| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:33 pm Post subject: "Press For Truth" includes a booby trap for CT'ist |
 |
|
At 13:20 or so into the film the TV news commentator says :
"Building 7, ablaze at the moment and apparently getting ready to collapse.."
What do we make of this comment ?
The conspirators warned co-conspirators in FDNY of the plan to CD the building and this was accidentally passed on to the news crew?
The conspirators warned the news crew directly?
The FDNY crews had warned people to stay well clear because they expected the building to collapse and the news crew had picked up on this?
There are probably other possibilities. Opinions welcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You missed the obvious one! The newscrew did it! That news crew didn't even get put under oath by the 9/11 commission. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | You missed the obvious one! The newscrew did it! That news crew didn't even get put under oath by the 9/11 commission. |
Damn  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Didn't that government spokesperson from popular mechanics tell us he'd seen classified photos of a 20 floor central section of WTC7 gouged out by falling twin tower debris, that caused the controlled demolition style collapse of the building? Now we're back to fires! will it be diesel fuel tanks next in the rotation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | Didn't that government spokesperson from popular mechanics tell us he'd seen classified photos of a 20 floor central section of WTC7 gouged out by falling twin tower debris, that caused the controlled demolition style collapse of the building? Now we're back to fires! will it be diesel fuel tanks next in the rotation? |
You believe the collapse had to result from a single cause?
Catastrophic events like this almost always have multiple causes, because single causes are usually accounted for when the structure is designed. It's difficult to predict what a possible combination of problems would do to a building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: "Press For Truth" includes a booby trap for CT |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | At 13:20 or so into the film the TV news commentator says :
"Building 7, ablaze at the moment and apparently getting ready to collapse.."
What do we make of this comment ?
The conspirators warned co-conspirators in FDNY of the plan to CD the building and this was accidentally passed on to the news crew?
The conspirators warned the news crew directly?
The FDNY crews had warned people to stay well clear because they expected the building to collapse and the news crew had picked up on this?
There are probably other possibilities. Opinions welcome. |
I don't think too much of it, becuase what we are looking at is a comment by an individual who was on the ground at the time: the fact that he was a TV anchorman is not over relevant, he still only knows what he is told
We know that the fireteams etc were instructed to evacuate WTC7 prior to its collapse and were told the building was going to come down and I'm not aware of any argument there... however this clip can neither confirm or deny the building was destroyed by CD...
'Course Ive got Larry Silverstein saying "Pull It!" echoing through my ears...
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: "Press For Truth" includes a booby trap for CT |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | At 13:20 or so into the film the TV news commentator says :
"Building 7, ablaze at the moment and apparently getting ready to collapse.."
What do we make of this comment ?
The conspirators warned co-conspirators in FDNY of the plan to CD the building and this was accidentally passed on to the news crew?
The conspirators warned the news crew directly?
The FDNY crews had warned people to stay well clear because they expected the building to collapse and the news crew had picked up on this?
There are probably other possibilities. Opinions welcome. |
I don't think too much of it, becuase what we are looking at is a comment by an individual who was on the ground at the time: the fact that he was a TV anchorman is not over relevant, he still only knows what he is told
We know that the fireteams etc were instructed to evacuate WTC7 prior to its collapse and were told the building was going to come down and I'm not aware of any argument there... however this clip can neither confirm or deny the building was destroyed by CD...
'Course Ive got Larry Silverstein saying "Pull It!" echoing through my ears... |
Yeah and if only "pull it" meant bring it down with explosives, that would be a very telling point.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: "Press For Truth" includes a booby trap for CT |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
'Course Ive got Larry Silverstein saying "Pull It!" echoing through my ears... |
That only leaves the question of why he would secretly destroy his own building, when he had every right to do so out in the open. Why didn't he just wait for the fire to burn out, then demolish what remained? Why go through the risk of sending demolition experts into a burning building? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | How could a news crew have known it (WTC7) was about to collapse?
many building's have been completely alight and none had ever collapsed prior to 9/11...
|
Of those, how many had a 110-story building fall on them?
Don't you suppose that when the firefighters pulled away from the building, they might have told others to get clear as well? Or did they just run past them and think, "Glad I'm not him"?
By the way, I don't believe your claim that no building has ever collapsed from fire. Seems a little far-fetched. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | Bongo Brian wrote: | How could a news crew have known it (WTC7) was about to collapse?
many building's have been completely alight and none had ever collapsed prior to 9/11...
|
Of those, how many had a 110-story building fall on them?
Don't you suppose that when the firefighters pulled away from the building, they might have told others to get clear as well? Or did they just run past them and think, "Glad I'm not him"?
By the way, I don't believe your claim that no building has ever collapsed from fire. Seems a little far-fetched. |
Thats steel framed building obviously aggle-Rythm: wooden barns collapse through fire all the time
Why are we discussing belief?
If the claim that "no other steel framed building other than WTC1 2 and 7 have collapsed through fire" is wrong, it shouldnt be hard for you to provide data to refute it
Thats your homework as a critic, surely?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveyJ
Minor Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
surely it should be "no steel frame building has ever collapsed through being hit by a jet traveling at 500 mph and fire"
and the answer is no, beacuse its never happened before. 9/11 was entirely unique in what happened, so simply beacuse its never happened before is no reason to say it never can. July 20th 69, no one had ever walked on the moon before, yet it happened.......you guys belive that was faked too right? 
