?

Let's see if I can understand your partial reasoning for believing WTC7 was brought down by demolition and not fire.

You think that since no other steel framed building has completely collapsed due to fire AND that all steel frame buildings react in a similar fashion to fires and should NOT collapse (like WTC5 and 6 did not completely collapse), WTC7 did NOT collapse due to fires, so it had to be demolition.

Then when I ask you to explain your logic that fires affect steel structures in similar fashions, but you fail to explain why your logic is flawed when applied to my examples in the other post. One partially collapsed and one did not collapse at all. Please answer. Why the two different results and why did they not react similarly like you claim they should have. Both should either have partially collapsed or not collapsed at all.

 

[camlok]

They are all different structures. You cannot say that all structures will react almost the same from the affects of fire. Hence the proof of the three buildings I gave you examples of. Why the different results if fire effects buildings in a similar fashion.

But it is your contention that fire brought down all three buildings, WTCs 1, 2 and 7. You don't draw a distinction between them so why are you now trying to draw a distinction between these three and WTCs 5 & 6?

Five and six were heavily damaged by debris and they burned much more ferociously than WTC7 yet they didn't collapse when seven did. Why?

 

[gamolon]

Yes, there is solid proof of explosives, see above.

Show me where anyone saw or observed EXPLOSIVES as being the reason for the EXPLOSIONS heard.

Are you not reading this thread? Stundie and I agree on the fact that there were explosions, but no proof of EXPLOSIVES as being the cause of said explosions. Is it possible? Yes. Proof of explosives? No. Remember your constant badgering for proof of heat weakened steel and that there was none? Same thing here.

 

[gamolon]

But it is your contention that fire brought down all three buildings, WTCs 1, 2 and 7. You don't draw a distinction between them so why are you now trying to draw a distinction between these three and WTCs 5 & 6?

Five and six were heavily damaged by debris and they burned much more ferociously than WTC7 yet they didn't collapse when seven did. Why?

Answer my question first. This is not a one way street.

 

[gamolon]

Five and six were heavily damaged by debris and they burned much more ferociously than WTC7 yet they didn't collapse when seven did. Why?

Why did the Madrid Windsor Tower partially collapse from fire and WTC5 and 6 did not?

 

[gamolon]

But it is your contention that fire brought down all three buildings, WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

I looked at each of them separately. I have never said that since WTC7 collapsed from fire that WTC1 and 2 should have also. Or vice versa. That is YOU pushing that line of thinking on me. Unlike you saying that WTC7 couldn't have collapsed from fire because WTC5 and 6 didn't.

 

[camlok]

Let's see if I can understand your partial reasoning for believing WTC7 was brought down by demolition and not fire.

You think that since no other steel framed building has completely collapsed due to fire AND that all steel frame buildings react in a similar fashion to fires and should NOT collapse (like WTC5 and 6 did not completely collapse), WTC7 did NOT collapse due to fires, so it had to be demolition.

That is a reasonable assumption to make. That, in and of itself is not proof but it is a reasonable assumption, one followed by firefighters the world over since steel framed high rises were first built. Out of hundreds of fires, none ever caused a steel framed building to collapse.

Then when I ask you to explain your logic that fires affect steel structures in similar fashions, but you fail to explain why your logic is flawed when applied to my examples in the other post. One partially collapsed and one did not collapse at all. Please answer. Why the two different results and why did they not react similarly like you claim they should have. Both should either have partially collapsed or not collapsed at all.

You have way too many unconnected pronouns that have no referents, gamolon. No offense, but that is both impolite and a sign of poor writing. If you will edit it, then I can edit and it will keep it together.

 

[camlok]

Originally Posted by camlok View Post
Five and six were heavily damaged by debris and they burned much more ferociously than WTC7 yet they didn't collapse when seven did. Why?

Why did the Madrid Windsor Tower partially collapse from fire and WTC5 and 6 did not?

We are talking about steel framed high rises with the same building codes, not steel reinforced concrete buildings in a different country.

Five and six were similar structures to seven, and one and two. You raised the issue of debris damage. Why didn't this huge level of debris damage, much much greater than seven and the totally engulfing fires cause five and six to collapse?

 

[gamolon]

You have way too many unconnected pronouns that have no referents, gamolon. No offense, but that is both impolite and a sign of poor writing. If you will edit it, then I can edit and it will keep it together.

No.

The correct way to do it is to quote my post and then write your response below that. That way people can quote you back and can click the link back to your original post if they so desire. Editing my post and inserting you responses in a different color is impolite, hard to follow, and makes one believe that you are doing it for the purpose of making it hard to follow. It's not how debates in forums are done.

 

[gamolon]

We are talking about steel framed high rises with the same building codes, not steel reinforced concrete buildings in a different country.

Five and six were similar structures to seven, and one and two. You raised the issue of debris damage. Why didn't this huge level of debris damage, much much greater than seven and the totally engulfing fires cause five and six to collapse?

Oh I see. You site building codes that can affect the results of fires on buildings, but different structural designs can't?

You're kidding right?

 

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by camlok View Post
Five and six were heavily damaged by debris and they burned much more ferociously than WTC7 yet they didn't collapse when seven did. Why?



We are talking about steel framed high rises with the same building codes, not steel reinforced concrete buildings in a different country.

Five and six were similar structures to seven, and one and two. You raised the issue of debris damage. Why didn't this huge level of debris damage, much much greater than seven and the totally engulfing fires cause five and six to collapse?

Maybe you should read this...
Pardon Our Interruption

 

[gamolon]

Maybe you should read this...
Pardon Our Interruption

Now tell me that design has nothing to do with how structures react to fire.

 

[mike2810]

Now tell me that design has nothing to do with how structures react to fire.

Not sure your link is good to your article. It took me to a collapse lesson , but one has to join to read the rest.

Here is some other information

Pardon Our Interruption

The Effects of Fire on Structural Systems | The ASHI Reporter | Inspection News & Views from the American Society of Home Inspectors

Understanding How Fire Affects Modern Construction - Fire Rescue

 

[gamolon]

You have way too many unconnected pronouns that have no referents, gamolon. No offense, but that is both impolite and a sign of poor writing. If you will edit it, then I can edit and it will keep it together.

Here's the problem with you editing my quoted post by inserting your different colored replies.

How do I quote and then attribute your inserted response to YOU. I can't. If I click the link back to my quote, your response is not there. Stop doing it.

 

[camlok]

Show me where anyone saw or observed EXPLOSIVES as being the reason for the EXPLOSIONS heard.

Okay.





Are you not reading this thread? Stundie and I agree on the fact that there were explosions, but no proof of EXPLOSIVES as being the cause of said explosions. Is it possible? Yes. Proof of explosives? No.

Remember your constant badgering for proof of heat weakened steel and that there was none? Same thing here.

No, I can't even understand what you are talking about because your references aren't at all clear. Why on earth would I be badgering you for proof of heat weakened steel and then YOU finding/describing that "there was none", when your entire contention, your groups raison d'etre is that the fires/heat DID weaken the steel?

It makes no sense at all. Now perhaps if you would make yourself clear I can address it.

 

[gamolon]

We are talking about steel framed high rises with the same building codes, not steel reinforced concrete buildings in a different country.

That is a reasonable assumption to make. That, in and of itself is not proof but it is a reasonable assumption, one followed by firefighters the world over since steel framed high rises were first built. Out of hundreds of fires, none ever caused a steel framed building to collapse.

I thought you said that we couldn't compare buildings in different countries because of different codes, yet here you are doing it in the quote above.

How hypocritical of you.

 

[gamolon]

No, I can't even understand what you are talking about because your references aren't at all clear. Why on earth would I be badgering you for proof of heat weakened steel and then YOU finding/describing that "there was none", when your entire contention, your groups raison d'etre is that the fires/heat DID weaken the steel?

It makes no sense at all. Now perhaps if you would make yourself clear I can address it.

Ok.

I'm going to ask you one more time to please stop inserting your replies into my quoted posts. It is impolite and makes it hard to follow responses.

 

[camlok]

No.

The correct way to do it is to quote my post and then write your response below that. That way people can quote you back and can click the link back to your original post if they so desire. Editing my post and inserting you responses in a different color is impolite, hard to follow, and makes one believe that you are doing it for the purpose of making it hard to follow. It's not how debates in forums are done.

That is exactly what I did. I addressed your first point directly, in blue, which you knew full well was me. It was your last paragraph that is causing the problem as it had/has no noun referents. One doesn't use pronouns to describe distant in time and space nouns where no connection can be made. That is the epitome of poor writing.

 

[mike2810]

Where did the firefighters in the second vid say it was a bomb. For some the logic is "explosion" = "bomb". Not true in a fire environment.

First vid. Planes and bombs, a working theory at this time of the report, but unconfirmed. 1:58 mark.
Again the use of explosions heard. Yet no one said they saw the bomb.

Also how much editing was done in the making of this compilation of news clips? Are we getting the whole story of what the people interviewed said or just the sound bite the vid makers wanted us to hear?