Belz Has Front Page News!

apathoid said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
apathoid said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
another important thing to note in that pic is the size of the fires, neithe rmoderate nor "going out"
 
Dog Town said:
Can't say that I like anything about that shot! But I understand!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Run away, little lieseeker, run away. Those pesky facts will never catch you if you keep running away.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't extend it that far, after all the Empire State Building is still around.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. This makes it more resistant to fire, not less.
Click to expand...

WHAT ?

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

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".
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that this is conjecture of the worst kind, thermite burns DOWN. How many times must I say this ?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

449fjf8.jpg

NISTNCSTAR1-5Achap1-8Draft, page 232.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
R.Mackey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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