Belz Has Front Page News!

[Bell]

T.AM. link me to the example of a steel frame collapse that you think is corrobrative of 9/11. I will study it.

TruthSeeker1234,

Could you please show me:

1.) 10's of thousands skyscrapers built exactly like the WTC.
2.) those 10's of thousands of WTC skyscapers standing for a 100 years.
3.) your interpretation of how big 'a piece' would be?
4.) evidence of metal of the WTC shredded into those pieces.
5.) pictures or video of the third 110 story WTC building that got hit by an airplane on 9/11 and subsequently fell due to combined STRUCTUAL DAMAGE

Comment please.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I've been lurking around these kinds of threads for a while, and I think it's a real uproar whenever someone tries the whole "this-has-never-happened-before-in-all-history" argument. They bring up examples like the building in Madrid and think, "OK, building bigger than my house + it's on fire = comparable to WTC. And because these situations are valid parallels, it shows that since the Madrid building over there didn't collapse, the Twin Towers shouldn't have either."

Wrong, very wrong. Amusing as it is to watch these folks waddle about in the delusion that they have equal things on the left and right sides of the equation. You can't really use the Madrid building or others for a very valid comparison because those ones didn't have 1) giant planes pummeling into them weakening much of the structure including vital fireproofing, 2) friggin' huge fires caused immediately by tanks full of jet fuel exploding and fed further by all the other flammable stuff that was quickly engulfed, 3) firefighters completely unable to reach the fire itself, 4) similar, let alone identical, structures and compositions as the WTC, and the list probably goes on. When you actually start looking at the details, it turns out, there isn't much basis for comparison, there isn't much similarity at all aside from the initial impression you'd get running your eyes over the burning buildings. Which begs the question: do CTers think details just disappear?

Sorry for asking rhetorical questions about irrational people... I'm new here

Welcome to the goat rodeo, Matt.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.

on the contrary, concrete is LESS vunerable to fire because it doesnt weaken as temperature increases

as an example i present the windsor building in madrid, the steel portion of the building suffered a complete collapse leaving only the concrete structure standing

 

[T.A.M.]

I don't have access to the finer details of the FPE study up above. All I know is they did a study to look back at high rise buildings destroyed due to fire (I think is NIST and FEMA who did the research). From this they listed 6 buildings as Steel Structured (4 of them 9/11) that collapsed due to fire. I guess if you write them they could tell you what the other two buildings are, or do you think they are lying.

The whole article is above.

TAM

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

T.AM. link me to the example of a steel frame collapse that you think is corrobrative of 9/11. I will study it.

Link me to a study of a 100+ storey steel skyscraper struck by a 150 ton airliner with a nearly full fuel load at over 500 miles per hour that subsequently did not collapse I will study it.

 

[twinstead]

Default confused

I was referring to my hypothetical example about the COncorde. Come on.

Truthseeker his question was an excellent one. Deal with it. There WAS foul play when the WTC collapsed. It was targeted by terrorists.

No skyscraper has EVER been subjected what the WTC 1 and 2 were subjected to. To suggest that because it has never happened before it is suspcious, then you are right only because it WAS suspicious. B. F. Planes flew into them.

Then, in great detail, people who know how they were built and how buildings fail explained how it happened. I'm no expert. You have a problem with their explanation then ask THEM about it.

All I know is I sure don't trust your ideologically biased observations.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.

False the low conductivity of concrete is exactly what protects it, the heat can not penetrate the concrete like it can the steel.
The outside can heat up, but the inside stays cool that is why it makes such a good fire protect ant.
However steel will conduct the heat into the core of the metal, where the air can not reach to cool it and the metal softens and bends.
Exactly what happed in the twin towers that is why the trusses were at fault the new world trade 7 has concrete beams encased in concrete it is not venerable like the towers were.
Only some one who knew absolutely nothing about steel and concrete would suggest such fallacy!

 

[stateofgrace]

Default you're being silly. You gave the Concorde landing gear example to show that unique events are not necessarily sinister. I agree with that. I modified your example to fit with 9/11. A landing gear falling off a Concorde is not necessarily sinister. 3 in one day on different planes, that would be very suspicious. 3 in one day is a much more valid comparison to 9/11 buildings. If they only would have blown up 1 of them instead of 3, they might have fooled me.

You think it is suspicious that three building collapsed on the same day?

The fact that two of them was hit by planes traveling at high speed is totally incidental is it?

The fact that WTC 7 was probably (I say probably because as yet there is not a final report) hit by lots and lots of falling debris is incidental also?

Do you actually not notice what is going on or are you too stupid?

Had they "blown one up” you would be arguing that it and it alone was rigged with explosives. It is totally beside the point what people put to you and I have no desire to convince you or even debate you. You are simply a liar and a terrible person to boot. I resent strongly the fact you compare people to holocaust deniers because they not only don't believe you but can actually show you how wrong you are.

Do yourself a favor stop offering up bunk and read what people has said to you. Show some maturity and drop the self righteous savior of humanity act. It is sickening, especially when it is based on a pack of lies.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The evidence of thermite is from Jones, as you know. Molten iron, with all sorts of entrained exotic chemicals. Can any of you link me to a nice refutation of Steven Jones? I will read it.

could you please list these "all sorts of exotic chemicals"

BTW sulphur is neither exotic nor "all sorts"

 

[T.A.M.]

My whole point, when this grandious statement is brought up, which it VERY OFTEN IS, is that it needs to be refined...

"No Steel Framed Building has ever collapsed due to fire." should be changed to,

"No Steel Framed Skyscraper has ever completely collapsed due to fire alone." and that I might accept as a statement of fact...might, if it turns out the two buildings they mention in the study are (1) Not skyscrapers, and (2) did not COMPLETELY collapse.

TAM

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The evidence of thermite is from Jones, as you know. Molten iron, with all sorts of entrained exotic chemicals. Can any of you link me to a nice refutation of Steven Jones? I will read it.

His evidence refutes itself how did he transform A36 structural steel into, Stainless steel with Chromium.
Everything he found is used in the manufacture of steel, and the sulfur in a building flooded in high sulfur fuels and items come on it is laughable!

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2003/37/i16/abs/es030356l.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese

Should I go on all the compound that Dr. Jones found are trace elements common in steel.

 

[jskowron]

I originally brought up the Concorde crash to provide an example of a Strawman Argument similar to what the truthseeker1234 was proposing with the "no skyscraper collapse from fire" post. It is interesting to see how, a mere 30 minutes later, there start to be point-counterpoint posts about the Concorde crash. That is how these strawman arguments can get out of hand.

Arguments about WTC turn into arguments about something else, distracting from the fact that one unique event (2 simultaneously hijacked planes), inflicted upon a unique building complex (the twin WTC towers) led to a unique consequence (total collapse of two skyscrapers due to a combination of compromised structural integrity[damage form planes] and weakened components [steel strength compromised by fire]). Unique things occur. Again, To prove that the WTC collapsed due to fire, and was the only steel skyscraper to ever completely fail in such a manner, would not lend any more or less support to the CT idea that the official story is untrue.

 

[Architect]

Of course fire can make buildings collapse. Fire can burn a wooden framed building into ash.

Just a passing observation which might astound your average CTer with their intuitive logic (haha), but in actual fact under some circumstances large section structural timbers have better fire ratings than steel. So there.

I'm sure some of you can work out why, answers on the back of a postcard to.....




Damn: I see someone already covered that.

 

[Architect]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.

Truth, you're going to have to stop calling it "steel reinforced concrete". It's just plain old reinforced concrete. It doesn't get reinforced with anything else. All the steel is doing is taking the tension load (concrete being crap in those loadings). It's also typically AT LEAST 50-75mm from the finished face. Basically, it's pretty damned fireproof.

I have to also say that the detailing is easier.

 

[WildCat]

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

If there are any examples of steel framed skyscrapers, we're still waiting.

A primer for you.

 

[kookbreaker]

Just a passing observation which might astound your average CTer with their intuitive logic (haha), but in actual fact under some circumstances large section structural timbers have better fire ratings than steel. So there.

I'm sure some of you can work out why, answers on the back of a postcard to.....


Damn: I see someone already covered that.

Bwahahaha!

 

[Arus808]

Arus questioned

First, explosives did go off while the fires were burning.

considering that there was no evidence of explosives, how do you come to this conclusion?

Dont confuse explosions being any indication that there are explosives. As we all know, in an average office setting, there are numerous items that can "explode" if subjected to intense heat, and that includes your computer.

Whether these were intentional or accidental is an interesting question. Second, explosives can be fireproofed, and set off by remote control.

Please provide proof of this claim. Every detonation expert disagrees that you can make explosives fireproof, and always state "keep away from open flame".

Third, it appears that a variety of substances were used. It appears that some form of thermite was used as an incindiary to weaken the structure. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite, requiring tempertures beyond hydrocarbon fires. Then it appears some type of high explosives finished the job.

Since there was no evidence of thermit,e how do you deduce that thermite was there (considering that 2 of the main three substances in thermite were missing).

 

[steve s]

Third, it appears that a variety of substances were used. It appears that some form of thermite was used as an incindiary to weaken the structure. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite, requiring tempertures beyond hydrocarbon fires. Then it appears some type of high explosives finished the job.

Please cite a single example of a controlled demolition in which Thermite was used to weaken a building and then high explosives were used to "finish the job." Just one example will do.

You can't, because it's never been done that way. Why? Because high explosives are more than sufficient to do the job. This obsession with Thermite is ridiculous.

Steve S.

 

[steve s]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. This makes it more resistant to fire, not less. When trying to heat up part of an interconneted steel structure, heat is wicked away to the connected parts.

Steel reinforced concrete is not a steel frame. Concrete is a much poorer conductor of heat than steel, therfore more vulnerable to heat. Even so, none, none of these examples produced observations anything like 9/11. I will gladly look at pictures to see if any of those concrete structures underwent total collapse a la 9/11.

Not only are you wrong on both counts but you have it completely backwards. Something that is a poor conductor of heat is called an insulator, and is less vulnerable to heat, not more. The fireproofing material that was sprayed on the beams of the WTC is an example of an insulator.

The fact that you can't even get this most basic fact correct leads me to conclude that you're either abysmally stupid or a troll trying to stir up trouble. Either way, please leave us alone.

Steve S.

 

[Z]

1) If explosives were present, workers in the office would have noticed. The only situation in which office workers would NOT have noticed, is if the explosives were planted and then concealed while the office workers were not present.

Since workers were present nearly continuously, there was no opportunity to plant explosives. Before you bring up the alleged power-down in the one tower - only ever mentioned by this one person, never by any corroberative evidence - the time required to plant sufficient explosives, then disguise them, has been estimated at 6-9 days.

The only other opportunity would be during the late '60s - early '70s. Given the maximum shelf life of explosives at 25 years (and that's being GENEROUS), by 9.11 nearly all the explosives would have either been completely inert, or completely unstable.

(And, no, concrete does not make a better sealant than the original packaging this stuff comes in... Concrete is quite porous, you know.)

Therefore, no explosives were used in the Twin Towers.

2) Apparently, you are clueless about fire resistance and heat conduction. Ability to conduct heat is a bad thing in a structure - unless you've specifically made heat sinks. However, steel expands, softens, warps, etc. under intense heat - and if that steel is attached to rigid members, you can just imagine what it does to the whole structure. Concrete, on the other hand, is much less susceptible to heat precisely because concrete does NOT expand, soften, warp, etc. under intense heat.

3) Some buildings have suffered total collapse, even without fire. Even without earthquakes. Without vehicle impacts, or any other traumatic event.

Recently, I saw a special about a building in Asia (I believe) - a bank, with concrete support columns. This building suffered no trauma whatsoever, but spontaneously suffered total collapse one day. Why?

Because the building was constructed without taking into account proper dead load. It was strong enough to support loads for many years, but over time, micro fractures occured throughout the columns. Eventually, one column cracked.

That crack shifted the load to nearby columns, causing two other columns to collapse. This caused further load shifting, and seconds later, all columns collapsed.

Regardless of the fire on 9.11, the building had a large number of its supports knocked out, shifting the remaining load over to those columns that remained. That load would eventually lead to collapse - maybe in 10 minutes, maybe in 10 years, but eventually, those loads would have caused total structural failure. That there was a fire only shortened the time the remaining members could survive.

Even wind shear in the gaping hole left by the planes could have been enough, at any time, to shift mass and cause structural failure of the remaining beams.

The fact is, it's a wonder the structures remained standing as long as they did.