• 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.

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper

bardamu said:
Historically, tall buildings do not totally collapse primarily due to fires.
Click to expand...

The Twin Towers didn't. The fires were only one of the initiating causes.

ETA: Neither did WTC 7, come to think about it. Even though the details were different, the design of all three buildings had a lot to do with why they collapsed. It wasn't just the fires.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
Historically, tall buildings do not totally collapse primarily due to fires.
Click to expand...

Obviously you've never been to a steel mill where they melt steel at over 2,600*F.

Steel Mills in the 19th Century used fire to extract the iron/steel out of the ore.

You really don't know your history do you?
 
well if tall buildings don't collapse from fire then obviously you'll never see partial collapses from it either, I imagine... if only the world were so simple :\
 
So I'm beginning to think that being a no planer is simply a way to rationalize the belief that the towers couldn't collapse. If you don't believe fully-laden airliners impacted the building, it's easier to claim they shouldn't have collapsed.

Talk about a woo woo circuit breaker...
 
bardamu said:
If you could crush 10 wire baskets by dropping another wire basket on top of them, what was all the fuss about?
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is showing again. It is rather amusing to watch. Feel free to look up SCALE. And now read about it.

I know reading isn't your strong suit. AGain, my wifes class will help.

The burden of proof is on whoever is making the extraordinary claims. Prior to 9/11, many tall buildings had been brought down using controlled demolition, whereas no tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof. Legal fail. Thank you.

Define tall building? I know of buildings that are 5 or 6 stories which have falled primarily due to fire... they are pretty damn tall.

Try again.

On top of that, Building 7 collapsed as would be expected in a well-planned controlled demolition. Claims that the building collapsed due to fire are very extraordinary indeed.
Click to expand...

YOu are very correct, except for the following FACTS (which destroy your claim)
1. how does a building that is "collapsed as would be expected in a well planned controlled demolition" manage to strike two adjacent buildings which are both across 30 foot wide streets on opposite sides of the building? How is that "well planned?"
2. how does a building that is "collapsed as would be expected in a well planned controlled demolition" manage to strike the ROOF of a building across the street causing a partial collapse of that building?
3. how does a building that is "collapsed as would be expected in a well planned controlled demolition" manage to be brought down silently
4. how does a building that is "collapsed as would be expected in a well planned controlled demolition" manage to get set up for CD with no one noticing?
5 how does a building that is "collapsed as would be expected in a well planned controlled demolition" manage to have explosives put in it?
6. how does a building that is "collapsed as would be expected in a well planned controlled demolition" manage have no debris that shows explosives were used?

I mean besides for those points.... na... you are just full of **** again.

arguments from ignorance noted. You should work on that... maybe take a class or two.
 
bardamu said:
We were talking about burden of proof, not whether something can or can't happen a first time. By arguing that the particular conditions were out of the ordinary, you're accepting that the event itself was extraordinary, which means the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

Ummm no.

YOu are the one claiming that NIST is wrong.
You are the one claiming that members of the US government murdered 3,000 citizens.

you are the one claiming there were no jets

PROVE IT.

nice attempt to shift shift shift... noted and rejected twoof. go back to school.
 
bardamu said:
Here's what NIST say:

"The collapse of WTC 7 was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."

Are you saying I'm dishonest because I didn't specify total collapse?
Click to expand...

On no.

I'm going to state that you are an intellectual dwarf, a mental midget who datamines quotes because you do not have the capacity to read for comprehension.

Try to read the REST OF THAT QUOTE. It should be easy.

Just like your BS about the "explosions" heard, or the rest of your datamined quotes.

READ FOR COMPREHENSION.

try again.
 
bardamu said:
Historically, tall buildings do not totally collapse primarily due to fires.
Click to expand...

Ah lovely...

The twoof trifecta... now we are back to the "first time in history" claims?

ROFLMAO.

prior to August 1945 no city had ever been destroyed by a single bomb... and then for the first time in history it happened... 2x. They must have been fake.

Prior to 1959 no person had ever gone into outerspace, but since then it has happened over a hundred times. Was it fake?

ROFLMAO.
 
Just to reiterate a point that seems to be getting illustrated spectacularly well....

Grizzly Bear said:
The claim itself is actually true; the conclusion truthers draw from this though is false. I could get specific about how fire protection (both passive and active mechanisms) helped with this success but bardamu's argument fails at the point where he contends that if something hasn't happened before it it cannot ever happen in the first place. There's also plenty of past examples where fire has caused the partial collapse of structures; however truthers have a tendency to be horribly inept at figuring out how the structural framing systems, and materials of construction, had roles in determining how significant the damage from such failures were. You will likely never have this kind of conversation with one seeing as how [these] individuals [like red, and Bardamu] like to avoid these issue like the bubonic plague
Click to expand...

