ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc , wtc collapse , wtc fires

Reply
Old 25th September 2010, 02:42 PM   #1
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Question Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?

Truthers,

Consider these two statements:

A - Fire can bring down steel structures buildings like Twin Towers.

B - The Twin Towers collapse was a controlled demolition.

It is quite possible to believe that both statements are true. If you believe that "B" is true you don't need to believe "A" is false.

In other words, if you believe there is sufficient evidence that explosives were used in the towers, it does not mean that you have to believe that the collapse due to fire would be impossible.

So what are the arguments that support the claim that fire can not bring down buildings?

Before answering, let me remind you some facts:

1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.

2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.

3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.

4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.

5 - Progressive collapse does exist.


This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2010, 03:20 PM   #2
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,454
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
Truthers,...
...This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.
The apparent problem is in definition of the premises then the logic structure...

...but I'm not a truther so I wouldn't know, would I.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2010, 03:25 PM   #3
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Just to remind the truthers what the fires looked like.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 35931732.91103.jpg (51.4 KB, 16 views)
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2010, 05:19 PM   #4
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
Just to remind the truthers what the fires looked like.
All they see is thick black smoke... so a cool fire.... and only a small amount of flames, so not a bad fire.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2010, 09:51 PM   #5
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,074
University of Delft - School of Architecture May 2008

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903


Building collapse do to fire ......

Truthers always find some way to dismiss this
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 09:56 AM   #6
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwPD0HF3GPM

You really want to cite The Faculty of Architecture at the Delft University of Technology?

While we're at it, let's eliminate some other buildings that debunkers cite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3RnkVzVmQA
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:07 AM   #7
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,124
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwPD0HF3GPM

You really want to cite The Faculty of Architecture at the Delft University of Technology?

While we're at it, let's eliminate some other buildings that debunkers cite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3RnkVzVmQA
9 years of failure and you think steel can't fail. WTC5 has failure due to fire. Your failure is due to what problem? Lack of knowledge? Being gullible? Got some evidence?

Fire caused the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Your idiotic thermite lie was made up by an insane professor, he is nuts.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:25 AM   #8
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwPD0HF3GPM

You really want to cite The Faculty of Architecture at the Delft University of Technology?

What's your point?
Do you agree that fire caused the failure and collapse of part of steel structure?
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:26 AM   #9
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
9 years of failure and you think steel can't fail. WTC5 has failure due to fire. Your failure is due to what problem? Lack of knowledge? Being gullible? Got some evidence?

Fire caused the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Your idiotic thermite lie was made up by an insane professor, he is nuts.
haha . What a fiesty reply! 9 years of obsessed debunkers...

Hardcore debunkers like you should get the phrase "got some evidence" tattooed on your knee since it's the typical jerk reply to anything truthers say

In my case you are asking for evidence of thermite when it hasn't even been mentioned in this thread
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:28 AM   #10
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:30 AM   #11
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
haha . What a fiesty reply! 9 years of obsessed debunkers...

Hardcore debunkers like you should get the phrase "got some evidence" tattooed on your knee since it's the typical jerk reply to anything truthers say

In my case you are asking for evidence of thermite when it hasn't even been mentioned in this thread
How do you know beachnut is a hardcore debunker. Isn't this only week 2 or 3 for you?

Stinky socks, stinky socks!!!!

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:34 AM   #12
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
What's your point?
Do you agree that fire caused the failure and collapse of part of steel structure?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-X1C2kYtME

"That doesn't look like fire collapsing the building...I swear they're cranes and a wrecking ball. Not to much visible steel in this building, yet it still didn't have a global collapse after burning for 7 hours."
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:37 AM   #13
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
How do you know beachnut is a hardcore debunker. Isn't this only week 2 or 3 for you?

Stinky socks, stinky socks!!!!

TAM
As much as you like to try to pin me down as someone who isn't new to the 9/11 truth&conspiracy scene I can't help but admire how you've taken such an interest in me.

