mikwut wrote:Honor,
You could probably safely say fire still hasn't caused the total collapse of a steel framed high rise building.
What one can't say is that the impact of an accelerating jetliner with a full fuel load slamming into a steel-framed high-rise building causing massive internal fire has never caused the total collapse of said building.
ETA: Key points related to the above from the NIST investigation report:
First, in the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001 likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower. Second, the towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires encountered on September 11, 2001 if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
Yes that what was NIST concluded after many years I was pointing it out because Markk had said the fires initiated a weakening of the steel. The paper seems to claim otherwise.
The paper also provides argument against the NIST portion you quoted:
<quote removed for formatting>
mikwut
Markk pointed out the structural damage and heat combination in his comments early on. Here's what he said -
Markk wrote:First...the planes when entering the building severed several/and or damaged several, in varying degrees, main support columns (see pages 18,19, 22). This is the first "weakening" that occurred.
Second...the planes fuel entered into the central shaft system (MEP's mecanical, electrical, and plumbing, and the elevator). and basically distributed the burning fuel throughout the building.
The burning of the fuel while not hot enough to melt steel, was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that the gravity load on each member to "bend and bow". Think of a blacksmith heating metal to shape a horseshoe. They get the metal hot, then they bend and shape it in a horseshoe shape. I make rustic hardware in my shop for home projects, using the same method. (see page 66)...this shows how steel bends and bows under heat. When you add the gravity load from above, it is easy to see how the steel could bend then finally break.
The paper quotes you provide basically say, "The NIST report claims insulation removal is necessary for the fire to have brought the buildings down. Since this all happened inside of the building, the investigation had to test how much energy was required to remove insulation from the beams and expose them to the heat. They did this in a way that satisfied them but we don't think it should have been satisfying. We think that the energy available in the collision was not able to peel the insultation off because it had to go to other things like destroying steel columns and an airplane so there wasn't enough energy left to peel insulation of the adjacent, non-destroyed columns. Because that makes sense unless you think about how the “F” a building getting a damned hole blown in it that penetrates past the outer skin, immediate structure and destroyed the airplane is selective like that..."
That was a terrible post. Not enough energy to peel off insulation? God damn. I'm offended you quoted that stupid crap.
Lacking a good explanation for a conspiracy, or an explanation that you accept, what's the point of this again? "I don't know" when it comes to opaque questions like the details of the authorship of the Book of Mormon makes sense. It also makes sense when it comes to the specific details of what happened inside of the towers that made the collapse happen. But "I don't know" doesn't stand up to the overwhelming evidence the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th century so we should default to skepticism about it not being historical. And "I don't know" doesn't stand up to the overwhelming evidence what happened on 9/11/2001 was a coordinated terrorist attack planned and carried out by Al Qaeda against the United States of America.