If they want to say it has nothing to do with first times being impossible then usually it's pure unadulterated ignorance on the subject they're discussing :\

Like I told red earlier; anybody who considers a discussion concerning construction materials, fire protection, structural design, failures in protective systems as a direct result of the plane impacts and impediment of the city water mains is "convoluted nonsense" needs to re-examine why they're in any way shape or form trying to partake in any debate here. Saying that "historically buildings don't collapse from fire" is unacceptable; you need to be able to examine WHY many of these buildings survived and what circumstances were at play compared to the trade center complexes.

  • Have any other tall buildings had their sprinkler systems completely severed?
  • Have any other tall buildings had their passive fire protection severely compromised by a powerful impact load?
  • Have any other tall buildings had the above happen 80, 90 stories up, beyond the range of conventional firefighting?
  • Have any other tall buildings had 10,000 gallons of liquid accelerant slammed across several floors with a flash ignition of of the same several floors?
  • Have any other tall buildings had multiple failures in their active fire protection systems because of two other major collapse event damaging the infrastructure?

I'm willing to bet that bard, nor many other 9/11 conspiracy theorist have ever entered this kind of discussions with those kinds of questions in mind. :\
I think most who ask these questions will find that no prior example had ever been subjected to the same consitions as the WTC, and some still, had nowhere near the same inherent vulnerabilities either, especially if you start to included construction materials as a differentiating factor.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
To add to Grizzly's response, you can also turn this typical truther pretzel logic on itself:

There are examples of controlled demolitions which have failed (there's a really funny one where the entire building rolls upside down).

Using Truther Logic, if one had only seen one of these unsuccessful demolitions, you could argue that all buildings would behave the same way.
Of course it's not true in either case - Not all demolitions are identical: neither the methods nor the buildings are identical, so they do not behave the same way. Some work, others don't.

The favorite truther examples, like the Madrid building, are NOT the same kinds of structures that the WTC buildings were. There is no reason to expect them to behave in an identical way.

Red, are you listening?

Severe fires in tall steel-frame buildings are fairly rare, which makes for a small sample size, and finding a comparative sample for the WTC buildings is impossible - they were unique designs, and suffered unique damage.

If, by some fluke, another building with identical construction to WTC7 was somehow compromised in exactly the same way and DIDN'T collapse, then we'd have something concrete to go on. But we don't.

For those reasons alone, Red, your argument fails. It is an overly-simplistic idea, based on inadequate data. It is a faulty generalization.

Truthers, as believers in any number of conspiracy theories, tend to conflate those conspiracies together thinking that the pattern overrides the individual circumstances. So you get the progression; The Pearl Harbour attack MAY have been a LIHOP/the JFK assassination MAY have been a deeper conspiracy/George W Bush mislead the public about WMD's in Iraq, therefore he must have planned the 9/11 attacks or been part of a conspiracy to carry them out (LIHOP/MIHOP).

The problem is, none of those conspiracy allegations are proven, they're all conjecture....except for the part about Bush misleading the public about Iraq.

My truther colleague is all hot and bothered about the 'Global Warming Swindle' these days. So when you try to talk about WTC, he just replies, 'they're lying about global warming too!!'. And on it goes....
Click to expand...

I don't think global warming is a conspiracy at all. The earth is certainly warmer than it has been in years, polar ice is melting, and many scientists believe the effects are man made due to CO2 emissions. While it may not be entirely possible to be certain, given our limited weather records and not having a full cyclic history, it is only prudent to hedge on the conservative side and cut down emissions to at least a break even level. Hand waving it away could be catastrophic.

I don't see a connection here other than you trying to show that those who believe 911 was a conspiracy would think everything that is a bit murky is a conspiracy. The control for this is to base one's beliefs on evidence and there is certainly evidence that 911 was not what we were told and that the buildings were taken down intentionally.

Did you see Jesse Ventura's show tonight? Where are those black boxes from the planes that hit the towers?
 
WildCat said:
Are you a no-planer now Tony?
Click to expand...

Not at all, there is plenty of evidence for the aircraft hitting the buildings.

There are people who were there and say the black boxes were found at the WTC, but the official word is that they weren't. One has to wonder.
 
Last edited:
If you think that they were found then why do you think that they didn't reveal this to the public?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom