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 , world trade center , controlled demolition , 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 9th December 2006, 12:08 PM   #1
28th Kingdom
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 947
This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

Hello all,

I KNOW there has been a tremendous debate over the subject of 9/11, and from the few threads I have read it looks like most believe the, "Official Story." Well, here's what I can assure you. If you engage me in this debate, than you will NOT leave this thread without KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job and brought down by controlled demolitions.

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside. Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse. The 911 commission didn't even address it, and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse. All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that. No wait...I mean because of those small fires that melted the entire infrastructure all at once. Yea, that's what I meant to say.

Now, I think one of the main problems people encounter when analyzing an event like this is that they OVER analyze it. Especially since politics are often brought (kicking and screaming) into this discussion...it's easy for one to loose track of the real issues by dismissing another as a, "Liberal! or NeoCON!" Please, don't be blinded by political bias. In fact, let's just check that at the door. This debate has NOTHING to do with what political party you like to associate yourself with.

In conjunction: We're NOT debating WHO is responsible for 9/11 in this thread. So, regardless if you do decide to open your mind up to THE truth...it doesn't mean that you're saying or agreeing to who is actually responsible for the demolition of the WTC. The only fact about this event that we shall discuss, is whether or not FIRE was the chief cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 or if a controlled demolition is to blame.

See, I think the main problem with the, 'Debunkers.' is that they never actually debunk this main issue i.e. the buildings came down via a demolition. And the reason they probably haven't presented any actual hard evidence (I'm not talking about an "expert's" commentary or analysis) I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings. And, really this is the only point worth discussing. Sorry, but calling someone a, "Nutjob!" isn't gonna work. I'm only looking for something that could be presented as evidence in a court of law. Let's get REAL left-brained and linear about this...oki doki! You know like Skeptics are SUPPOSE to be! :-)

There is really no point in getting distracted with the small side issues and theories...because it only serves to dilute the whole point of this investigation...and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.

So if we could...I would like to pose a series of simple questions...and all I want for everyone to do is simply respond to the question at hand. If everyone can follow these simple guidelines, than it shouldn't take too long before you will have to accept the fact that the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
28th Kingdom 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 9th December 2006, 12:11 PM   #2
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Question 1 - Please explain why building codes all over the world require structural steel members to be protected from fire for a given amount of time
uk_dave 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 9th December 2006, 12:12 PM   #3
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Have you guys noticed as of late, the influx of new posters, who suddenly are promoting the CTer's side, and prove that tehy've never done a simple search of this forum to see that all they are claiming with their opening post, that theyv'e been addressed numerous times?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 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 9th December 2006, 12:14 PM   #4
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Question 2.

Can you please provide a list of very tall buildings that have had planes slammed into them at high speed, suffered massive fires and stood?
stateofgrace 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 9th December 2006, 12:14 PM   #5
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,930
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
Yes, it is possible to prove that statement false.

Quote:
He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 9th December 2006, 12:15 PM   #6
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,697
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Hello all,


Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
Yes the Madrid building in Spain had the steel only portions fail in 2 hours or so. Steel fails to hold strength in fire. Where have you been for 5 years.

You did not research this at all. ( this is just CT junk presented again)

There was zero controlled demolition and zero proof. You have zero. Try some facts.
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 9th December 2006, 12:17 PM   #7
28th Kingdom
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 947
Hey Guys,

Thanks for the posts...but really, I want to try and keep this thread as succinct as possible. Please just try to answer the questions, and I PROMISE this will get somewhere...and that is to the undeniable truth. I just found this forum today...and my hand to god - this is the first time I have ever posted on this board. Also, I will never sink to a name-calling match - even if others choose to - because I'm here to unite NOT divide. Remember, United we Stand...
28th Kingdom 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 9th December 2006, 12:19 PM   #8
Lisa Simpson
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 22,349
Your question was answered.

Steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.
Lisa Simpson 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 9th December 2006, 12:20 PM   #9
Steve H
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 146
I got a question. If 9/11 was an "inside" job why couldn't the same nefarious cabal plant some WMDs in Iraq?
Steve H 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 9th December 2006, 12:21 PM   #10
Timble
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 931
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
...and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.
.
Ultimately, gravity.
Timble 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 9th December 2006, 12:24 PM   #11
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Hey Guys,

Thanks for the posts...but really, I want to try and keep this thread as succinct as possible. Please just try to answer the questions, and I PROMISE this will get somewhere...and that is to the undeniable truth. I just found this forum today...and my hand to god - this is the first time I have ever posted on this board. Also, I will never sink to a name-calling match - even if others choose to - because I'm here to unite NOT divide. Remember, United we Stand...
And thank you for coming to post here.

Now, keeping it as succinct as possible please explain why building codes all over the world require structural steel members to be protected from fire for a given period of time.

Trust me, you will find this thread useful, if you are able to answer our questions.
uk_dave 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 9th December 2006, 12:26 PM   #12
28th Kingdom
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 947
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yes, it is possible to
Sir,

The picture from your story:

(can't post links yet)

Shows what looks like to be a two story building...with severe fire damage. I'm not saying fire can't melt steel - come on now - we all know that's possible. Please read my questions closely. This story does NOT report a steel-structured building that collapsed because of a fire. You can still see the entire outside structure of this building. It just had the insides burned out. Is that what the WTC towers looked like? No.
28th Kingdom 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 9th December 2006, 12:28 PM   #13
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,697
This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

And why is that?

Have you ever seen a building burn all day and still be standing at the end of the day?
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 9th December 2006, 12:29 PM   #14
John Blonn
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 390
"I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings. "

Your standards of evidence are a bit out of whack. You can't prove a negative, especially unequivocally. In a court of law, YOU would have to prove that demolition was used.

In a murder trial, does the alleged murderer have to PROVE that he or she DIDN'T do it?

"Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence."

Again, your standards are off. NOTHING can be proven "irrefutably" or "without a shadow of a doubt": philosophy 101.

And anyway, I don't understand your question. And what's your point? Just because something has never happened means that it NEVER can happen? Induction can betray you at the drop of a hat.
John Blonn 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 9th December 2006, 12:29 PM   #15
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Sir,

The picture from your story:

(can't post links yet)

Shows what looks like to be a two story building...with severe fire damage. I'm not saying fire can't melt steel - come on now - we all know that's possible. Please read my questions closely. This story does NOT report a steel-structured building that collapsed because of a fire. You can still see the entire outside structure of this building. It just had the insides burned out. Is that what the WTC towers looked like? No.
OK, what if there had been another storey on top of the one that collapsed? Or maybe ten storeys....maybe 100?

Think the building would be in good shape?

Can you explain why building codes all over the world require structural steel members to be protected from fire for a given period of time?

Go on, have a guess

Last edited by uk_dave; 9th December 2006 at 12:31 PM. Reason: to provide encouragement
uk_dave 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 9th December 2006, 12:30 PM   #16
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Sir,
This story does NOT report a steel-structured building that collapsed because of a fire. You can still see the entire outside structure of this building. It just had the insides burned out. Is that what the WTC towers looked like? No.
The Madrid tower again? You might want ot research just how the tower was built, first. When you do, you'll have the answer to your question.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 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 9th December 2006, 12:31 PM   #17
28th Kingdom
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 947
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Yes the Madrid building in Spain had the steel only portions fail in 2 hours or so. Steel fails to hold strength in fire. Where have you been for 5 years.

You did not research this at all. ( this is just CT junk presented again)

There was zero controlled demolition and zero proof. You have zero. Try some facts.
Sir,

Again, I know fire can damage steel! That's not the question. The question is, has a steel-structured building ever COLLAPSED due to a fire. NOT has a steel-structured building ever been DAMAGED! The Madrid buildings did NOT collapse like the WTC. It may have been severely damaged, and pieces may have fell off...but all of the floors below the fire DID NOT collapse, nor did the massive fires cause any kind of pancake collapse.
28th Kingdom 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 9th December 2006, 12:32 PM   #18
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Sir,

Again, I know fire can damage steel! That's not the question. The question is, has a steel-structured building ever COLLAPSED due to a fire. NOT has a steel-structured building ever been DAMAGED! The Madrid buildings did NOT collapse like the WTC. It may have been severely damaged, and pieces may have fell off...but all of the floors below the fire DID NOT collapse, nor did the massive fires cause any kind of pancake collapse.
Question 2. Please describe, in your own words, the principle behind the process of controlled demolition of a building.
uk_dave 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 9th December 2006, 12:33 PM   #19
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye
Here's a photograph of WTC 7 after it's collapse. Have you done ANY research on this topic besides watching Loose Change?

__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 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 9th December 2006, 12:34 PM   #20
Timble
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 931
You're forgetting that it wasn't just a fire, there was the small matter of two airliners flown into the towers at 500mph plus....
Timble 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 9th December 2006, 12:34 PM   #21
Z
Variable Constant
 
Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Sir,

Again, I know fire can damage steel! That's not the question. The question is, has a steel-structured building ever COLLAPSED due to a fire. NOT has a steel-structured building ever been DAMAGED! The Madrid buildings did NOT collapse like the WTC. It may have been severely damaged, and pieces may have fell off...but all of the floors below the fire DID NOT collapse, nor did the massive fires cause any kind of pancake collapse.

... because of the concrete structure beneath the steel levels.

The steel collapsed, son. The concrete did not.

If a steel-structured building undergoes a sustained fire with limited or no firefighting efforts, it will collapse.

Firefighting 101.

WTC7 had a tremendous fire, and no water supply to put it out. It burned for hours.

It fell down.

That's how it works, son.
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Z 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 9th December 2006, 12:45 PM   #22
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 413
I can prove that you have no understanding of structural engineering or failure analysis.


Exhibit A:

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Hello all,

I KNOW there has been a tremendous debate over the subject of 9/11, and from the few threads I have read it looks like most believe the, "Official Story." Well, here's what I can assure you. If you engage me in this debate, than you will NOT leave this thread without KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job and brought down by controlled demolitions.

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside. Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse. The 911 commission didn't even address it, and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse. All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that. No wait...I mean because of those small fires that melted the entire infrastructure all at once. Yea, that's what I meant to say.

Now, I think one of the main problems people encounter when analyzing an event like this is that they OVER analyze it. Especially since politics are often brought (kicking and screaming) into this discussion...it's easy for one to loose track of the real issues by dismissing another as a, "Liberal! or NeoCON!" Please, don't be blinded by political bias. In fact, let's just check that at the door. This debate has NOTHING to do with what political party you like to associate yourself with.

In conjunction: We're NOT debating WHO is responsible for 9/11 in this thread. So, regardless if you do decide to open your mind up to THE truth...it doesn't mean that you're saying or agreeing to who is actually responsible for the demolition of the WTC. The only fact about this event that we shall discuss, is whether or not FIRE was the chief cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 or if a controlled demolition is to blame.

See, I think the main problem with the, 'Debunkers.' is that they never actually debunk this main issue i.e. the buildings came down via a demolition. And the reason they probably haven't presented any actual hard evidence (I'm not talking about an "expert's" commentary or analysis) I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings. And, really this is the only point worth discussing. Sorry, but calling someone a, "Nutjob!" isn't gonna work. I'm only looking for something that could be presented as evidence in a court of law. Let's get REAL left-brained and linear about this...oki doki! You know like Skeptics are SUPPOSE to be! :-)

There is really no point in getting distracted with the small side issues and theories...because it only serves to dilute the whole point of this investigation...and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.

So if we could...I would like to pose a series of simple questions...and all I want for everyone to do is simply respond to the question at hand. If everyone can follow these simple guidelines, than it shouldn't take too long before you will have to accept the fact that the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
Porkpie Hat 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 9th December 2006, 12:45 PM   #23
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
 
Mr. Skinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Sir,

Again, I know fire can damage steel! That's not the question. The question is, has a steel-structured building ever COLLAPSED due to a fire. NOT has a steel-structured building ever been DAMAGED! The Madrid buildings did NOT collapse like the WTC. It may have been severely damaged, and pieces may have fell off...but all of the floors below the fire DID NOT collapse, nor did the massive fires cause any kind of pancake collapse.
McCormick Place. Chicago. 1967.
__________________
U.S.L.S 1969-1975
"thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk
"He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana
"Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele
Mr. Skinny 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 9th December 2006, 12:46 PM   #24
28th Kingdom
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 947
Hey guys and gals,

Thanks for the posts. You will have to forgive me, but I am but one man...so it takes time to address everyone. So far only John Blonn has attempted to answer my question and thank you for doing that.

But, I'm pretty sure it's possible to say whether or not someone has ever reported a steel-structured building collapsing due to a fire pre-911. And, this is all I really mean. I'm not trying to get philosophical here...by talking in absolutes and universals - all I mean, is can we prove whether or not HISTORY has an account (on record in the press or media) of a steel-structured building collapsing due to a fire pre-911? And, I assume that answer to be yes.

"I got a question. If 9/11 was an "inside" job why couldn't the same nefarious cabal plant some WMDs in Iraq?"

And sir, this is the exact type of logic I am trying to avoid in this thread. That's why I clearly stated...that we're not to discuss who we think is responsible for the demolition. Don't let assumptions like this lead you astray. We must tackle only the actual evidence of this crime scene. Let's not cloud our thinking with motives and suspects...just the facts of the event i.e. three building collapses.
28th Kingdom 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 9th December 2006, 12:48 PM   #25
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny View Post
McCormick Place. Chicago. 1967.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place
Quote:
The gleaming white building burned down in 1967, a shocking event as it was largely steel and concrete and was thought to be fireproof. However, the exhibits at the time were highly flammable and there were inadequate sprinklers and hydrants, thus the fire spread quickly and destructively, taking the life of a security guard in the process.
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/...mick_fire.html[
Quote:
A number of factors contributed to the catastrophe. Most of these would have been sufficient by themselves to cause great destruction. The 1,250 exhibits were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic. The temporary wiring used to rig exhibits was often not up to the building code. 92% of the building, including the exhibition hall, did not have sprinklers. The water supply failed almost immediately upon the firefighters' arrival. McCormick Place's private hydrants were closed and never reopened after construction on the Stevenson Expressway, and the private pumping system was defective and inadequate. The fire spread was very rapid due to the lack of compartmentalization, the large amount of fuel, and lack of means of suppression. The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire due to the same factors.




__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 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 9th December 2006, 12:49 PM   #26
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside.
"Dissolved," huh. Can I assume that you don't even have high-school level proficiency in science?

Oh, and those "virtually invisible" fires were visible to firefighters on scene, and threw up a smoke cloud the size of Manhattan. Your premise is laughably false.

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
Yes, they have. It is also trivial to set up an experiment proving that this is an ordinary result.

Here's a question for you. Not one conspiradroid has ever dared to answer it. I wonder, do you have what it takes? Or will you run away as well?
R.Mackey 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 9th December 2006, 12:49 PM   #27
28th Kingdom
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 947
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Here's a photograph of WTC 7 after it's collapse. Have you done ANY research on this topic besides watching Loose Change?
Sir,

A pile of rubble is nothing to me. There is no structure left in the building...it dissolved into a pile of rubble.
28th Kingdom 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 9th December 2006, 12:51 PM   #28
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Have you any idea how many shaped charges it would take to bring down a building that size, and how long it would take to place them all? Neither do I, but it's a lot. Here's a quote from CDI's site about how many were required to bring down a department store ~

Quote:
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
I presume then that the months of preparation, including structural modifications in order to place the charges, was done in secret.

Here's a video of another relatively tiny building being demolished by shaped charges. Similar to the WTC collapse? Er, no.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153 (the link won't work cos I can't post URLs yet so cut & paste it and put h t t p : / / infront of it)
baron 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 9th December 2006, 12:53 PM   #29
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Sir,

A pile of rubble is nothing to me. There is no structure left in the building...it dissolved into a pile of rubble.
so, the building's make up all disappeared into a huge bucket of water?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 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 9th December 2006, 12:54 PM   #30
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,697
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Sir,

The picture from your story:

(can't post links yet)

Shows what looks like to be a two story building...with severe fire damage. I'm not saying fire can't melt steel - come on now - we all know that's possible. Please read my questions closely. This story does NOT report a steel-structured building that collapsed because of a fire. You can still see the entire outside structure of this building. It just had the insides burned out. Is that what the WTC towers looked like? No.
Steel, as in structural steel fails in fire, building have fallen all over the world.

wood, large structural wood can outlast steel

We need to take some structural building classes and physics classes and then we will never fall for CT junk.

