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

[Mr. Skinny]

No problem mr skinny, I just had to take a phone call just as I was responding to your initial request

The following link is approved document B

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADB_2000.pdf

Tables A1 & A2 on p.116 onwards in the document has the periods of fire protection required to various elements of the structure including load bearing members, for various building types.

Hope that helps

Thanks, Dave. I'm have problems getting that to load here at home on my dial-up, but I'll certainly try to look at it tomorrow, or Monday when I get to work.

In the meantime, and assuming you are correct, when did the standard go into effect?

Assuming the US has a similar code, would it have been applicable to the WTC at the time it was built?

Were old buildings "grandfathered", or was the standard applicable to everyone retroactively? Is the US similar in all respects?

I think those things need to be considered when arguing this in CT threads particularly. I know that the steel in the WTC towers was fireproofed, but my experience here in the US is that there are plenty of industrial structures in the US with exposed steel roof trusses.

But, until I get to read it, I'll assume you are right.

Skinny

 

[Alt+F4]

Have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods?

28th, there is not one single conspiracy theory related to 9/11 that members of this forum have not heard of....and we've all seen Loose Change. Can you open your mind to the fact that Loose Change might be wrong? Use this forum's search feature and you'll see that everything in Loose Change has already been debunked.

You seem unwilling to address what posters have already told you in this thread. Let me bring back then to one very simple contention you made: that "pull" is a demolition industry term to call for a controlled demoliton of a building. Can you provide any evidence that professionals in the demolition industry have ever used that word in that respect?

Yes, the truth is out there....but it's not Loose Change.

 

[beachnut]

Sir,

Um, according to the government...a commercial airliner...flew into the Pentagon. Yep, the most well protected building in the world. And, guess what...our military just let a huge plane fly into it. I mean...what happened to NORAD?

I think I'm starting to see how some might not believe these theories...the evidence is utterly blinding.

You must not know anyone can go right next to the pentagon and shoot at it, you will be arrested but it is not the most protected building in the world!

Where have you been?

I have walked at midnight around the White House, and down the Mall. There are no missile sites to blow up the airliners landing just a mile away at the airport!

NORAD did not stand down, we were about to shoot down an airliner for the first time ever but heros saved us, the hero on flight 93 did something and it is more than you have done.

You have come and asked questions you could look up. You have not used your brains to solve what Flight 93 only had minutes to do!

They used their brains and came up with a solution, the correct solution in minutes. 'Fight 93 has beat you to the solution. They saw the terrorists and they attacked!

Now you see CT, you see them everywhere. We are lucky you were not on flight 93, you would have missed the solution.

You have used 5 years to make up junk and think up BS.

 

[uk_dave]

Well if I recall the Building Act was 1984 and the revised regs when they went absolutely crazy for fire protection and means of escape was an amendment around '86 or '87 i think.

The version in my link is current and came into effect in 2000.

Certainly exposed roof trusses would not be uncommon, but would probably depend on the building use and the distance from a possible point of fire.

Recently I encountered a situation where additional protection to an escape route (a stairwell & elevator area) was required to provide protection against the roof collapsing into this space, though I found that rather bizarre as it appeared we were being asked to provide a protective ceiling capable of withstanding impact damage from a collapsing roof. It was the first time I had ever been asked for that and it is currently being checked so it remains to be seen as to whether we have managed to comply. Such is life.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Well if I recall the Building Act was 1984 and the revised regs when they went absolutely crazy for fire protection and means of escape was an amendment around '86 or '87 i think.

The version in my link is current and came into effect in 2000.

Certainly exposed roof trusses would not be uncommon, but would probably depend on the building use and the distance from a possible point of fire.

Recently I encountered a situation where additional protection to an escape route (a stairwell & elevator area) was required to provide protection against the roof collapsing into this space, though I found that rather bizarre as it appeared we were being asked to provide a protective ceiling capable of withstanding impact damage from a collapsing roof. It was the first time I had ever been asked for that and it is currently being checked so it remains to be seen as to whether we have managed to comply. Such is life.

Dave, I believe I've derailed this thread enough. I'll start another thread after I read the document and study up on this myself.

Cheers.

 

[Pardalis]

I know this is a let-down...because as you can see...this thread has not gone how I wanted it to. I had a very tight and well-thought out plan

Your plan was to convice us that 9/11 was an inside job.

It is failing miserably.

 

[slingblade]

http://m-w.com/dictionary/dissolve

It means more than you might think.

But it doesn't mean at all what you seem to think.

 

[maccy]

Sir,

Well, actually...I originally thought terrorists we're responsible for the attacks. But, once presented with the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the events...I simply cannot deny the truth. The truth is the truth...whether or not it's a painful truth...it is still the truth...and I acknowledge it as such.

Have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods? That is documented proof of America's willingness to use false flag tactics against it's own people in order to build support for a war against another country.

What adds up about the events surrounding 9/11? Does anything? Does any of this country's actions after the fact make sense? Did we go drop a couple bombs on Japan after Pearl Habor, and then go evade Brazil?

If the government so clearly told us who perpetrated the attacks i.e. Bin Laden, than why did we just go after him for a short while...than send all of our attention to Iraq? Bush has been video taped saying, that one of the hardest parts of his job is connecting Iraq to the war on terror. I mean, the guy actually said that on tape. But, I thought we invaded Iraq, because Saddam had ties to Bin Laden and Al Qeada?

Listen, nothing makes sense about how the government has handled 9/11 or the aftermath. NOTHING! Plus all of the physical evidence points to controlled demolitions...we know about Operation Northwoods...that as a FACT, the government would have tried this very same thing i.e. false flag on the American people - if it were not for Kennedy nixing it at the last moment.

In the court of law....we've got motive, we've got opportunity, we've got all the physical evidence i.e. video footage, audio recordings - insider trading, the first privatized ownership of the WTC in it's history finalized just months before the attacks...and insured against terrorist attacks etc.

Um, according to the government...a commercial airliner...flew into the Pentagon. Yep, the most well protected building in the world. And, guess what...our military just let a huge plane fly into it. I mean...what happened to NORAD?

I think I'm starting to see how some might not believe these theories...the evidence is utterly blinding.

So, you've asked others not to go into politics and then with this post you dive straight into it. I suggest you stick to WTC and physical evidence if you can.

You can find answers to your questions in other threads in this forum as well as various internet resources. If you want to discuss further, I suggest you post in the relevant thread. Use the search function.

Some relevant stuff:

NORAD
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61752

Northwoods:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html#Operation Northwoods
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change#operation-northwoods

various financial things:
http://911myths.com/html/foreknowledge.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69261

 

[uk_dave]

Well coming back on track my initial point was that there are codes (certainly in the uk and europe and comparable codes in the US and rest of world) requiring structural steel members to have a given period of resistance to fire.

28K's arguement is that no steel building has collapsed due to fire.

I point out to 28K that fire protection is required for a reason. Whether it is present in an older building or not does not detract from the very real concerns about steel members and their performance in fire, and although the BRE testing of exposed steel members did indicate better than expected performance, it still does nothing to support the CT claim that steel structures are impervious to fire.

And a fire which can take down a roof or floor can also lead to catastrophic failure of the whole building, especially if that building is already weakened by some other event which has caused structural damage.

phew!

 

[28th Kingdom]

28th Kingdom.

You've done the same thing ALL twoofers have done when I've asked this question: not answered it.

You dodged it with musings on "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," but you failed to acknowledge that YOU could be wrong.

Do you believe yourself infallible? Isn't there a chance that you are using incorrect information, poor physics, and indeed, even straight up lies and misinfo? Isn't it likely that the hundreds of experts - engineers, scientistists, FBI investigators - are right on the money? That there is no "massive coverup," that everything is INDEED as it seems?

Is there a chance that you could be completely wrong? Yes or no?

Sir,

I thought I answered your question. I apologize. Yes, I can admit when I'm wrong...like I said, I originally believed the official story...and, since then...I have admitted that I was wrong. I can ALWAYS admit when I'm wrong...always. That is one of my best attributes. The problem here, is that I haven't actually presented a single piece of evidence, yet everyone has already tried to discredit me. I don't want conflict between us....I like civil debates.

The fact that so many of you believe the official story so wholeheartedly... truly blows me away. Of course, I am working under the false presumption that every one here has been privy to the same evidence that I have. See, I just assume everyone has seen all the video, and audio footage.

Let me ask this. Of everyone who believes the official story. Do you doubt anything about it? Does anything NOT add up? Anything at all? You don't have any questions? Come on...I thought you guys/gals were diehard skeptics. Like, why was ALL OF THE EVIDENCE at one of the largest CRIME SCENES in the history of the USA, destroyed? Don't you think that the US would want to investigate so they can be 1000% sure, that they know who actually committed the CRIMES?!?!

They had ZERO foreknowledge of the attacks...yet, they knew all 19 hijackers, and that Osama Bin Laden was behind it (DAY OF) without even investigating the scene. Um, you wanna talk about firsts...convicting criminals in less than a day without a shred of physical evidence...that's a wow moment right there. You'd think a government this savvy, would stop a commercial airliner from plowing into the Pentagon...considering we have the best defense system in the world.

You know...I find it truly amazing, how fast they TOLD US who the criminals were in this CRIME that had yet to even be investigated. Pretty interesting stuff. And, just so everyone knows...WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, although many of you keep referring to planes hitting buildings...in response to my question, about buildings collapsing due to a fire. That question was posed in regards to WTC 7's collapse.

 

[Alt+F4]

the evidence is utterly blinding.

Then why hasn't the mainstream media reported this daily? Is the entire United States media controlled by the conspirators? If so, what about the foreign press? BBC, CBC....yikes, why isn't al Jezerra (now in English) shouting it from the rooftoops? Is every member of the mainstream worldwide free press in on the conspiracy? What about all those Bush-hater at The New York Times? They wish neither a fall of the Bush administration or the Pulitzer?

 

[28th Kingdom]

28th, there is not one single conspiracy theory related to 9/11 that members of this forum have not heard of....and we've all seen Loose Change. Can you open your mind to the fact that Loose Change might be wrong? Use this forum's search feature and you'll see that everything in Loose Change has already been debunked.

You seem unwilling to address what posters have already told you in this thread. Let me bring back then to one very simple contention you made: that "pull" is a demolition industry term to call for a controlled demoliton of a building. Can you provide any evidence that professionals in the demolition industry have ever used that word in that respect?

Yes, the truth is out there....but it's not Loose Change.

I don't even like Loose Change...I think it does more to hurt it's case than to help.

 

[Anti-sophist]

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.

I've read every word of this thread and not only have you failed miserably in convincing me of your hypothesis, but you've also failed miserably in even presenting a new argument. You've repeated arguments that have been debunked no less then a hundred times on this forum.

 

[Pardalis]

Read the links Maccy has provided.

 

[Karl Johannes]

In the court of law....we've got motive, we've got opportunity, we've got all the physical evidence i.e. video footage, audio recordings - insider trading, the first privatized ownership of the WTC in it's history finalized just months before the attacks...and insured against terrorist attacks etc.

well then if you are so confident why dont you contact all of the relatives of the victims of the attacks that the conspiracy theorists state believe the govt was implicit in the murder and bring a class action wrongful death suit against the elements of the united states govt you believe to be responsible, i would love to see how that goes, and you dont need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt either, just by the preponderance of the evidence, should be easy given all of your boasting.

 

[beachnut]

I don't even like Loose Change...I think it does more to hurt it's case than to help.

