9-11 Facts Movement

[ergo]

And where is the meridian plaza building today ???

Not sure.

Twenty months after the fire this building, one of Philadelphia’s tallest, situated on Penn Square directly across from City Hall, still stood unoccupied and fire-scarred, its structural integrity in question.

Maybe they took it down, seeing as how the fire burned for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

so anytime anyone Googles "9-11 facts", they will get this website.

who's with me?

edit: I see there is already a website called 9-11Facts.net, but it is very small and has little data. but its of the same idea.

Parky, you're evil... They've already shot themselves in the foot trying to maintain a facade of professional expertise and intellect, and now you want to pile onto them a real education in architecture, engineering, aeronautics, and fire study? It's already difficult to watch the movement squiggle like a reality TV show that tanked on its ratings...

Not sure.

Maybe they took it down, seeing as how the fire burned for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187686

Perfect thread awaiting feedback from you "first in history" folks... I would encourage the feedback

 

[tommyboy]

If you are accumulating facts, I think this is one of the few facts where the probability favors "conspiracy".

The boxes are extremely durable, and THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN 2 TIMES IN HISTORY WHERE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RECOVERED (except once or 2 in the open ocean).

About 150 Plane crashes in the US per year

So figure in the past 20 years there have been 20 * 150 = 3000 accidents

We are talking about a 1/3000 event.

Why does any of this matter anyways? If they found the black boxes you would all be complaining on how they were able to find it through all the rubble and think it was planted.

They found the black box for flight 77, and you don't believe a plane hit the pentagon. So again, why does any of this matter?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

<delete duplicate post>

 

[ergo]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187686

Perfect thread awaiting feedback from you "first in history" folks... I would encourage the feedback

I've learned that the randi links that people post usually don't contain much, if any, relevance to the point they pretend to be addressing, so I no longer bother when someone does that.

If you want to quote the relevant text, though...

 

[beachnut]

I've learned that the randi links that people post usually don't contain much, if any, relevance to the point they pretend to be addressing, so I no longer bother when someone does that.

If you want to quote the relevant text, though...

Why can't you read and figure out 911, what is new? Why do you fail after you are given evidence and tools to understand 911. If your purpose is to get people to post to your moronic nonsense, idiotic made up lies, and other failed claims, you have exceeded your goal.

Why do you fail to learn, or find information to save you from making up idiotic lies? Are you failing because you don't have the knowledge to understand the links have information to help you understand 911?

 

[A W Smith]

I've learned that the randi links that people post usually don't contain much, if any, relevance to the point they pretend to be addressing, so I no longer bother when someone does that.

If you want to quote the relevant text, though...

Ok then.

I'm going to to guess that a topic similar to the specific scope of this one probably isn't the most unique idea in the world but I'd like to pose a question directly to those who use the "first time in history" appeal to support the notion that a "controlled demolition" - not fire - was the culprit for the WTC collapses.

First of all a brief summary; the fall of the world trade centers are largely considered by the controlled demolition proponents to be the first time in history in which protected modern steel buildings collapsed in totality due to fire being an instigator in their initiation. Based on this idea they contend by enlarge that the buildings must therefore have collapsed due to another means of intervention (usually referring to thermite/ate, nano-thermite/ate, explosives, or a combination thereof.

I will not expand to the freefall acceleration/jolt/firefighters help explosion x, y, z/SQUIBS!?/where are my pancaked floors/10% of a building cannot crush the other 90%/molten metal x, y, z/etc etc etc...

Now after reading a bit some of you want to actually... know what my point is. It's rather simple really. If the collapse of the WTC is "statistically impossible as the CD proponents contend then I'd like to hear their thoughts on the following:

If this were a controlled demolition, the by the same first in history argument it would have been the first of it's kind:

WTC 1 + 2

• in a building over 100 stories tall
• In a building that was also being hit by a plane
• in a building that has massive (each floor was an acre) multifloor (6+ floor ignited) fires raging concurrently sparked by massive quantities of accelerant.
• with building occupants in it both during the time of implantation and execution.
• The first ever controlled demolition where no remnants of explosive charges were ever found in a debris pile where remains as small as a human thumbnail were identified.

For WTC 7: The first time in recorded history that a controlled demolition had been performed:

• Where the charges survived without a single one detonating during the entire 7 hour period in which a building that has multifloor fires was left to burn unabated by active fire supression systems (sprinklers) or any firefighting
• with building occupants in it both during the time of implantation and execution.
• The first (or third if you want to claim WTC 1 & 2 count as '2') ever controlled demolition where no remnants of explosive charges were ever found in a debris pile during cleanup.

For the termite guys:

• The first time in recorded history where thermite is introduced for applications in controlled demolition.
• in a building between 47 and 110 stories in height
• That was burning
• That was - according to thermite proponents - "snuck in" during broad daylight in a fully occupied building

-----------------------------------------

So let me see if I'm following correctly; According to CD proponents a collapse due to fire alone has never happened before, and according to some, "never will" or is "statistically impossible" - so much so that for it to happen "3 times in a single day" is even more extraordinary....

Just curious to those who make the above argument. By that very logic, shouldn't a controlled demolition also be statistically impossible? If any of the CD proponents would like to interject with any kind of protest about the validity of applying such logic to the CD argument I'd welcome some comments explaining why it applies to the WTC and not to the controlled demolition angle.


Disclaimer: Those of you who have seen me pose this question before should know why I'm asking it... but for those who haven't, one of our residents has already clarified the purpose:

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If you want to quote the relevant text, though...

No I don't condone laziness... and it defeats the purpose of avoiding a derail here. Read it. Don't like it? Then put me on ignore, it's that simple. Don't waste people's time if you're not going to respond to their critiques seriously... some of the material I linked to deals with concerns I've actually been curious about, but nobody on the TM fence has taken the time to offer an opinion...

EDIT: Eyah... it was quoted before I posted... whatever...

 

[rsalinger]

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

I presented you with an example. You sent me something else. Do you understand that my example is of a steel framed building which completely collapsed. It had nothing to do with the Meridian tower. Please give it a read.
Rgrds

 

[ergo]

I presented you with an example. You sent me something else. Do you understand that my example is of a steel framed building which completely collapsed. It had nothing to do with the Meridian tower. Please give it a read.
Rgrds

A two-storey (if that) theatre under construction which had no central steel columns? Why? Don't waste my time. Just quote the relevant text.

 

[rsalinger]

You said "even low rise". I gave you low rise, now you raise the bar. The basic point is that office fires can cause steel to weaken and can initiate a collapse. So, fire can initiate a collapse and has done so repeatedly in steel buildings.

 

[theshillbarrett]

if "truther sarcasm" is an oxymoron, then "truther" must just be a moron.

Yea. I went there.

nice one.

 

[sts60]

Well, as a firefighter, I'd have to point out that you're not doing very well with your bookends (1 and 17).

Looks like you got your very first FACT wrong. My, my.

Are you saying I'm not a firefighter?

 

[ergo]

Um. No.

I'm saying that you got your very first fact wrong.

 

[Clarrisani]

I like the idea. Need to include something in there about the fact that fires can burn with black smoke when not oxygen starved (seriously, some people believe oxygen starvation is the only reason they burn black), and that thermite cannot be used on a vertical surface.

 

[ergo]

Is anyone going to actually start listing some facts? We're waiting.

The list I made, of course, was a list of beliefs and arguments (or faulty logic). Not facts. Most of which have been debunked, or are too stupid to bother with.

# It is NOT impossible for steel-framed buildings to completely collapse from fire. We simply have no other examples of this.
# It was the unique combination of PLANE CRASHES and FIRE that brought the buildings down.
# It was the unique combination of STRUCTURAL DAMAGE and FIRES that brought the building down.
# We have no EVIDENCE of significant fires or structural damage. Except for the 20-storey rectangular GASH on the south face. NIST didn't need to mention or model the gash.
# NOBODY took pictures of the south face of WTC7. They were too busy. It's THAT simple.
# The KINETIC ENERGY of the upper block slumping through the 85% remaining heat-weakened core and perimeter columns was TOO GREAT for the rest of the 80 or 90 floors of intact building which did NOT suffer damage or fire.
# Eighty and 90 storeys of intact structural steel would give way ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY with this TREMENDOUS kinetic energy of the falling rubble from the upper block destroying itself against the rest of the building.
# Newton's Third Law IS accounted for in this process. The upper block destroys itself!! Furthermore, Newton's Third Law is ASSUMED in the impact of rubble pieces on the rest of the intact building, and therefore doesn't need to be SHOWN or CALCULATED.
# Thirty percent of the COLLAPSE ENERGY was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the KINETIC ENERGY of the falling mass. We're not sure how "collapse energy" is different from kinetic energy but it's probably something you wouldn't understand.
# A building's structural steel framing does NOT provide strength for the building as a whole. Only for ONE FLOOR at a time.
# There was NO concrete in the buildings, besides the floor slabs. NONE of the steel was encased in concrete.
# There was NO reinforcement of the concrete slabs.
# The WEAKENING of the floor connections caused the floor connections to WEAKEN.
# There was NO CROSS-BRACING of the core columns.
# There were NO eyewitness reports of explosions.
# It is TEMPERATURE which weakens steel, NOT heat. Correlation IS causation. Furthermore, this has NO applicability to our argument, so stop bringing it up! Stupid truthers.
# Fires that produce a lot of smoke are very hot.[/list]


So what facts would bedunkers list?

 

[grandmastershek]

So basically Ergo made a claim that no steel building has collapsed and he was proven wrong, so now he is running away. Does that about sum it up?

FYI Ergo- The above statements are not faulty logic as they are just conclusions. You would need to present the arguments supporting them to conclude their logical validity. Another truther throwing around words he doesn't understand.

But with regard to your list at least some is a strawman.

 

[ergo]

So basically Ergo made a claim that no steel building has collapsed and he was proven wrong, so now he is running away.

I'm sorry? The 1.5 level theatre with no central supporting columns whose roof collapsed after 3.5 hours of burning? That's your one example? Did the building collapse completely?

 

[dc1971]

If you are accumulating facts, I think this is one of the few facts where the probability favors "conspiracy".

The boxes are extremely durable, and THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN 2 TIMES IN HISTORY WHERE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RECOVERED (except once or 2 in the open ocean).

About 150 Plane crashes in the US per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#Statistics

So figure in the past 20 years there have been 20 * 150 = 3000 accidents

We are talking about a 1/3000 event.

Good that you know math, now how about showing WHY black boxes are SO durable??

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm sorry? The 1.5 level theatre with no central supporting columns whose roof collapsed after 3.5 hours of burning? That's your one example? Did the building collapse completely?

Since you're now suddenly interested in nitpicking construction details... do you mean a roof with no steel supports that wasn't holding up 30 floors? If you're trying to protest the building code recommendations given out by the NIST investigation you're discussing your concerns with the wrong people. Any allegation that the NIST is fraudulent would also tie into the code recommendations they provide as a result of their findings. You're responsible for contacting those responsible for amending the international building codes, since you are the one taking issue with the likelihood of something happening... Granted this is a recommendation I can only expect someone who is serious about their views to follow.