I've seen some of beachnut's old posts when I've used the search function - you know, the function that searches old posts.
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:39 AM   #14
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-X1C2kYtME

"That doesn't look like fire collapsing the building...I swear they're cranes and a wrecking ball. Not to much visible steel in this building, yet it still didn't have a global collapse after burning for 7 hours."

What about the answer of my question:

"Do you agree that fire caused the failure and collapse of part of steel structure?"

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:40 AM   #15
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
As much as you like to try to pin me down as someone who isn't new to the 9/11 truth&conspiracy scene I can't help but admire how you've taken such an interest in me.

I've seen some of beachnut's old posts when I've used the search function - you know, the function that searches old posts.
sure, what ever. Like all socks, you will eventually expose yourself...until then, I will wait and watch.

You think we haven't seen such before?

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 10:42 AM   #16
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,124
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
All your evidence in one post. You got the same evidence as all 911 truth who push moronic lies and delusions.

Have you gone to the FBI with your evidence, a laughing dog of moronic failed lies? no

You can't grasp fire destroys the strength of steel due to ignorance. Fire destroyed WTC 5 and 6 too. Fire destroyed many buildings, and you can't grasp reality. One Meridian Plaza, high rise totaled by fire, not there any more. Windsor building in Spain, destroyed by fire, no longer there. WTC 5 destroyed by fire. Gee, the list is in the thousands of structures destroyed, totaled by fire. And all you have is all your evidence for your moronic lies in one laughing dog.

How long have you had delusions on 911? You have the insanity of thermite and micro spheres but no evidence. Are you with Jones, who made up thermite as the method to destroy the WTC, on his earthquake caused by the United States in Haiti? He is insane. Thermite has less heat than paper, 10 times less heat than plastic burning, 10 times less heat than jet fuel burring, and less heat than office fires burning. You have the moronic thermite lie and can't figure out why you have failed.


Evidence?
Oh? Why do you need evidence? Why indeed? For the idiotic 911 claims you make, you will ever have evidence. Relax and spew your nonsense, make fun of people who ask you for evidence, it is only a skeptic forum. You make wild insane claims, why should you bother wasting time researching to find you are not only clueless, but evidence free?

Last edited by beachnut; 26th September 2010 at 11:08 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 11:23 AM   #17
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
haha . What a fiesty reply! 9 years of obsessed debunkers...

Hardcore debunkers like you should get the phrase "got some evidence" tattooed on your knee since it's the typical jerk reply to anything truthers say

In my case you are asking for evidence of thermite when it hasn't even been mentioned in this thread
And the typical truther reaction to a request for evidence is a dodge....thanks for the example.

For the OP, truthers live and die by black and white thinking.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 11:41 AM   #18
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
All your evidence in one post. You got the same evidence as all 911 truth who push moronic lies and delusions.

Have you gone to the FBI with your evidence, a laughing dog of moronic failed lies? no

You can't grasp fire destroys the strength of steel due to ignorance. Fire destroyed WTC 5 and 6 too. Fire destroyed many buildings, and you can't grasp reality. One Meridian Plaza, high rise totaled by fire, not there any more. Windsor building in Spain, destroyed by fire, no longer there. WTC 5 destroyed by fire. Gee, the list is in the thousands of structures destroyed, totaled by fire. And all you have is all your evidence for your moronic lies in one laughing dog.

How long have you had delusions on 911? You have the insanity of thermite and micro spheres but no evidence. Are you with Jones, who made up thermite as the method to destroy the WTC, on his earthquake caused by the United States in Haiti? He is insane. Thermite has less heat than paper, 10 times less heat than plastic burning, 10 times less heat than jet fuel burring, and less heat than office fires burning. You have the moronic thermite lie and can't figure out why you have failed.


