stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
There I corrected it for you.
Fire, steel, and 911.
- Thread starter Dazed
- Start date
There I corrected it for you.
Spins
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 702
It's impossible to compare the WTC collapse to other high rise fires especially when you don't consider the differences in building size and design, and also don't consider the structural damage and compromised fireproofing caused by the plane impact.
It's been estimated on computer simulations done at Purdue University that almost 25% of the columns used to support the structure were destroyed when the first plane hit the north tower...
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 414
That was the first building to ever be struck by a fully fueled passenger jet right?
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
one followup question, lets say everythign was pulverized to dust (how a carpet turns to dust is beyond me, but whatever)
would that dust be flammable?
there carefully now, if wooden furniture were ground into sawdust, would that sawdust be capable of fueling a fire?
Karl Johannes
Student
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 49
i love how he is talking about the madrid tower as the video shows the steel literally crumbling away in the fire.
i had never seen stephen jones talking before but what a douche, who else is smiling and laughing and having a good ole time when they discuss this event?
good thing they dont forget to omit kevin ryans important expertise in the world of water testing.
comparing this attack to '93 is a false analogy, the van bomb did not penetrate the steel skin or cause massive infernos.
and i dont know why they keep comparing a throttle back 707 flying well under the imposed speed limit of 250 KIAS to the hurtling missle of 600mph that flight 175 was. why does that argument persist? no one considered a plane to be flying at near break apart speed. no 707 has ever flown at 600mph at 1300ft. ever.
and highly redundant structure? a highly redundant structure would be one made of the traditional latticework of steel beams in a three dimensional grid, not the "revolutionary" tube structure of the twin towers which relied on the floors to brace the walls with the inner core and made it so vulnerable to this type of attack.
about the fireproofing, i cant remember where but i saw a video on television that showed parts of the steel structure, critical parts, where the floor trusses connected to the walls that had absolutely no fireproofing, the job was just sub standard all throughout, hence that upgrade they mentioned.
thats just my gut reaction to this clip as i watch it, sort of a stream of consciousness thing
sorry for referring to the claims of the video directly, apparenlty 28 doesnt know these pretty basic arguments or he wouldnt have posted this garbage
and im relatively new to the scene so seeing those guys talk their bs was new to me too.
also aside from the little planes that happened to crash into the tower, another aspect of the failure of the structure was its unique design, also for wtc 7, you shouldnt ignore that, im assuming 28th kingdom isnt aware of that either.
Last edited:
Madrid building where is it right now?
One Meridian Plaza in PA, where is it now?
Why? What happen to these buildings?
Have you checked to see if he maintains this story? Last time you quoted someone, that person retracted his statement within the year. Have you followed up on this one? Can you demonstrate that he meant what you claim he meant?
I think that was in Discovery's 'Why the towers fell'
The impact destroyed the fireproofing, if you brush against some types they fall on the floor, the wallboard was blown away at impact, the wall board was the fire protection for much of the core!
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
And going 443 mph (AA11) and 542 mph (UA175). Actually the flights weren't fully fueled...they only had about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel EACH.
Last edited:
The Almond
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,015
That's interesting; you've changed your position. Your first post in this thread asserted that the WTC towes were the first to collapse due to fire.
Our resident philosophy professor John Blonn has an interesting counter argument to this. Consider the following hands in poker: which is more likely to come up?
Ace-King-Queen-Jack-10
5-7-2-Ace-Jack
His point, if I may paraphrase, is that just because we recognize an event as unique, it doesn't make impossible, unlikely or otherwise.
Woah there! Why should I engage in a debate where you demand that I conceed two of my major arguments? No, it was not fire alone, and the airplanes that struck the tower caused a significant amount of structural damage. Can we agree on that point?
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
You've posted a video in which Jones says the Madrid hotel didn't collapse due to fire, while they were showing the video of the steel framed portion of the hotel collapsing.
How can we accept anything else this video might say when it so obviously expects us to accept a completely absurd assertion, while it's actively debunking itself?
Seriously, folks, take a look. About 1:00-1:30 in.
He goes on to say, "The structure remains", implying the steel structure, when in fact, it was only the concrete structure that remained. And they show a picture of just that!
How can I accept anything from someone who blatantly lies to my face, and expects me to not even notice?
do not look at the video the steel portions are not falling, or exploding to the ground, stop looking, it was thermite, I tell you thermite did it
Do not listen to Robertson who built the WTC, he said it was the fire after the impact! Do not listen to the first expert, just me the cold fusion king!
That was Dr Thermite Jones, you know he talks to the dead, next we have someone we believe is dead the hearsay king, David the Ray Greatlie, what have you for us today great lie?
I still need to know who is the idiot in 18ths video nest of CT guys talking about the NIST stuff, the round face dolt? Is that Ryan, the water guy?
Thanks
Do not listen to Robertson who built the WTC, he said it was the fire after the impact! Do not listen to the first expert, just me the cold fusion king!
That was Dr Thermite Jones, you know he talks to the dead, next we have someone we believe is dead the hearsay king, David the Ray Greatlie, what have you for us today great lie?
I still need to know who is the idiot in 18ths video nest of CT guys talking about the NIST stuff, the round face dolt? Is that Ryan, the water guy?
Thanks
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
"Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the airplane impacts." NIST, p.148
"The towers likely would NOT have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." NIST, p. xxxviii
We've got some problems here...someone find those posts where someone kept asking why buildings are required to be fireproofed....and you'll discover something very interesting.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,977
Karl Johannes
Student
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 49
fire+massive holes in side of buidling=
but think it through, you now have much less support holding it up, with more weight and heavy fires, please, just think it through, i could understand if it was counter intuitive...
you seem to think a building is a natural formation that will stay up against all odds instead of a carefully balanced equation to combat gravity.
but think it through, you now have much less support holding it up, with more weight and heavy fires, please, just think it through, i could understand if it was counter intuitive...
you seem to think a building is a natural formation that will stay up against all odds instead of a carefully balanced equation to combat gravity.
Where the heck are you going?
Just lay all you have all at once and stop beating around the bush.
Tell me what you have for real and stop repeating the old CT junk. Please?
1st of all...no building is fire-proofed. it can be made fire resistant...but as long as there are carbon based materials...it will burn.
important misconception: the insilation on the steel beams are not (fire-proofing). they act as a thermal barrier to protect from insense heat or cold (but mostly heat due to fire).
most importantly..if the wtc towers had just fire and no structural damage..i would say they probably should not have fallen. but with that amount of structural damage and fire...i find it very easy to believe that they would indeed collapse.
important misconception: the insilation on the steel beams are not (fire-proofing). they act as a thermal barrier to protect from insense heat or cold (but mostly heat due to fire).
most importantly..if the wtc towers had just fire and no structural damage..i would say they probably should not have fallen. but with that amount of structural damage and fire...i find it very easy to believe that they would indeed collapse.