Belz Has Front Page News!

[R.Mackey]

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.

Good grief, I hadn't seen those. That is huge.

Remember, steel hits its plastic deformation limit at about 3% strain. THREE PERCENT. If you can see it, it's bad.

I've always thought the WTC towers performed very, very well, myself. If I ever had the chance to meet their architect, I should have wanted to shake his hand.

 

[Kent1]

Here are a few shots which also illustrate the bowing.

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht2.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/bow2.jpg[/qimg]



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

If you like that last shot you'll love a larger pic of the whole shot.

http://www.pbase.com/bankst/image/35931732&exif=Y

 

[Dog Town]

Can't say that I like anything about that shot! But I understand!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

another important thing to note in that pic is the size of the fires, neithe rmoderate nor "going out"

 

[R.Mackey]

Can't say that I like anything about that shot! But I understand!

Roger that. It's not the kind of thing I like. But if you look at that and think "that building can stay standing indefinitely," you're fooling yourself.

 

[Kent1]

Roger that. It's not the kind of thing I like. But if you look at that and think "that building can stay standing indefinitely," you're fooling yourself.

Good point.

 

[gumboot]

Belz was responding to my statement, which was that fire does not cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse.

That was not your statement. You said fire cannot cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse.

Big difference.

By the way...

The Kader Toy Factory Fire

-Andrew

 

[kookbreaker]

Run away, little lieseeker, run away. Those pesky facts will never catch you if you keep running away.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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?

OK. ... IF you will have the intellectual honesty to admit that 100% of the steel-framed skyscrapers ever hit by large airliners have collapsed.

After all, that is our true reference, ehh?

In fact, I'm pretty sure we could extend that to be: 100% of the buildings ever suffering direct hits by proportionally large aircraft have suffered catastrophic structurla failure.

Hans

 

[Skibum]

In fact, I'm pretty sure we could extend that to be: 100% of the buildings ever suffering direct hits by proportionally large aircraft have suffered catastrophic structurla failure.

I wouldn't extend it that far, after all the Empire State Building is still around.

 

[Belz...]

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.

So what ?

Are steel buildings impervious to fire damage ?

Obviously not, because that Madrid building, AGAIN, had its steel components collapse while the concrete stayed in place. Replace that concrete with more steel, and what do you get ?

I'd really like to see your answer to this, seeing as how you keep dodging it when I bring it up.

 

[Belz...]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. This makes it more resistant to fire, not less.

WHAT ?

Still wating for any examples from the 100+ year history of steel skyscrapers and fire. Any collapses? Any? Hello? Is this thing on?

Fire, planes. Don't forget the 767s.

I thought Belz was asserting that. Now, true he said "buildings", not "steel framed skyscrapers". But he said it in response to my statement about "steel framed skyscrapers".

So, if you ask me if I like chocolate and I answer "I like ice cream", does that make "ice cream" a subset of "chocolate" ?

Suppose there were 10's of thousands of Concorde supersonic jets, not just a few. Suppose we had a 100 year history of Concorde jets taking off with no landing gear problems. Then suppose not one, not two, but three jets all suffered landing gears falling off, all on the same day, all at the same airport. There's a much more valid comparison.

Except the WTC didn't "just" collapse, did it ?

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.

Aside from the fact that this is conjecture of the worst kind, thermite burns DOWN. How many times must I say this ?

 

[Belz...]

Here are a few shots which also illustrate the bowing.

Ow! Hadn't seen it that way, before. That's impressive.

 

[Mancman]

Actually, the 1st interstate bank building in Los Angeles is quite like the twin towers - square footprint, tube-within-a-tube steel superstructure, 67 stories.
3 1/2 hour fire, far hotter than WTC, as evidenced by breaking windows. No breaking windows from heat at WTC.

Ahhh, I wondered how long it would take you to pull the windows fallacy out of your hat. You should read the NIST reports, they really do contain alot of information. What do you make of the following table and text?

NISTNCSTAR1-5Achap1-8Draft, page 232.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, the 1st interstate bank building in Los Angeles is quite like the twin towers - square footprint, tube-within-a-tube steel superstructure, 67 stories.
3 1/2 hour fire, far hotter than WTC, as evidenced by breaking windows. No breaking windows from heat at WTC.

Oh? What then are all those holes from which flames and smoke is seen belching? Toilet vents?

Seriously, TS1234, by now you should know that you need to do better than that, around here. Maybe there are forums where you can get away with that kind of nonsense, but this is not one of them. At least do put in some effort, OK?

Hans

 

[Loss Leader]

I've always thought the WTC towers performed very, very well, myself. If I ever had the chance to meet their architect, I should have wanted to shake his hand.

They were a marvel of engineering, that's true. However, the architect's decision to anchor the floors to a core rather than a more traditional skeletal structure did make the buildings weaker than they could have been. It also made the buildings taller and more rentable and it was clearly sufficient for decades of day-to-day use. Second, while the architecture may have been excellent, evidence now points to poor construction and fireproofing by mafia-controlled firms which contributed (decades later) to the failure of the buildings.

My point? I don't really have one. I just wanted to prove I knew something about something.

 

[CptColumbo]

TS-I suggest you answer some of the above questions, before you create another thread and fall too far behind. We've answered your questions, so it's only fair.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I wouldn't extend it that far, after all the Empire State Building is still around.

a b25 hitting the ESB is not "proportionally as large" as a 767 hitting the WTC, i think the point is quite valid