Evidence?
Oh? Why do you need evidence? Why indeed? For
the idiotic 911 claims you make , you will ever have evidence. Relax and spew your nonsense, make fun of people who ask you for evidence, it is only a skeptic forum. You make wild insane claims, why should you bother wasting time researching to find you are not only clueless, but evidence free?
You are even feistier now. I thought the blue pill was a chill pill

1)
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

Mod WarningEdited breaches of Rule 4 and Rule 5. Regarding Rule 4: Do not cut and paste lengthy tracts from elsewhere: instead post a short snippet and provide a link to the original source. Regarding Rule 5: Do not hotlink images from elsewhere unless the site specifically permits such usage. Instead post a link to the image(s).
Posted By:LashL

Last edited by LashL; 26th September 2010 at 04:23 PM.
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:07 PM   #19
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
What's your point?
Do you agree that fire caused the failure and collapse of part of steel structure?
yes it caused a part of the building to collapse.



5.) The TU Delft building reportedly started burning around 9.30 in the morning. Around 13.30 an explosion was reported - it still took to 16.30 for only part of the building to collapse.
[ sources: www.soggen.nl..., www.nu.nl... and nos.nl... ]
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:15 PM   #20
Sivan Kurzberg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.
Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though.

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.
This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated?

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.
See number 2

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.
Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure?

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
5 - Progressive collapse does exist.
Sure. But not sudden rapid global collapse complete in a matter of seconds like what was witnessed three times on 9/11.

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.
It's still unprecedented and unproven. This is the problem.

Last edited by Sivan Kurzberg; 26th September 2010 at 12:19 PM.
Sivan Kurzberg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:23 PM   #21
Sivan Kurzberg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
As much as you like to try to pin me down as someone who isn't new to the 9/11 truth&conspiracy scene I can't help but admire how you've taken such an interest in me.

I've seen some of beachnut's old posts when I've used the search function - you know, the function that searches old posts.
Or maybe it was the 14,000 plus postings. jeez
Sivan Kurzberg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:26 PM   #22
Sivan Kurzberg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
yes it caused a part of the building to collapse.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3...ickrvahidg.jpg

5.) The TU Delft building reportedly started burning around 9.30 in the morning. Around 13.30 an explosion was reported - it still took to 16.30 for only part of the building to collapse.
[ sources: www.soggen.nl..., www.nu.nl... and nos.nl... ]
What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire highrise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour.
Sivan Kurzberg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:32 PM   #23
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,439
Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire highrise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour.
Airplanes.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:41 PM   #24
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
yes it caused a part of the building to collapse.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3...ickrvahidg.jpg

So, if fire caused structural failures in that building why this would not be possible in World Trade Center?

Look, the point here is the possibility of a fire causing the collapse of part of the structure.

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
[b]5.)Around 13.30 an explosion was reported.

Yes, like the WTC.
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:41 PM   #25
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire highrise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour.
There never was and never will be a building like WTC1/2.
  • tube-in-tube structural design unique to WTC1/2 and shown to be subject to truss failure in fire.
  • effectively no fireproofing
  • no working fire sprinkler system
  • hit by 140 tons of aircraft at 450MPH.
  • Resulting structural damage
  • Local floor overload from the tons of aircraft debris
  • thousands of gallons of fuel ignited on many inside the building
  • resulting hour of fire
  • No firefighting effort possible.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:43 PM   #26
Sivan Kurzberg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Airplanes.
The buildings took the impacts and remained standing because of great structural redundancy in the WTC design. If it was the impacts the buildings would have fell immediately. It was the fire in your official version that caused the buildings to collapse, including WTC7 that was not hit by a plane. Fire does not bring on sudden global collapse of a high rise complete in a matter of seconds. There is only one thing ever proven to be able to do that and it's not an office fire.
Sivan Kurzberg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:51 PM   #27
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,651
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
You are even feistier now. I thought the blue pill was a chill pill

1)
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

Edited by LashL:  Snipped quoted moderated content
You could have just given the link from where you copied and pasted this response:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...e/windsor.html

You didn't have to re-print the whole thing, with no accreditation given, and pretend it was your own.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump

Last edited by LashL; 26th September 2010 at 06:45 PM.
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 12:53 PM   #28
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
The buildings took the impacts and remained standing because of great structural redundancy in the WTC design. If it was the impacts the buildings would have fell immediately. It was the fire in your official version that caused the buildings to collapse, including WTC7 that was not hit by a plane. Fire does not bring on sudden global collapse of a high rise complete in a matter of seconds. There is only one thing ever proven to be able to do that and it's not an office fire.

One of the designers says it was the fuel and the resulting fire:

Quote:
Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)
And all of this, too:

  • tube-in-tube structural design unique to WTC1/2 and shown to be subject to truss failure in fire.
  • effectively no fireproofing
  • no working fire sprinkler system
  • hit by 140 tons of aircraft at 450MPH.
  • Resulting structural damage
  • Local floor overload from the tons of aircraft debris
  • thousands of gallons of fuel ignited on many floors inside the building
  • resulting hour of fire
  • No firefighting effort possible.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.

Last edited by BigAl; 26th September 2010 at 12:58 PM.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:00 PM   #29
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,651
Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire highrise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour.
But that doesn't address the question. Arguing something couldn't happen because it has never happened is a cop out. I can argue that it COULDN'T be a controlled demolition because there has never before been a controlled demolition of a 110 story building in a top down collapse and that has as much validity as your argument.

So please try answering the specifics of the question at hand.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:07 PM   #30
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though.

What was the temperature on the floors on fire?

Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated?

It does not seem obvious to you that fire-protection was removed with a blast of that magnitude?

Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure?

What "sudden rapid global collapse" is?

Do you really think that nothing happened in the structure before the total collapse?
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:18 PM   #31
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,439
Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
There is only one thing ever proven to be able to do that and it's not an office fire.
Now there is, but that directly conflicts with truther belief #332: Nothing ever happens for the first time.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:18 PM   #32
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
The buildings took the impacts and remained standing because of great structural redundancy in the WTC design. If it was the impacts the buildings would have fell immediately. It was the fire in your official version that caused the buildings to collapse, including WTC7 that was not hit by a plane. Fire does not bring on sudden global collapse of a high rise complete in a matter of seconds. There is only one thing ever proven to be able to do that and it's not an office fire.
Strawman argument.

This is not what happened.

1&2 WTC were hit with airplanes. This alone did not cause the collapse of the towers. It was a combination of the plane impacts, AND the ensuing fire over 5+ floors.

Without the impact, there would be no fire.


Sorry about your fail, again.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:21 PM   #33
Sivan Kurzberg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
There never was and never will be a building like WTC1/2.
Tube in tube design is not that unusual.

Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
[*]tube-in-tube structural design unique to WTC1/2 and shown to be subject to truss failure in fire.
The WTC design made it stronger than other high rise buildings. The design is what's credited with the WTC buildings being able to take the plane impacts. This does not help your case.

Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
[*]effectively no fireproofing
Speculation never exactly equated as to how and how much.

Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
[*]no working fire sprinkler system
Sprinkler systems in the tower are thought to be damaged on the floors of the impacts based on NIST calculations. This is speculation not proven. We know the sprinklers were working on other floors from witness statements of water running down the stairs. Any assertions about what was going on on the impact floors is pure speculation. The towers survived a fire in the seventies without a sprinkler. Still we are only talking about one hour on a few floors that it needed to survive.

Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
[*]hit by 140 tons of aircraft at 450MPH.
All of which the building took and remained standing. WTC7 didn't even need this in your OCT to collapse.

Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
[*]Resulting structural damage
All of which the building took and remained standing.

Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
[*]Local floor overload from the tons of aircraft debris
You hardly have any plane left in PA and at the Pentagon, but now all of a sudden the plane debris is overloading the tower floors? In your so called raging inferno no less. I guess the aluminum should have survived what you claim the steel didn't. Yeah right.

Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
[*]thousands of gallons of fuel ignited on many inside the building
Most of which burnt up outside the building not to mention the fireball you are all clamoring about around here all the time. The rest burnt up in a matter of minutes according to your OCT. The building still stood.

Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
[*]resulting hour of fire
Not very long at all.

Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
[*]No firefighting effort possible.
That's because of the unusual and fast way it fell. Usually they have a lot more time to put out a skyscraper fire on a upper floor. In fact one firefighter was calling his buddies to come up with a hose. He didn't think anything was going to fall.

Last edited by Sivan Kurzberg; 26th September 2010 at 01:25 PM.
Sivan Kurzberg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:26 PM   #34
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
You could have just given the link from where you copied and pasted this response:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...e/windsor.html

You didn't have to re-print the whole thing, with no accreditation given, and pretend it was your own.
I wasn't pretending that it was my own work. I linked to the reference site within the wall of copied text. I don't expect debunkers to click on links or youtubes for that matter. That's why I used copy/paste.

From the new version of the un-debunked series:
Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes
Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast
The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses
WTC Collapse
WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery
South Tower Should Have Toppled
I'm sure you can debate some of the information in these youtubes. I suggest people do their own research.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I didn't make these youtubes

Last edited by Patriots4Truth; 26th September 2010 at 01:30 PM.
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:28 PM   #35
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Oh are we here with this again? Shall I get some popcorn?
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:34 PM   #36
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,439
Originally Posted by Sivan Kurzberg View Post
Sprinkler systems in the tower are thought to be damaged on the floors of the impacts based on NIST calculations. This is speculation not proven. We know the sprinklers were working on other floors from witness statements of water running down the stairs. Any assertions about what was going on on the impact floors is pure speculation. The towers survived a fire in the seventies without a sprinkler. Still we are only talking about one hour on a few floors that it needed to survive.
The sprinkler mains were ruptured with the airplane impacts. We knows this because fires burned right up to their collapses, obviously no water was being put on the fires. Ruptured sprinkler lines, domestic plumbing lines, non-potable water lines could all be sources of water seen on the lower floors. Bottom line was there was no water getting where it was needed most.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:35 PM   #37
Sivan Kurzberg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 156
Whether or not the impact floors and everything above it should have remained standing is one thing.

Proving that the failure of certain structural parts of this impact zone caused the sudden global collapse of the entire structure in a matter of seconds is a whole different animal that NIST never even attempts to tackle. And debunkers never ever come close to proving this fantasy type of collapse in any way shape or form.

Time for my wings and more NFL! Later.

Last edited by Sivan Kurzberg; 26th September 2010 at 01:39 PM.
Sivan Kurzberg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:35 PM   #38
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
I wasn't pretending that it was my own work. I linked to the reference site within the wall of copied text. I don't expect debunkers to click on links or youtubes for that matter. That's why I used copy/paste.

From the new version of the un-debunked series:
Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes
Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast
The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses
WTC Collapse
WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery
South Tower Should Have Toppled
I'm sure you can debate some of the information in these youtubes. I suggest people do their own research.
Wow, a bunch of YouTube videos!! Great!!

Now, how about you and the rest of the dolts from 911truth start getting papers published in respectable journals showing that NIST wrong.

You would be the first.

I recommend the following journals:

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Journal of Fire Sciences

Journal of Applied Fire Sciences

Internation Association of Fire Safety Science

Any of the ASCE journals.
(they can be found here http://www.asce.org/PPLContent.aspx?id=17273 )

Journal of Engineering Research

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention


Take your pick. Any of those would be more than happy to look at your paper, then offer an honest critique of it.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:36 PM   #39
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
youtube...the National Enquirer of the truth movement.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2010, 01:40 PM   #40
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
I believe there is a reason why it has taken a while for everything to be published. The timing has to be right for a case as huge as this one.
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.