• 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!

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.

I read the first four pages of the thread and never saw a response from 28th kingdom to this fire. This is one example he was looking for. Probably there are many others , building collapses in fires are not rare. If it couldn't happen I agree why would there be a need for fireproofing on the steel.
I fear I will die of old age before I get to the end of the thread. So I am mentioning this now.

The Kader Building fire

http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0&ssect=1
Probably the most notable difference between the Triangle and Kader fires is the effect they had on the structural integrity of the buildings involved. Even though the Triangle fire gutted the top three floors of the ten-storey factory building, the building remained structurally intact. The Kader buildings, on the other hand, collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.
 
[long-rambling-excursion]

When I was a child, I was a member of the Churches of Christ. We had all the marks of fundamentalism except for the end-time beliefs - we were more of the "Jesus shows up, that's the end" type. There won't be many members of the CoC buying copies of "Left Behind," shall we say.

We had some other peculiar beliefs for Christians - we were what's called water regenerationalists. That means we believed the Bible taught that you had to be baptized (fully submerged under water) for the express purpose of God forgiving your sins at that moment, in order for God to actually remove your sins. Also, no instruments of music in worship except for voices, and communion every Sunday. Christmas and Easter were secular holidays only - we put the Santa into Christmas, but I only knew it was Easter because the preacher's sermon that day was invariably "Why We Don't Celebrate Easter." (it was the communion every Sunday thing, plus Jesus didn't tell us to, or Paul, same thing).

Yes, we thought we were the only ones going to heaven. That wasn't our fault - we were doing what the Bible said! People standing on the beach are not standing in the ocean. You know, typical Christian stuff.

We were also big on the door knocking thing. The best method I'd ever seen our community produce for getting people to understand our peculiar beliefs was a series of brightly colored four page pamphets. Each pamphlet had a series of questions connected to a passage of Scripture. We would turn to the passage in the willing person's own Bible and they would read the passage. Then we would ask the question. They were simple questions - where does Paul say to make melody? (in your heart).

It was a progressive thing. If a person had a problem with a question, you stopped and you talked out that question. You didn't let them bring up lots of other things, you dealt only with the question at hand. And at the end, the person could see completely that we were the only ones going to heaven!

"What does the Bible say, Eric? In your heart. Let me hear you say it."

I never could make it work well. I wasn't enough of a salesman. I expected the product to sell itself. And the reactions of people bothered me. Once they realized the nature of the study guide, they'd look at it like a knife. It was fundamentally unfair. Of course, we didn't look at it that way. We thought it was a clear way of showing people the Light, the Truth. How that little tract judged us without our knowing it. If somebody couldn't see the Truth after this clear exhibition of it, then where are their hearts?

It was more for our benefits than our converts-to-be. It gave us comfort in our exclusion of the world. Sure, people would bite - people who bite are always among us, and each conversion was celebrated like slot machine mavens crowing over three cherries. I realize that now. Perhaps I doubted even then that we had it oh, so right, and everyone else had it oh, so wrong. But no. I believed.

True believers don't just need an echo chamber to reinforce their own beliefs. They need to get out in the fray. The belief system that survives skeptical inquiry becomes the stronger for it. And belief systems have more weapons in their arsenal than the facts properly interpreted and emphasized.

Especially if the battle is more for the fighter's benefit than the victory's.

[/long-rambling-excursion]

Nominated!

An excellent post and one that I think applies particularly well to the behaviour of Lyte Trip and Skeptic4Sure in these threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68854
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69943
 
Okay, this annoys me.

<snip>

ETA:

9490457867329d6d2.jpg

SOCKS! W00t! Meet Mr. President :)
 
Not true. Richard Pearse had a heavier-than-air craft prior to December 8th 1903.

:nz: :D

It is an ironic point you make however, since, in the US, a "Fliers or Liars?" debate raged for some time after Kitty Hawk, with many people not believing them. This forced the Wright Brothers to make their better documented high-profile public demonstrations.

-Gumboot

Oh, sure Gumboot, go and screw up a perfectly good analogy with the facts. You're such a shill. :D
 
If it looks like a duck...and it walks like a duck...guess what? It's a duck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

The simple fact that no one seems to be able to articulate their opinions of what happened, kinda shows me that you're having someone else do your critical thinking for you. Linking to the NIST report is pretty weak, considering the fact that no one seems to be able to even interprete it into their own words. Look, I can say it happened by a CD, but that doesn't mean I have to go into detail of how a CD works, and everything involved.

From all accounts, I am under the impression that the official report says that WTC 1 & 2 were pancake collapses. Now, I know that may entail a lot of technical detail to explain all the steps and sequences of events...nonetheless...you should be able to say whether or not NIST's report concludes that ultimately, it was a pancake collapse. So yay or nay to that question?
 
If it looks like a duck...and it walks like a duck...guess what? It's a duck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

Agreed. It looks like planes hit WTC1 and 2, creating a series of failures that led to collapse....it walks like planes hit WTC1 and 2, creating a series of failures that led to collapse....guess what? Planes hit WTC1 and 2, creating a series of failures that led to collapse.
 
If it looks like a duck...and it walks like a duck...guess what? It's a duck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

The simple fact that no one seems to be able to articulate their opinions of what happened, kinda shows me that you're having someone else do your critical thinking for you. Linking to the NIST report is pretty weak, considering the fact that no one seems to be able to even interprete it into their own words. Look, I can say it happened by a CD, but that doesn't mean I have to go into detail of how a CD works, and everything involved.

