Circularity of the "never happened before" argument

peteweaver said:
'Scuse me for stating the obvious, but what about the corner of it which failed due to gas explosion & collapsed?!! :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

What about it? I think more then one corner on one building collapsed on 9/11 and they weren't exactly cheap piece of crap prefab low cost construction either.
 
lapman said:
Yet the first claim was that no steel building has ever suffered global collapse from fire.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim that.


lapman said:
The Kader Toy Factory fire is shown, you then move the goal posts and say high-rise building.
Click to expand...

No not just that. There was no fire proofing and it wasn't even yet repaired from a previous fire and the entire building was engulfed in flames. This does not compare in any way to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11. It is only pointed to for lack of any real comparison.


lapman said:
Yet no high-rise building has ever had a top-down controlled demolition performed on it, yet that's ok because a 4 story, completely stripped building did. It has been shown that steel structures do not hold up well to fires. You just won't accept that.
Click to expand...

You just won't accept that a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top of a sky scraper has never caused an entire building to turn into a pile of smoking rubble and dust. And never has happened and it never will. That's why you are left pointing to third world toy factories and highway overpasses.
 
LastChild said:
You just won't accept that a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top of a sky scraper has never caused an entire building to turn into a pile of smoking rubble and dust. And never has happened and it never will. That's why you are left pointing to third world toy factories and highway overpasses.
Click to expand...

You just won't accept that no other buildings were hit as hard by structural damage and fire. I understand mind you. It would suck to dedicate my life to a cause that wasn't going anywhere and never will.

Then again you're just posting on websites playing "inforwarrior". CoX is much more fun.
 
Redtail said:
You just won't accept that no other buildings were hit as hard by structural damage and fire. I understand mind you. It would suck to dedicate my life to a cause that wasn't going anywhere and never will.

Then again you're just posting on websites playing "inforwarrior". CoX is much more fun.
Click to expand...

Why would I have to accept that when I've already shown it not to be true? Skyscrapers have been hit by jets, missiles, earthquakes, much worse files, you name it, and they never wound up looking like what happen 3 times on 9/11 for two different reasons.
 
Last edited:
LastChild said:
Why would I have to accept that when I've already shown it not to be true? Skyscrapers have been hit by jets, missiles, earthquakes, much worse files, you name it, and they never wound up looking like what happen 3 times on 9/11 for two different reasons.
Click to expand...

I don't recall any skyscrapers being hit by large passenger jets going as fast as possible resulting in massive fires, could you post that info please?

Oh and the info about the missiles the size of a 767 that hit the skyscrapers packed with incendaries.

Oh and the ones that were hit by earthquakes and massive fires near the top of the buildings.

I mean this would be good info.
 
Redtail said:
I don't recall any skyscrapers being hit by large passenger jets going as fast as possible resulting in massive fires, could you post that info please?

.
Click to expand...

The 747 that hit the German apartment building did in fact collapse the part of the building it hit. If Last Child wants to say it did not collapse the entire structure then it will illustrate once again how very bad at this he is.

That apartment building was a very wide complex more akin to the Pentagon's style than the towers or WTC 7.
 
You just won't accept that a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top of a sky scraper has never caused an entire building to turn into a pile of smoking rubble and dust. And never has happened and it never will. That's why you are left pointing to third world toy factories and highway overpasses.
Click to expand...

You just won't accept that this confluence of structural insults has never happened before.

It is obvious, even using that vaunted intellectual weapon of the Truth Movers, 'common sense' that significant structural damage will be done to any building hit by an aircraft moving at 450-500 MPH. Therefore that structure starts out with significant compromise to its structural system as fires attack it. We know for fact that heat weakens steel. We know for fact that creep will shorten columns and that floors will sag.

Thus you now illustrate for us the point made in the OP of this thread.
 
LastChild said:
Skyscrapers have been hit by jets, missiles, earthquakes, much worse files, you name it, and they never wound up looking like what happen 3 times on 9/11 for two different reasons.
Click to expand...
Note the bolded part. Please list all the cases of skyscrapers being hit by jets prior to 9/11 and the specific details of each incident. Offhand, I don't recall any such cases prior to 9/11, but perhaps there have been a few that I am not aware of.

I do recall the case of the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building, but that was a piston-engined aircraft, as was the aircraft which was flown into the building in Tampa and Corey Lidle's crash in New York.

A piston-engined aircraft is most certainly not a jet.
 
Last edited:
Lastchild: Re-read my OP. Your entire argument is a fallacy of circular logic. Do you dispute that?
 
Last edited:
nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse in the manner it did in several hours.
Click to expand...

1337m4n said:
Is it your claim that the members of the FDNY are not rational people?

Is it your claim the the demolition experts of Protec are not rational people?
Click to expand...

Bump for this as well.
 
The retort to this argument can be much more basic.

There's a first time for everything. End of discussion.
 
Tippit said:
There is a link in this forum to ... a New York city fireman, where there was a consensus that fire caused building 7 to collapse...I don't believe, nor do I understand how any rational, skeptical person would believe that that is what caused the building to collapse...
Click to expand...

Those dumb ol' firemen, eh? Irrational and credulous. What do they know about fires making buildings collapse?
 
Corsair 115 said:
I do recall the case of the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building, but that was a piston-engined aircraft, as was the aircraft which was flown into the building in Tampa and Corey Lidle's crash in New York.

.
Click to expand...

The largest of those three would be the B25 and it's max weight about the same as the mass of a fuel load on a 757 and it flew into the ESB at a speed roughly equivalent to the landing speed of a 757 while trying to climb.
 
LastChild said:
I didn't claim that.
Click to expand...
I thought that was you. My bad
No not just that. There was no fire proofing and it wasn't even yet repaired from a previous fire and the entire building was engulfed in flames. This does not compare in any way to what is claimed to have happened on 9/11. It is only pointed to for lack of any real comparison.
Click to expand...
The fire proofing was supposedly removed from the steel by the crash. So it would be a fair comparison.
You just won't accept that a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top of a sky scraper has never caused an entire building to turn into a pile of smoking rubble and dust. And never has happened and it never will. That's why you are left pointing to third world toy factories and highway overpasses.
Click to expand...
Then again, there has never been a skyscraper that has suffered the damage and fires the WTC did. Don't quote the Empire State Building crash. The fire and damage was nowhere near what the towers suffered and they had that fire under control in 19 minutes.
 
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/B-25_bomber

The kinetic energy of the 767 was approx 120 times greater than the kinetic energy of the B25.

Despite this one engine of the B25 did travel through the ESB and land accross the opposite street.
The B25 was carrying approx 125 gallons of fuel while the 767 was carrying approx 10,000 gallons of fuel IIRC.
Despite this the B25 crash ignited fire accross the 79th floor and as far down as the 75th floor. Given that there was 80 times more fuel dumped in the WTC towers one could expect a much greater spread of fire in the building.



,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but then you knew all of this Last Child because you have been told this before, likely again and again, and again.

ETA: I see that I typed "757" in the previous post,,, my bad.
 
Last edited:
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