9/11 Truther Building 7 Argument

[GrandizerII]

I had an argument recently with a close friend about 9/11 Building 7, and how he believes there was no way a big building with steel frames could've collapsed by a small fire, coming up with what was clearly pure ad hoc to me dressed in pseudoscientific jargon and embellishments. Not knowing what else to say at the time, I just pointed out that the science suggests it did, which he simply handwaved by saying that's not true. I had no laptop in my hand, and not enough knowledge to counter what he said with all the technical stuff one should know in response to those claims (which I stupidly told him only to be used against me), so what do you reckon I should've said in response as a layman without access to photos, videos, and publications at that time?

Argument ended quite sourly and got a bit too personal by the way. Not too happy about it. Maybe I should stop getting myself into such debates for next time and just quickly agree to disagree before things escalate for the worse.

[LastPoet]

Steel + heat = no structure to hold the building. Gravity fid the rest.

[GrandizerII]

Steel + heat = no structure to hold the building. Gravity fid the rest.

He kept arguing that wasn't sufficient to lead to collapse and brought up an anecdote or two about how he knows this to be true. Next time I see him if he gets into the debate again, I'll just show him a video of a steel-framed building collapsing due to fire. Let the video speak instead.

[vorlon13]

And the overpass in Oakland at the east end of the Bay Bridge didn't collapse from a fire either ??

[Homeless Nutter]

And the overpass in Oakland at the east end of the Bay Bridge didn't collapse from a fire either ??

What? You don't know about The Overpass In Oakland At The East End Of The Bay Bridge Conspiracy?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Steel + heat = no structure to hold the building. Gravity fid the rest.

He kept arguing that wasn't sufficient to lead to collapse and brought up an anecdote or two about how he knows this to be true. Next time I see him if he gets into the debate again, I'll just show him a video of a steel-framed building collapsing due to fire. Let the video speak instead.

Ask him to provide his structural engineering credentials and relevant scientific literature to allow you to confirm whether his analysis is worth taking seriously.

Otherwise, ask him when he abandoned reason for madness.

[Losty]

And the overpass in Oakland at the east end of the Bay Bridge didn't collapse from a fire either ??

What? You don't know about The Overpass In Oakland At The East End Of The Bay Bridge Conspiracy?

[TheRealJoeFish]

For the second time today, I'll note that RationalWiki has a very good take on this particular subject.

[Minimalist]

There are videos all over youtube of the damage to #7 before it collapsed.  The last thing 'truthers' want is 'truth.'

[Angrboda]

There are videos all over youtube of the damage to #7 before it collapsed.  The last thing 'truthers' want is 'truth.'

You can't fight truthers with facts. They'll always come back with something else. They aren't interested in truth, just engaging you in a pointless round of never ending questions.