Knowledge is needed to keep the CT junk science guys at bay. Are you another junk science guy?
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 9th December 2006, 12:54 PM   #31
The Pig
Thinker
 
The Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
It just had the insides burned out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworc...llery.shtml?14

Another view of the collapse.
The Pig 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 9th December 2006, 12:56 PM   #32
milesalpha
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 375
Now since I am an authority driven little fellow, I would like to know your qualifications for making judgements on structural engineering techniques. How many graduate degrees in the appropriate sciences do you have?
__________________
Tragedy is when I cut my finger.
Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die.

Mel Brooks
milesalpha 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 9th December 2006, 12:57 PM   #33
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Question 1 - Please explain why building codes all over the world require structural steel members to be protected from fire for a given amount of time

Question 2. Please describe, in your own words, the principle behind the process of controlled demolition of a building.

Question 3. Please provide evidence that the south side of WTC7 was not massively damaged by falling debris from the WTC towers

Question 4. Please provide evidence that the south side of WTC7 was not massively on fire
uk_dave 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 9th December 2006, 12:58 PM   #34
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,697
is this dylan avery with nothing to do so he is trolling and asking questions?

I think experts can answer their own questions. Is this 28thday an expert?

Just asking a question. Give us your avoidance of CD of WTC7, 1, and 2. Stop beating around the bush and give us your stuff.

Do you have any facts?
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 9th December 2006, 12:59 PM   #35
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Been there, done that... NEXT!
Pardalis 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 9th December 2006, 12:59 PM   #36
28th Kingdom
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 947
"if WTC 7 collapsing is such a bloomin' surprise, then how did the FDNY know about it? Pick one:

(a) FDNY blew it up

(b) FDNY was told by _____ that it was going to be blown up

(c) Lucky guess

(d) It wasn't so hard to predict that WTC 7 was coming down after all, and all this talk about how it "must have been 'splosives" is armchair speculation of people who don't know what the heck they're talking about

Please explain your answer. Thanks."

Sir,

Have you not seen all of the video footage with NYFD on the scene...telling people there was a bomb in the building and to leave the scene? No, the NYFD didn't only THINK or ASSUME it MAY come down. They KNEW it was coming down. And, yes I think there is video footage of Rudy Giuliani telling Peter Jennings that he was told as were others...that the WTC 7 was coming down...BEFORE it came down.

Not to mention ( I know everyone knows this and will dismiss it) that the actual owner of WTC 7 is on tape...stating, that they made the decision to PULL the building. And, then he said they watched the building come down. "Pull," is an industry term used to describe a controlled demolition.
28th Kingdom 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 9th December 2006, 01:02 PM   #37
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Have you not seen all of the video footage with NYFD on the scene...telling people there was a bomb in the building and to leave the scene? No, the NYFD didn't only THINK or ASSUME it MAY come down. They KNEW it was coming down.
So the firefighters were in on the conspiracy to blow up WTC7? Yes or no would be fine.
mortimer 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 9th December 2006, 01:03 PM   #38
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
 
Mr. Skinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
Sir,

Have you not seen all of the video footage with NYFD on the scene...telling people there was a bomb in the building and to leave the scene? No, the NYFD didn't only THINK or ASSUME it MAY come down. They KNEW it was coming down. And, yes I think there is video footage of Rudy Giuliani telling Peter Jennings that he was told as were others...that the WTC 7 was coming down...BEFORE it came down.

Not to mention ( I know everyone knows this and will dismiss it) that the actual owner of WTC 7 is on tape...stating, that they made the decision to PULL the building. And, then he said they watched the building come down. "Pull," is an industry term used to describe a controlled demolition.
This has already been covered several times on this forum.

Please employ the "search" function.

Thank you.
__________________
U.S.L.S 1969-1975
"thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk
"He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana
"Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele
Mr. Skinny 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 9th December 2006, 01:03 PM   #39
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,665
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom View Post
SQuestion 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
Kader Toy Factory.

The end.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

Last edited by kookbreaker; 9th December 2006 at 01:04 PM. Reason: Wrong link.
kookbreaker 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 9th December 2006, 01:03 PM   #40
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Please, read this before you make any more a fool of yourself:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
Pardalis 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 05:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.