• 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.

If "partial collapse" is POSSIBLE why is "complete collapse" IMPOSSIBLE?

CHF said:
Indeed, the "it's never happened before" argument sounds pretty silly coming from people who believe that 9/11 also featured...

- the first top-down demolitions

The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

Not quite true you realize that?
 
LastChild said:
It was big enough to carry 94 people.

Fast enough to take off and it was full of fuel and it hit a gas station next door to the Apt building it bounced off of. So there was no shortage of fuel.

Evidently much smaller but for some reason much stronger then the WTC. And it suffered no collapse at all.
Click to expand...
Do you understand how dumb your post was.

If you have any knowledge of physics you would. You must of made a mistake. No one is this research challenged, you must be kidding; joking; I hope.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Not quite true you realize that?
Click to expand...

Oh that's right....there's that video of a 3-4 story barn being taken down from the top, which twoofers think means the WTC was as well.

Allow me to rephrase then...the first ever top-down demolition of a skyscraper.

The rest of my list was OK though, yes?

BTW Swing - how did you translate Romero's "it is possible" to mean "it happened?"
 
CHF said:
Oh that's right....there's that video of a 3-4 story barn being taken down from the top, which twoofers think means the WTC was as well.

Allow me to rephrase then...the first ever top-down demolition of a skyscraper.

The rest of my list was OK though, yes?

BTW Swing - how did you translate Romero's "it is possible" to mean "it happened?"
Click to expand...

Is that the casino? That was done after 9/11, so your list would be intact. Is there another one?
 
Disbelief said:
Is that the casino? That was done after 9/11, so your list would be intact. Is there another one?
Click to expand...

I'm only aware of some barn-type building (at least that's what it looked like) being blown from the top...
 
LastChild said:
Fast enough to take off
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Now you're just being dishonest.

And apparently:

Myriad said:
Only one wing of the plane hit the building.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that kinda knock out your silly analogy ?

Yeah I can. But for some reason you can't even find one that even remotely compares to what it is you claimed to have happened on 9/11.

Why is that?
Click to expand...

Lastchild, why is it that truthers always think that lying for the truth is not an oxymoron ?

No buiding of the towers' size had collapsed before 9/11. That you interpret that as some sort of proof that it's impossibel for such towers to collapse is your problem, not mine.
 
LastChild said:
And I'm waiting for you to provide an example of a high-rise that has suffered global collapse because of anything other then explosives.

What's the holdup?
Click to expand...

Yet another "gotcha" moment, sponsored by the Twooftm.

If you can't find a similar scenario, why do you expect to get similar results ?
 
LastChild said:
Why don't you ask aggle? lol
Click to expand...

Again, so you cannot answer them?



LC said:
Was the fire on 9/11 now raging through the entire building? Because it was the entire building that collapsed correct? And the op of this thread was talking about fire correct? Why does the op of this thread contain a picture of the Windsor building? Was it hit by a plane too?
Click to expand...

How big was the floor space in the twins and how many floors on fire
 
LastChild said:
Yeah I can. But for some reason you can't even find one that even remotely compares to what it is you claimed to have happened on 9/11.

Why is that?
Click to expand...

Here you go again.

_39786301_picgallcollapseap.jpg


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm
 
In response to all the derails about "first time in history"/"never happened before" I have bumped this old thread.

Put all discussion of "never happened before" in that thread. This thread is solely to focus on the question:

If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building?
 
JHarrow said:
You don't know what a tall building is? Good grief!
Click to expand...
Evasion noted.

Tall is relative. A twenty story building is quite tall compared to a one story building, but is not when compared to a fifty story building.

So, what is your definition of a tall building? Is it a relative definition (i.e. so many stories taller than surrounding buildings) or is it an objective definition (i.e. any building with forty or more stories)?
 
Belz... said:
:rolleyes:


Lastchild, why is it that truthers always think that lying for the truth is not an oxymoron ?

No buiding of the towers' size had collapsed before 9/11. That you interpret that as some sort of proof that it's impossibel for such towers to collapse is your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

Said it before and I'll say it again; When will the twoofers contemplate just how much progress they have made?
It shows in the effort made toward getting that "new independent investigation".
The definition of progress does not describe the twoof movement.
The definition of regress describes the twoof movement perfectly.

I would suggest twoofers check definitions for PART and ALL...And read 1337's question again.
 
Last edited:
Where's Max Photon when you need him? He's the only "Truther" I've ever encountered who can actually answer a direct question without derailing. Maybe he could teach Child, Harrow, and Swing how it's done.


(then again, given Max's unique theory about 9/11, he probably agrees with me on this one)
 
funk de fino said:
Here you go again.

[qimg]http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39786000/jpg/_39786301_picgallcollapseap.jpg[/qimg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm

"The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors

Sources said the blaze possibly started in a cellar storing flammable materials, causing several explosions.. "

What's your next comparison a controlled demolition?
 
LastChild said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm

"The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors

Sources said the blaze possibly started in a cellar storing flammable materials, causing several explosions.. "

What's your next comparison a controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

You tell me, LC.

After all, we all know that "explosions = controlled demoliton," right? So I guess the building in Cairo was a CD to cover up....something.
 
The question:

1337m4n said:
If fire can destroy PART of a building why can it not destroy ALL of a building?
Click to expand...

The answer:

LastChild said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm

"The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors

Sources said the blaze possibly started in a cellar storing flammable materials, causing several explosions.. "

What's your next comparison a controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

Once again, this doesn't answer the question. In fact, it doesn't address the question in any way.

Are you having trouble understanding the question? Would you like someone to explain it to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom