Belz Has Front Page News!

[TruthSeeker1234]

Estimated time frame of collapses

Time Collapse Situation 1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed 1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed 1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor 2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed 2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed 3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor 3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor 4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible. A closer look at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these were a fraction of the dimensions, and spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building. [SIZE=-1] 4 [/SIZE]
The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire:

• The lack of a sprinkler system
• Incorrect installation of spandrels
• The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain

[SIZE=-1] 5 [/SIZE] The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

The Meridian Plaza fire directly contradicts your above claim. The steel portion of the structure collapsed from fire; the concrete core of the lower structure did not.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

 

[Bell]

TroofSeeker1234, you STILL didn't answer my post:

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.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.

the gradual and partial collapses were due mainly to the concrete core, which did not collapse, as we already discussed earlier concrete is LESS vunerable to fire than steel, and thus more likely to remain standing

fireproofing: the impact of the planes knocked off the fireproofing in the WTC

sprinklers: the impacts of the planes cut the sprinkler lines so fire suppression was inoperative on floors that were on fire

prevention: you can prevent all you want, but 10,000 pounds of jet fuel is probably going to burn no matter what

 

[defaultdotxbe]

TroofSeeker1234, you STILL didn't answer my post:

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.

he hasnt told me what "exotic chemicals" jones found either

 

[WildCat]

he hasnt told me what "exotic chemicals" jones found either

Isn't that what Brazilian women rub on their bronzed bodies at the beach in Ipanema?

 

[Mince]

Truth, quick question.

Are you under the impression that fire has no effect whatsoever upon steel? That if left unchecked, a fire of any size would do nothing to the strength or integrity of the steel?

Just trying to get a bearing on where you're coming from.

If you don't mind, I'd like to expand your argument a bit. All of the past building fires to which deniers connect are all missing one crucial element: the structural compromise caused by damage to the building other than the fire, i.e. the two plane crashes and building 7's collateral damage.

 

[Bell]

Isn't that what Brazilian women rub on their bronzed bodies at the beach in Ipanema?

Note to self:

Book vacation at Ipanema, Brazil.

 

[CptColumbo]

Nevermind

 

[DavidJames]

he hasnt told me what "exotic chemicals" jones found either

Like every looser before him, he responds selectively, ignoring what he can't (or won't) answer. When he does respond it rarely addresses the point(s) being made.

He clearly has read nothing but CT related information. Realizing he was way over his head technically, he quickly abandon any pretense of analytical debate in favor of post spamming of others data. Of course, he cares not that the data is selectively produced by people unqualified (or unwilling) to understand the details.

In other words, he is a garden variety CTist. A CT mongrel or tabby, who fashions himself as so much more.

With apologies to owners of mongrel or tabby's everywhere.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

A CT mongrel or tabby

darn you, now im gonna feel bad for throwing rocks at him

..poor little kitty...

 

[CptColumbo]

TS-If you look at this photo of WTC 2's east face, you will notice some bowing of the columns. What do you think caused that?

 

[Loss Leader]

It doesn't matter what you write. This is this shmendrick's pattern. As I have said on other threads:

It goes like this:

1. Make a lunatic assertion about a detail of 9/11 with no evidence.
2. Offer some links to pictures.
3. Become exceptionally beligerant.
4. Make an unwarranted analogy with no evidence.
5. Deflect attention away from yourself by demanding that others offer information about your analogy (Holocaust, NSA, whatever).
6. Make a new lunatic assertion, possibly in another thread.

We're currently on point 5. Rather than debate anything that he has brought up about the WTC, shmendrick1234's tactic now is to demand that we produce evidence of some offshoot of his main argument.

And still he has not told us his theory of exactly what happened to bring down the towers - who planted what at what times, what happened to the planes, who ran things, etc. He hasn't told us because he has no theory. He just has the 6 steps which he repeats over and over. Why? Because he's a shmendrick.

 

[Bell]

TS-If you look at this photo of WTC 2' east face, you will notice some bowing of the columns. What do you think caused that?

Also, watch this video, which beside is shocking, also shows the buckling:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=wtc+church&hl=en

 

[Mince]

It doesn't matter what you write. This is this shmendrick's pattern. As I have said on other threads:

It goes like this:

1. Make a lunatic assertion about a detail of 9/11 with no evidence.
2. Offer some links to pictures.
3. Become exceptionally beligerant.
4. Make an unwarranted analogy with no evidence.
5. Deflect attention away from yourself by demanding that others offer information about your analogy (Holocaust, NSA, whatever).
6. Make a new lunatic assertion, possibly in another thread.

We're currently on point 5. Rather than debate anything that he has brought up about the WTC, shmendrick1234's tactic now is to demand that we produce evidence of some offshoot of his main argument.

And still he has not told us his theory of exactly what happened to bring down the towers - who planted what at what times, what happened to the planes, who ran things, etc. He hasn't told us because he has no theory. He just has the 6 steps which he repeats over and over. Why? Because he's a shmendrick.

Ya, gotta like the argument:

Your failure to disprove A, proves A.

"Ya, well I saw Superman bring down building 7. Prove me wrong."
"Well, gee, I can't."
"Ha ha, see, I told you, you freakin' BushBot."

 

[LashL]

First, explosives did go off while the fires were burning. Whether these were intentional or accidental is an interesting question. Second, explosives can be fireproofed, and set off by remote control. 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.

Evidence, please, of "explosives going off while the fires were burning".
Evidence, please, of said explosives being "fireproofed".
Evidence, please, that "a variety of substances were used".
Evidence, please, that thermite was used.
Evidence, please, of "high explosives" being used to "finish the job".

 

[apathoid]

TS-If you look at this photo of WTC 2's east face, you will notice some bowing of the columns. What do you think caused that?

Squibs.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ya, gotta like the argument:

Your failure to disprove A, proves A.

"Ya, well I saw Superman bring down building 7. Prove me wrong."
"Well, gee, I can't."
"Ha ha, see, I told you, you freakin' BushBot."

Ah yes, good old

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

 

[apathoid]

TS-If you look at this photo of WTC 2's east face, you will notice some bowing of the columns. What do you think caused that?

Here are a few shots which also illustrate the bowing.

I guess all these were photoshopped by Val McClatchey. Shame on her, where is Killtown when you need him.