• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

Sir,

Again, I know fire can damage steel! That's not the question. The question is, has a steel-structured building ever COLLAPSED due to a fire. NOT has a steel-structured building ever been DAMAGED! The Madrid buildings did NOT collapse like the WTC. It may have been severely damaged, and pieces may have fell off...but all of the floors below the fire DID NOT collapse, nor did the massive fires cause any kind of pancake collapse.


... because of the concrete structure beneath the steel levels.

The steel collapsed, son. The concrete did not.

If a steel-structured building undergoes a sustained fire with limited or no firefighting efforts, it will collapse.

Firefighting 101.

WTC7 had a tremendous fire, and no water supply to put it out. It burned for hours.

It fell down.

That's how it works, son.
 
I can prove that you have no understanding of structural engineering or failure analysis.


Exhibit A:

Hello all,

I KNOW there has been a tremendous debate over the subject of 9/11, and from the few threads I have read it looks like most believe the, "Official Story." Well, here's what I can assure you. If you engage me in this debate, than you will NOT leave this thread without KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job and brought down by controlled demolitions.

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside. Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse. The 911 commission didn't even address it, and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse. All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that. No wait...I mean because of those small fires that melted the entire infrastructure all at once. Yea, that's what I meant to say.

Now, I think one of the main problems people encounter when analyzing an event like this is that they OVER analyze it. Especially since politics are often brought (kicking and screaming) into this discussion...it's easy for one to loose track of the real issues by dismissing another as a, "Liberal! or NeoCON!" Please, don't be blinded by political bias. In fact, let's just check that at the door. This debate has NOTHING to do with what political party you like to associate yourself with.

In conjunction: We're NOT debating WHO is responsible for 9/11 in this thread. So, regardless if you do decide to open your mind up to THE truth...it doesn't mean that you're saying or agreeing to who is actually responsible for the demolition of the WTC. The only fact about this event that we shall discuss, is whether or not FIRE was the chief cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 or if a controlled demolition is to blame.

See, I think the main problem with the, 'Debunkers.' is that they never actually debunk this main issue i.e. the buildings came down via a demolition. And the reason they probably haven't presented any actual hard evidence (I'm not talking about an "expert's" commentary or analysis) I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings. And, really this is the only point worth discussing. Sorry, but calling someone a, "Nutjob!" isn't gonna work. I'm only looking for something that could be presented as evidence in a court of law. Let's get REAL left-brained and linear about this...oki doki! You know like Skeptics are SUPPOSE to be! :-)

There is really no point in getting distracted with the small side issues and theories...because it only serves to dilute the whole point of this investigation...and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.

So if we could...I would like to pose a series of simple questions...and all I want for everyone to do is simply respond to the question at hand. If everyone can follow these simple guidelines, than it shouldn't take too long before you will have to accept the fact that the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
 
Sir,

Again, I know fire can damage steel! That's not the question. The question is, has a steel-structured building ever COLLAPSED due to a fire. NOT has a steel-structured building ever been DAMAGED! The Madrid buildings did NOT collapse like the WTC. It may have been severely damaged, and pieces may have fell off...but all of the floors below the fire DID NOT collapse, nor did the massive fires cause any kind of pancake collapse.
McCormick Place. Chicago. 1967.
 
Hey guys and gals,

Thanks for the posts. You will have to forgive me, but I am but one man...so it takes time to address everyone. So far only John Blonn has attempted to answer my question and thank you for doing that.

But, I'm pretty sure it's possible to say whether or not someone has ever reported a steel-structured building collapsing due to a fire pre-911. And, this is all I really mean. I'm not trying to get philosophical here...by talking in absolutes and universals - all I mean, is can we prove whether or not HISTORY has an account (on record in the press or media) of a steel-structured building collapsing due to a fire pre-911? And, I assume that answer to be yes.

"I got a question. If 9/11 was an "inside" job why couldn't the same nefarious cabal plant some WMDs in Iraq?"

And sir, this is the exact type of logic I am trying to avoid in this thread. That's why I clearly stated...that we're not to discuss who we think is responsible for the demolition. Don't let assumptions like this lead you astray. We must tackle only the actual evidence of this crime scene. Let's not cloud our thinking with motives and suspects...just the facts of the event i.e. three building collapses.
 
McCormick Place. Chicago. 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place
The gleaming white building burned down in 1967, a shocking event as it was largely steel and concrete and was thought to be fireproof. However, the exhibits at the time were highly flammable and there were inadequate sprinklers and hydrants, thus the fire spread quickly and destructively, taking the life of a security guard in the process.

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html[
A number of factors contributed to the catastrophe. Most of these would have been sufficient by themselves to cause great destruction. The 1,250 exhibits were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic. The temporary wiring used to rig exhibits was often not up to the building code. 92% of the building, including the exhibition hall, did not have sprinklers. The water supply failed almost immediately upon the firefighters' arrival. McCormick Place's private hydrants were closed and never reopened after construction on the Stevenson Expressway, and the private pumping system was defective and inadequate. The fire spread was very rapid due to the lack of compartmentalization, the large amount of fuel, and lack of means of suppression. The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire due to the same factors.




 
Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside.
"Dissolved," huh. Can I assume that you don't even have high-school level proficiency in science?

Oh, and those "virtually invisible" fires were visible to firefighters on scene, and threw up a smoke cloud the size of Manhattan. Your premise is laughably false.

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
Yes, they have. It is also trivial to set up an experiment proving that this is an ordinary result.

Here's a question for you. Not one conspiradroid has ever dared to answer it. I wonder, do you have what it takes? Or will you run away as well?
 
Here's a photograph of WTC 7 after it's collapse. Have you done ANY research on this topic besides watching Loose Change?

Sir,

A pile of rubble is nothing to me. There is no structure left in the building...it dissolved into a pile of rubble.
 
Have you any idea how many shaped charges it would take to bring down a building that size, and how long it would take to place them all? Neither do I, but it's a lot. Here's a quote from CDI's site about how many were required to bring down a department store ~

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

I presume then that the months of preparation, including structural modifications in order to place the charges, was done in secret.

Here's a video of another relatively tiny building being demolished by shaped charges. Similar to the WTC collapse? Er, no.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153 (the link won't work cos I can't post URLs yet so cut & paste it and put h t t p : / / infront of it)
 
Sir,

The picture from your story:

(can't post links yet)

Shows what looks like to be a two story building...with severe fire damage. I'm not saying fire can't melt steel - come on now - we all know that's possible. Please read my questions closely. This story does NOT report a steel-structured building that collapsed because of a fire. You can still see the entire outside structure of this building. It just had the insides burned out. Is that what the WTC towers looked like? No.

Steel, as in structural steel fails in fire, building have fallen all over the world.

wood, large structural wood can outlast steel

We need to take some structural building classes and physics classes and then we will never fall for CT junk.

Knowledge is needed to keep the CT junk science guys at bay. Are you another junk science guy?
 
Now since I am an authority driven little fellow, I would like to know your qualifications for making judgements on structural engineering techniques. How many graduate degrees in the appropriate sciences do you have?
 
Question 1 - Please explain why building codes all over the world require structural steel members to be protected from fire for a given amount of time

Question 2. Please describe, in your own words, the principle behind the process of controlled demolition of a building.

Question 3. Please provide evidence that the south side of WTC7 was not massively damaged by falling debris from the WTC towers

Question 4. Please provide evidence that the south side of WTC7 was not massively on fire
 
is this dylan avery with nothing to do so he is trolling and asking questions?

I think experts can answer their own questions. Is this 28thday an expert?

Just asking a question. Give us your avoidance of CD of WTC7, 1, and 2. Stop beating around the bush and give us your stuff.

Do you have any facts?
 
"if WTC 7 collapsing is such a bloomin' surprise, then how did the FDNY know about it? Pick one:

(a) FDNY blew it up

(b) FDNY was told by _____ that it was going to be blown up

(c) Lucky guess

(d) It wasn't so hard to predict that WTC 7 was coming down after all, and all this talk about how it "must have been 'splosives" is armchair speculation of people who don't know what the heck they're talking about

Please explain your answer. Thanks."

Sir,

Have you not seen all of the video footage with NYFD on the scene...telling people there was a bomb in the building and to leave the scene? No, the NYFD didn't only THINK or ASSUME it MAY come down. They KNEW it was coming down. And, yes I think there is video footage of Rudy Giuliani telling Peter Jennings that he was told as were others...that the WTC 7 was coming down...BEFORE it came down.

Not to mention ( I know everyone knows this and will dismiss it) that the actual owner of WTC 7 is on tape...stating, that they made the decision to PULL the building. And, then he said they watched the building come down. "Pull," is an industry term used to describe a controlled demolition.
 
Have you not seen all of the video footage with NYFD on the scene...telling people there was a bomb in the building and to leave the scene? No, the NYFD didn't only THINK or ASSUME it MAY come down. They KNEW it was coming down.

So the firefighters were in on the conspiracy to blow up WTC7? Yes or no would be fine.
 
Sir,

Have you not seen all of the video footage with NYFD on the scene...telling people there was a bomb in the building and to leave the scene? No, the NYFD didn't only THINK or ASSUME it MAY come down. They KNEW it was coming down. And, yes I think there is video footage of Rudy Giuliani telling Peter Jennings that he was told as were others...that the WTC 7 was coming down...BEFORE it came down.

Not to mention ( I know everyone knows this and will dismiss it) that the actual owner of WTC 7 is on tape...stating, that they made the decision to PULL the building. And, then he said they watched the building come down. "Pull," is an industry term used to describe a controlled demolition.
This has already been covered several times on this forum.

Please employ the "search" function.

Thank you.
 
SQuestion 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.

Kader Toy Factory.

The end.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom