• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split From Dick Oliver thread

Profanz said:
Steel structured high-rises do not completely fall down because of fire. That's it. If someone is going to claim this ridiculous assertion they need to back it up a little better than what's been offered up thus far. It doesn't happen. That's it.
Click to expand...

ah... a gussied up first time in history claim.

I love that cannard.

Prior to 1945, no city had been destroyed by a single bomb. First time in history in Hiroshima... it must have been fake.

Prior to 1961 no man had ever been into outerspace by a rocket. Yuri Gagarin did it. it must be fake.

do I need to continue? Or will you admit that there are often lots of "first time in history" events, or are they all fake? Hmmm?

We know the properties of steel in fires, and we have examples of other steel framed buildings collapsing in fire... it is just not a steel framed skyscraper... why is that?

Again and again, I"m sure you have dozens of (if not hundreds) peer reviewed engineering journals from around the world which shows that it is impossible for steel framed buildings to collapse due to fire. Right? Just one. I"m not asking you to cure cancer, just show me the science.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Yeah that's right. Not. You people really are lame. You think I can't read how you people got your butts kicked before and who did it? Is everyone who comes here and makes you cry the same person? How pathetic. Maybe I'm this guy too.

This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building,

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,”

Is that your story or not? First time ever. Never before. Never again. Give it up. Last child, Apollo, Pdoh, zensack , countless others are all the same person. Sleep tight. I guess you're all Dr. Adequate, enigma, pomero, bannanaman. Maybe I should just start accusing you all of being those people every time I'm getting owned. The problem is that wouldn't be very often around here.

You got a problem? Tell it to forum management.
 
Profanz said:
Is that your story or not? First time ever. Never before. Never again.
Click to expand...


I've pointed out before that no building the size of WTC7 or larger has ever been demolished using explosives, either. So where does that leave the inside jobbers in your opinion?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I've pointed out before that no building the size of WTC7 or larger has ever been demolished using explosives, either. So where does that leave the inside jobbers in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Well it's not safe. Lots of collateral damage. It can't really be controlled. There was no concern for that no matter who did 9/11. In any case were the buildings planned to be there forever? Someday some of the tall buildings in Manhattan will need to come down. Nothing lasts forever and it's prime real estate. Were they just going to dismantle the WTC towers someday? Must have been hoping for someone with very deep pockets. Insurance? Bailout? Armageddon?
 
Profanz said:
Were they just going to dismantle the WTC towers someday?
Click to expand...

Yes.

The Deutsche Bank Building located at 130 Liberty Street adjacent to the quarters of FDNY Engine 10, Ladder 10, was once a 40-story high-rise structure that had been systematically reduced to 26-stories at the time of the fire. Significant building contamination from numerous toxic substances that included asbestos and lead resulting from the destruction of the World Trade Center during the September 11th attacks required the deliberate floor-by-floor dismantling effort as part of the deconstruction process that would ultimately remove the building from its present site.
Click to expand...

http://commandsafety.com/tag/high-rise/
 
Profanz said:
Well it's not safe. Lots of collateral damage. It can't really be controlled. There was no concern for that no matter who did 9/11.
Click to expand...


Still, the fact remains that it has never happened before. Not once. And it hasn't happened since.

If that's your argument, you need to realize that it cuts both ways.


Were they just going to dismantle the WTC towers someday?
Click to expand...


Yes.
 
Profanz said:
Well it's not safe. Lots of collateral damage. It can't really be controlled. There was no concern for that no matter who did 9/11. In any case were the buildings planned to be there forever? Someday some of the tall buildings in Manhattan will need to come down. Nothing lasts forever and it's prime real estate. Were they just going to dismantle the WTC towers someday? Must have been hoping for someone with very deep pockets. Insurance? Bailout? Armageddon?
Click to expand...

You've identified some possible motives for alleged perps to stage a fake terrorist attack and then bring several WTC buildings down by fires and uncontrolled demolition (no one in their right mind would call the WTC towers 'controlled').

The problem is all you've got are some specious an vague allegations with no substance, which don't amount to anything of value. You can't charge anybody with a crime, since you have no evidence; so your allegations amount to nothing more than pointing a finger in the general direction of the 'government' in general, and screaming 'They done it! They done it!'.

It's frankly infantile. You can't succeed in a mission that has a false premise and that is based on ideas which are untrue. The only thing you might accomplish is to damage your own society and goverment, like the McCarthy anti-communists did, and like the witch-hunts and the Spanish Inquisition did.

You are doomed to cause harm to innocent people, all in the name of yet another fool's quest.

That's the best you'll ever do. The most desirable thing for your movement is for you to remain typing on obscure internet forums and accomplishing nothing. That way you do the least harm.
 
Profanz said:
This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building,

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,”

Is that your story or not? First time ever. Never before. Never again. Give it up.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's what happened.

Now then... Nothing can happen that never happened before.

Is that your story?
 
Profanz said:
That's all part of the same attacks. What was the plan before 9/11 when the towers got too old?
Click to expand...

Are you willing to consider that you're speculation is wrong, and that the towers fell due to fires?
Are you susceptible to evidence, or only speculation?
Can you respect any official inquiry into this subject?

Do you comprehend the implications if you're wrong?
Do you understand the concept of witch-hunts and other such human disorders of thought and action?
 
Profanz said:
Y

This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building,
Click to expand...


Illogical. By this denial nothing could ever happen for the first time.

Ignores the actual causality of the building collapses. Presumes (incorrectly) that all official inquiries are fake, without understanding the actual engineering analysis.

That's a basic logical fallacy protected by layers of denial.

Requires denial of these basic facts:

1) Large fires existed in WTC1, 2 and 7
2) Fires were not fought with water
3) Spray-on insulation was damaged or completely destroyed in areas which were then subjected to fire.
4) Steel structure can be weakened by fire, esp. if insulation is removed or compromised.
5) Conditions for failure of buildings did exist.
6) Those circumstances were sufficient to cause global collapse of 3 buildings in one day.

Avoidance of this basic fact: Steel buildings can fail due to fire.

The abstract concept that nothing which hasn't happened already can happen in the future is irrelevant to the actual circumstances of 9/11.
It is also irrelevant to engineering. Failure can happen in ways which are not fully anticipated.

Those points are at the heart of your inability/unwillingness to accept reality.
 
alienentity said:
You've identified some possible motives for alleged perps to stage a fake terrorist attack and then bring several WTC buildings down by fires and uncontrolled demolition (no one in their right mind would call the WTC towers 'controlled').

The problem is all you've got are some specious an vague allegations with no substance, which don't amount to anything of value. You can't charge anybody with a crime, since you have no evidence; so your allegations amount to nothing more than pointing a finger in the general direction of the 'government' in general, and screaming 'They done it! They done it!'.

It's frankly infantile. You can't succeed in a mission that has a false premise and that is based on ideas which are untrue. The only thing you might accomplish is to damage your own society and goverment, like the McCarthy anti-communists did, and like the witch-hunts and the Spanish Inquisition did.

You are doomed to cause harm to innocent people, all in the name of yet another fool's quest.

That's the best you'll ever do. The most desirable thing for your movement is for you to remain typing on obscure internet forums and accomplishing nothing. That way you do the least harm.
Click to expand...

Frankly, your OCT makes no sense at all. I wish it could graduate to even infantile one day but it's just too ridiculous. You just keep coming here and wondering why you are so fascinated by what you claim to know is already an open and shut case. But...

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much,"

But I guess that's just a coincidence too huh?
 
Profanz said:
Frankly, your OCT makes no sense at all. I wish it could graduate to even infantile one day but it's just too ridiculous. You just keep coming here and wondering why you are so fascinated by what you claim to know is already an open and shut case. But...

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much,"

But I guess that's just a coincidence too huh?
Click to expand...

If you're going to quote Shakespeare you should do it right and learn what the line means.

At any rate, your personal incredulity simply doesn't carry enough weight to overturn the evidence.

ETA: Why is it that truthers find it odd that people who don't believe the government is lying about 9/11 will come to forums and discuss and debunk truther theories, yet believing that the the government is lying about 9/11 and doing little more than coming to the same forums and insisting that the government is lying makes sense?
 
Last edited:
Profanz said:
Frankly, your OCT makes no sense at all. I wish it could graduate to even infantile one day but it's just too ridiculous. You just keep coming here and wondering why you are so fascinated by what you claim to know is already an open and shut case. But...

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much,"

But I guess that's just a coincidence too huh?
Click to expand...

I'm not following the OCT regarding building collapses and advanced forensic engineering. Engineering is not a conspiracy theory; actually the physical properties of steel and other materials are understood through scientific analysis.

That's why you can never successfully show that steel buildings cannot fail under the circumstances they experienced on 9/11, or elsewhere - through science.
All you can do is say 'I don't believe science' and then scream 'They done it'.

You're taking an anti-intellectual approach to a scientific problem, so you're always going to lose the debate in knowledgeable circles.
I get that you don't understand or don't wish to understand - but that makes you weak, not strong. It also makes your arguments scientifically insignificant and ignorant.

Since you've decided to base your position on a logical fallacy - 'that which hasn't happened cannot happen' you are doomed to fail. I'm just sayin'.

But your arguments are scientifically meaningless. Do you even care? I doubt it..
 
Profanz, please prove, using engineering science, why a steel building cannot collapse due to fire.

Please, enlighten us if you can. Show us that fire cannot weaken steel to the point of failure. I'm talking about normal office fires reaching expected temps of 1100 celsius, just like they do in controlled conditions.

Perhaps you'd also like to explain why steel has to be protected from fire, and how spray-on fireproofing is irrelevant to the WTC collapses.

I'd be very interested in your learned ideas. Maybe you have some knowledge that nobody has yet discovered.
 
Profanz, if you dare, can you also show, using engineering and mathematics, why the NIST LS-DYNA model of WTC7 is invalid.

Please offer your own detailed engineering model as proof.

If you don't feel like doing that kind of due diligence, then carry on with your empty arguments from incredulity. I'm sure the engineering community will continue to ignore you and your kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom