Belz Has Front Page News!

Funny, Belz actually said: "Fire CAN and HAS demolished buildings before."
Click to expand...

Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. It was Belz who changed the meaning. Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.

It was Belz who was trying to cleverly make it appear that I had said something I didn't.

Perhaps Belz should clarify.
 
Original post:
Belz... said:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Fire cannot cause steel framed skyscapers to collapse. Even if collapse is initiated, objects cannot crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight. 3 times in one day, 0 in all of the rest of history? Ludicrous.
Click to expand...


So many things are wrong in that paragraph, I don't know where to start. Fire CAN and HAS demolished buildings before, some even more resilient than the WTC. Also, you're oversimplifying the "powder" thing, and lying about "0 in all [...] of history".
Click to expand...

ETA: You want to address any of the evidence presented in this thread to the problems fire causes steel structures?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. It was Belz who changed the meaning. Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.

It was Belz who was trying to cleverly make it appear that I had said something I didn't.

Perhaps Belz should clarify.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know the history of the conversation so I won't comment on that.


Assuming this is the first collapse of its kind:

Does X need to happen at least once before X can occur? :boggled:
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. It was Belz who changed the meaning. Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.

It was Belz who was trying to cleverly make it appear that I had said something I didn't.

Perhaps Belz should clarify.
Click to expand...

So you admit that it is possible for fire to bring down a steel framed structure? What is the point of this thread then?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse. It was Belz who changed the meaning. Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.

It was Belz who was trying to cleverly make it appear that I had said something I didn't.

Perhaps Belz should clarify.
Click to expand...

Too late, liar.

Think before your start your next thread.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
In response to my statement that fire has never caused a steel framed skyscraper to collapse, Belz has reported something astounding.

QUOTE:
Fire CAN and HAS demolished [steel framed skyscapers] before, some even more resilient than the WTC.




Please Belz, link away. List them. This is going to be great.
Click to expand...

TruthSeeker, Belz did not say "steel framed skyscrapers." Belz said "buildings." So you just lied. Thus, you are a liar. Zero credibility to you from now on (not that you had any to lose, really). Liar!

I'm not sure why you consider it "great" to be proven a liar, but to each his own, I suppose.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Original post:


ETA: You want to address any of the evidence presented in this thread to the problems fire causes steel structures?
Click to expand...

To further clarify: Truthseeker1234, you can argue that Belz... in responding to your OP in a more general fashion (buildings vs. steel structure buildings) was in error. However, assuming that he meant steel structure buildings, and then arguing against it without asking him to clarify, is a strawman.
 
lying about "0 in all [...] of history".
Click to expand...

Yes, unprecedented things can happen, assuming they are physically possible. It was Belz who seemed to be saying it had happeded before. Now, if he just meant "buildings" can collapse from fire, yes, of course, but so what.

If he meant steel framed skyscrapers, as I said, then we are still waiting for the examples. The examples linked above are support for my position, as you have fires far hotter, bigger and longer lasting, causing steel members to deform and twist, and yet, no total collapse, nothing remotely resembling 9/11.

The observations of 9/11, considered in total, simply require far more energy than is present in the form of GPE converted to KE. Orders of magnitude more. These calcs have been done by Hoffman, Trumpman, Ross.
 
What would really be front page news would be Truthseeker actually responding to any of the overwhelming evidence against his position his previous posts have generated. Still a slow news day as far as I can see.
 
I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?
 
and of course, why does that matter? There is always a first time. The WTC towers were the first 110 story steel skyscrapers that collpased due to the impact of two planes, the spilling over tons of jet fuel, the subsequent infernos that raged through much of the elevator shafts and the floors that were impacted and the removal of fire protection from the steel trusses due to the impact.

The fire was one of the causes, and a contributor to the collpase. ITs not soley the reason why they collapse, but a huge majority of it.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
If he meant steel framed skyscrapers, as I said, then we are still waiting for the examples. The examples linked above are support for my position, as you have fires far hotter, bigger and longer lasting, causing steel members to deform and twist, and yet, no total collapse, nothing remotely resembling 9/11.
Click to expand...

Wow really? How big were the planes that crashed into them?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?
Click to expand...


added to note , this is a classic CT reply so that you only focus on the one "thing" they want an answer for, when the subject hand is actually broader.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?
Click to expand...
No steel framed skyscraper has ever ENTIRELY collapsed from fire ALONE.

To that, I think we can all agree.

Do you at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that before 9/11 no steel framed skyscraper had ever experienced the same level of combined structural and fire damage as the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11?
 
he wont accept it. the ony "truth" to him is that of your answer is "no". He'll now "skew" your context so that it proves his claim. typical ct tactics.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I've responded to a heck of a lot, Carnivore. Why don't you pick your favorite, and I'll give it go. In the meantime, do you guys at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire?
Click to expand...

Well, since you ask, I think my favourite was your suggestion of a shaped charge at the Pentagon's C ring. Thanks! And yes, I share the general agreement that no steel framed skyscraper has completely collapsed solely due to fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom