Debunking the 9/11 'Debunkers'. (1) The Debunker's "Building Design Differences" Argument!
Debunker : "The WTC buildings can't be compared to other high-rise fires that didn't lead to collapse, because those buildings had different designs!"
Some of the examples debunkers list as valid comparisons to the WTC buildings:
• Site and Sound Theater
• McCormick Place
• Kader Toy Factory
• Mumbai High North Platform
• Interstate 580
• World Trade Center 5
• Dogwood Elementary School
• Windsor Tower
• Faculty of Architecture Building
• Post & McCord Building (Greenpoint)
• Sydney Broadway Crane
Many in the list are offered by Chris Mohr - http://tinyurl.com/mnybxwy
----------------------------------------
"Debunkers are quick to point to these smaller and more poorly designed steel structures as valid comparisons to the WTC, while at the same time they argue that other actual high-rises engulfed in fire are not comparable to the WTC due to “differences in design.” This argument is rhetorical nonsense. If we are to draw comparisons between the WTC skyscrapers and other structures, then we would logically want to compare them to other skyscrapers. Debunkers have demanded that those advocating the “no other high-rise collapses” argument provide an example of a skyscraper fire that matches almost exactly the conditions of the WTC on 9/11. The website debunking911.com, for example, has a detailed list of conditions which the anonymous author feels need to be met before drawing any comparisons. But again, this same author has no problem offering drastically different structures that have collapsed from fire as valid comparisons to the WTC."
More by Adam Taylor: http://tinyurl.com/ocgg9w5
----------------------------------------
Debunkers may remind us, for example, that Building 7 had :
* Load-bearing perimeter walls
* Only 24 core columns in a very irregular distribution (NOT an equally-spaced grid)
* Long-span trusses between those core and perimeter columns
* Cantilevering of large sections of the building.
* Cantilevering of the core structure itself (there were, IIRC, at least three or four "H" spans at the lower floors... so those 24 core columns are actually 20 core columns or less at bedrock).
They insist that these design features need to be present in other high-rise infernos for valid comparisons to be made with WTC.
But do the Kader Toy Factory, or the Tacoma Bridge, or the Sydney Broadway Crane share these same design features? Debunkers happily offer these examples of 'structures-with-steel' built into them that suffered some sort of structural failure due to fire. And then compare them with the WTC buildings.
Even if we accept these non high-rise structures the debunker offers, how many of them completely imploded to the ground like demolition? None.
So the debunker's examples are much further down the comparison scale than high-rises in terms of DESIGN. And they are much further down the comparison scale in terms of what TYPE of collapses they were, compared to WTC.
The debunker's position is untenable.
Debunker : "The WTC buildings can't be compared to other high-rise fires that didn't lead to collapse, because those buildings had different designs!"
Some of the examples debunkers list as valid comparisons to the WTC buildings:
• Site and Sound Theater
• McCormick Place
• Kader Toy Factory
• Mumbai High North Platform
• Interstate 580
• World Trade Center 5
• Dogwood Elementary School
• Windsor Tower
• Faculty of Architecture Building
• Post & McCord Building (Greenpoint)
• Sydney Broadway Crane
Many in the list are offered by Chris Mohr - http://tinyurl.com/mnybxwy
----------------------------------------
"Debunkers are quick to point to these smaller and more poorly designed steel structures as valid comparisons to the WTC, while at the same time they argue that other actual high-rises engulfed in fire are not comparable to the WTC due to “differences in design.” This argument is rhetorical nonsense. If we are to draw comparisons between the WTC skyscrapers and other structures, then we would logically want to compare them to other skyscrapers. Debunkers have demanded that those advocating the “no other high-rise collapses” argument provide an example of a skyscraper fire that matches almost exactly the conditions of the WTC on 9/11. The website debunking911.com, for example, has a detailed list of conditions which the anonymous author feels need to be met before drawing any comparisons. But again, this same author has no problem offering drastically different structures that have collapsed from fire as valid comparisons to the WTC."
More by Adam Taylor: http://tinyurl.com/ocgg9w5
----------------------------------------
Debunkers may remind us, for example, that Building 7 had :
* Load-bearing perimeter walls
* Only 24 core columns in a very irregular distribution (NOT an equally-spaced grid)
* Long-span trusses between those core and perimeter columns
* Cantilevering of large sections of the building.
* Cantilevering of the core structure itself (there were, IIRC, at least three or four "H" spans at the lower floors... so those 24 core columns are actually 20 core columns or less at bedrock).
They insist that these design features need to be present in other high-rise infernos for valid comparisons to be made with WTC.
But do the Kader Toy Factory, or the Tacoma Bridge, or the Sydney Broadway Crane share these same design features? Debunkers happily offer these examples of 'structures-with-steel' built into them that suffered some sort of structural failure due to fire. And then compare them with the WTC buildings.
Even if we accept these non high-rise structures the debunker offers, how many of them completely imploded to the ground like demolition? None.
So the debunker's examples are much further down the comparison scale than high-rises in terms of DESIGN. And they are much further down the comparison scale in terms of what TYPE of collapses they were, compared to WTC.
The debunker's position is untenable.