You have the same evidence as loose change you sound like the same story.

I would think that is all you have for your sources.

 

[28th Kingdom]

But it doesn't mean at all what you seem to think.

1 a : to cause to disperse or disappear : [SIZE=-1]DESTROY[/SIZE] <do not dissolve and deface the laws of charity -- Francis Bacon> b : to separate into component parts : [SIZE=-1]DISINTEGRATE[/SIZE] c : to bring to an end : [SIZE=-1]TERMINATE[/SIZE]

That's pretty good for me.

 

[Pardalis]

Read the links that have been provided for you.

 

[stateofgrace]

UK28 said

Ma'am,

There are massive amounts of video coverage - day of - where firefighters, policemen, reporters etc. ALL claim to hear several bombs going off right before and during the collapses. That is heavily documented.

Please produce the audio files of the explosions as WTC 7 collapsed.

Well, actually...I originally thought terrorists we're responsible for the attacks. But, once presented with the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of the events...I simply cannot deny the truth. The truth is the truth...whether or not it's a painful truth...it is still the truth...and I acknowledge it as such.

Please produce your evidence that Al Quada did not carry out this operation. An operation conceived in 1996 and authorized by UBL in 1998. An operation called the plane operation.

Have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods? That is documented proof of America's willingness to use false flag tactics against it's own people in order to build support for a war against another country.

Yes it scrapped as unworkable and made public before 911. You always announce your intentions of mass murder before hand.

What adds up about the events surrounding 9/11? Does anything? Does any of this country's actions after the fact make sense? Did we go drop a couple bombs on Japan after Pearl Habor, and then go evade Brazil?

What doesn’t? Be specific.

If the government so clearly told us who perpetrated the attacks i.e. Bin Laden, than why did we just go after him for a short while...than send all of our attention to Iraq? Bush has been video taped saying, that one of the hardest parts of his job is connecting Iraq to the war on terror. I mean, the guy actually said that on tape. But, I thought we invaded Iraq, because Saddam had ties to Bin Laden and Al Qeada?

Iraq had nothing to do with 911, it was never suggested they did, if you have evidence to prove otherwise please present it.
Iraq was involved because it was believed they had WMD.

Listen, nothing makes sense about how the government has handled 9/11 or the aftermath. NOTHING! Plus all of the physical evidence points to controlled demolitions...we know about Operation Northwoods...that as a FACT, the government would have tried this very same thing i.e. false flag on the American people - if it were not for Kennedy nixing it at the last mom

There is absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever of a controlled demolition in any of the WTC building retract this statement or provide your evidence

In the court of law....we've got motive, we've got opportunity, we've got all the physical evidence i.e. video footage, audio recordings - insider trading, the first privatized ownership of the WTC in it's history finalized just months before the attacks...and insured against terrorist attacks etc.

Present your evidence that would be accepted in a court of law. The USG have already; remember a trial not so long back?
Please present your undeniable evidence

Um, according to the government...a commercial airliner...flew into the Pentagon. Yep, the most well protected building in the world. And, guess what...our military just let a huge plane fly into it. I mean...what happened to NORAD?

Please present our evidence that NORAD stood down.
Please present your evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
Please present your evidence the US military are part of mass murder.

I think I'm starting to see how some might not believe these theories...the evidence is utterly blinding.

Isn’t it just?

 

[maccy]

Read the links Maccy has provided.

Just in case you can't find them here they are again:

This is still being investigated by NIST, but there's some good information here:

FEMA's initial report:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

NIST's working hypothesis:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Counterpunch article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

911 Myths WTC7 page:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Screwloosechange blog entry on WTC7

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

Debunking911.com on WTC7

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm

Gravy's WTC7 Paper (skip part one for the time being)

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (Microsoft Word version)
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf (Adobe Acrobat PDF version)

Finally, some threads that are relevant to at least some of your questions

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70067
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67656 (gets going once Russell Pickering arrives)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66010