From all accounts, I am under the impression that the official report says that WTC 1 & 2 were pancake collapses. Now, I know that may entail a lot of technical detail to explain all the steps and sequences of events...nonetheless...you should be able to say whether or not NIST's report concludes that ultimately, it was a pancake collapse. So yay or nay to that question?

Thia isn't how it works, you're supposed to be convincing us - your thread title even says so. If there's something wrong with NIST you need to say what it is. If there's evidence for CD you need to produce it. Yes you do need to go into sufficient detail to be convincing.

Without this, who's to say your not just some random idiot?
 
Thia isn't how it works, you're supposed to be convincing us - your thread title even says so. If there's something wrong with NIST you need to say what it is. If there's evidence for CD you need to produce it. Yes you do need to go into sufficient detail to be convincing.

Without this, who's to say your not just some random idiot?

I don't think he's random....
 
The simple fact that no one seems to be able to articulate their opinions of what happened, kinda shows me that you're having someone else do your critical thinking for you. Linking to the NIST report is pretty weak, considering the fact that no one seems to be able to even interprete it into their own words. Look, I can say it happened by a CD, but that doesn't mean I have to go into detail of how a CD works, and everything involved.
Silly person, I answered this precisely three pages ago, here.

That proves conclusively that you're not even reading what others write. Hooray for you.

From all accounts, I am under the impression that the official report says that WTC 1 & 2 were pancake collapses. Now, I know that may entail a lot of technical detail to explain all the steps and sequences of events...nonetheless...you should be able to say whether or not NIST's report concludes that ultimately, it was a pancake collapse. So yay or nay to that question?
No. Not pancake. The pictures I linked in the same post above show the floor trusses bowing, which leads to a non-pancake progressive collapse.

Now please, stop repeating questions if you aren't interested in the answers.
 
One thing I always liked about Clinton, he seemed to have an actual personality.

Have you heard that story (urban myth?) how the Clinton administration removed all the 'W' keys from the keyboards in the White House when transisting power to George W. Bush? :)
 
If it looks like a duck...and it walks like a duck...guess what? It's a duck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

The simple fact that no one seems to be able to articulate their opinions of what happened, kinda shows me that you're having someone else do your critical thinking for you. Linking to the NIST report is pretty weak, considering the fact that no one seems to be able to even interprete it into their own words. Look, I can say it happened by a CD, but that doesn't mean I have to go into detail of how a CD works, and everything involved.

From all accounts, I am under the impression that the official report says that WTC 1 & 2 were pancake collapses. Now, I know that may entail a lot of technical detail to explain all the steps and sequences of events...nonetheless...you should be able to say whether or not NIST's report concludes that ultimately, it was a pancake collapse. So yay or nay to that question?

Wrong, the burden of proof lies with you. You are the one that is supporting the alternative theory. So let’s have it.

Tell me how they blew up the Towers.
 
From all accounts, I am under the impression that the official report says that WTC 1 & 2 were pancake collapses. Now, I know that may entail a lot of technical detail to explain all the steps and sequences of events...nonetheless...you should be able to say whether or not NIST's report concludes that ultimately, it was a pancake collapse. So yay or nay to that question?

Nope, the latest theory is that it was a waffle collapse.
 
If it looks like a duck...and it walks like a duck...guess what? It's a duck:

Unless it's a Loon.


Linking to the NIST report is pretty weak,

Weren't you the one begging for such a link? Oh, yes, you were.



considering the fact that no one seems to be able to even interprete it into their own words. Look, I can say it happened by a CD, but that doesn't mean I have to go into detail of how a CD works, and everything involved.

Actually, it does mean that, unless you can link to someone more knowledgable who can do a better job of it. Oh, except there aren't any such people are there? There's just CTists posting YouTube Videos and saying "Looks like!" and "Pull it!" over and over again.

From all accounts, I am under the impression that the official report says that WTC 1 & 2 were pancake collapses.

For someone who claims to have seen more evidence than any of us, you seem particularly unable to find the simple answers you seek.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

So, once again, you're completely wrong about what NIST does or does not say. I'm shocked.

Oh, and

9490455532504ce19.jpg
 
The fact is...the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk) I just posted is COMPELLING evidence that it's a CD. Someone here, show me compelling evidence, that WTC 7 collapsed in a way that is so improbable, you can't even articulate it...you know, I'm still waiting for someone to actually tell me how they think it collapsed, without linking me to the NIST report. I'd like to think that critical-thinkers can opine for themselves without having some "experts" report do it for them.

And, please...why must you all continue with name calling? Do you think that will grab my attention or something? In fact, those who call me names, will probably never get anything answered to. I'm not here to fight or try to push others down to prop myself up. I know the truth, the truth is evident...and the truth is that WTC 7 was brought down by a CD.

You ask for proof. But, you tell me one thing that I could present...that would seriously make you question what you already believe about WTC 7? Such proof doesn't even exist does it? I could get a video of Bush saying he was involved...and it really wouldn't mean anything...I have a video of Rumsfield saying flight 93 was shot down...and you people would glance by that like it didn't mean a thing. How do I ever prove a point?
 
If it looks like a duck...and it walks like a duck...guess what? It's a duck:

A platypus looks like a duck, and walks like a duck...

I thought the "alternative theories" were BS from the moment I heard them. I still think they're BS, but I have some research to back that up now.

If it sounds like common sense, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's common. Or that it actually makes any sense.
 

Back
Top Bottom