________
buy glass bong
Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again, I ask:
Have buildings ever collapsed due to fire? (Yes)
Have buildings made of a streel frame ever collapsed due to fire? (Let's say no)
Have buildings every been demolished? (Yes)
Have buildings over 500 feet tall ever been demolished (No)
Notice, in both case, I've restricted the set of "all buildings" to a particular set that make my point for me. It's a fallacy to conclude, in either case, that because it's never happened before, it couldn't have happened now. Stop repeating this tired line, because it makes you look ignorant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its not a point of logic, its a fact of engineering
"NO steel framed building ever collapsed through fire except in the official story of 9/11"
Why is it relevant?
Becuase common sense suggests the official 9/11 story has to credibly account for such astronomical odds occuring
Is it proof positive of CD? No of course not
But its still a fact of engineering: unless critics can prove that wrong? Theres been plenty of fires in steel framed buildings you know!
And only 3 collapses
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaveyJ wrote: | surely it should be "no steel frame building has ever collapsed through being hit by a jet traveling at 500 mph and fire"
and the answer is no, beacuse its never happened before. 9/11 was entirely unique in what happened, so simply beacuse its never happened before is no reason to say it never can. July 20th 69, no one had ever walked on the moon before, yet it happened.......you guys belive that was faked too right? |
Well, actually, no I don't, but ridicule is too tempting a weapon to not employ, is it? Admittedly, this forum offers a lot of temptation. I would suggest we all assume that we are conducting discussions with the more reasonable members of each side.
Just because the circumstances immediately prior to the collapses of the towers are unique does not mean they aren't comparable to other high rise fires. Clearly, fires such as the Madrid hotel fire are comparable for discussion purposes. The question is; why could steel columns that have had their fireproofing knocked free (as the official story likes to claim happened when the planes hit the towers) only survive less than an hour of fire, while steel columns with fireproofing intact in a much more feircely burning fire could survive 20+ hours without weakening noticeably? This is a troubling question, particularly when WTC7 is also included in the discussion. Did the debris from WTC1/2 also knock free some of the fireproofing? If not, why did it only survive 7 hrs or so of a relatively small fire (as compared to the Madrid fire)? Critics, do you not find any of these questions worth further investigation? If not, why not?
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Just because the circumstances immediately prior to the collapses of the towers are unique does not mean they aren't comparable to other high rise fires. Clearly, fires such as the Madrid hotel fire are comparable for discussion purposes. The question is; why could steel columns that have had their fireproofing knocked free (as the official story likes to claim happened when the planes hit the towers) only survive less than an hour of fire, while steel columns with fireproofing intact in a much more feircely burning fire could survive 20+ hours without weakening noticeably? This is a troubling question, particularly when WTC7 is also included in the discussion. Did the debris from WTC1/2 also knock free some of the fireproofing? If not, why did it only survive 7 hrs or so of a relatively small fire (as compared to the Madrid fire)? Critics, do you not find any of these questions worth further investigation? If not, why not? |
I'm afraid the Madrid fire is a very bad comparison.
It's core structure was reinforced concrete and 'performed extraordinarily well' in keeping the building up. It was the failure of steel perimeter columns that caused partial collapse on upper floors.
Summary and further links here:
http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=197
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | Just because the circumstances immediately prior to the collapses of the towers are unique does not mean they aren't comparable to other high rise fires. Clearly, fires such as the Madrid hotel fire are comparable for discussion purposes. The question is; why could steel columns that have had their fireproofing knocked free (as the official story likes to claim happened when the planes hit the towers) only survive less than an hour of fire, while steel columns with fireproofing intact in a much more feircely burning fire could survive 20+ hours without weakening noticeably? This is a troubling question, particularly when WTC7 is also included in the discussion. Did the debris from WTC1/2 also knock free some of the fireproofing? If not, why did it only survive 7 hrs or so of a relatively small fire (as compared to the Madrid fire)? Critics, do you not find any of these questions worth further investigation? If not, why not? |
I'm afraid the Madrid fire is a very bad comparison.
It's core structure was reinforced concrete and 'performed extraordinarily well' in keeping the building up. It was the failure of steel perimeter columns that caused partial collapse on upper floors.
Summary and further links here:
http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=197 |
Yes, I've studied these links and others about the Madrid fire. If you look at how the steel fared in the fire, that is relevant and comparable. We are talking about a building that was completely gutted. A fire that burned like a roman candlestick for hours. But yet the steel structure didn't fail in less than an hour, nor did it fail in 7 hours. I don't remember the exact duration but I read an estimated timeline of the consequences of the fire and I believe it was 12 or 14 hours before the steel began to fail. Yes the concrete survived the fire and prevented a complete collapse, but the floors that did collapse did not do so for many hours. So, again I return to the question of why the WTC buildings would fail so completely, so fast, given that it took so long for a much worse fire to affect steel structures. It remains a troubling question.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | Just because the circumstances immediately prior to the collapses of the towers are unique does not mean they aren't comparable to other high rise fires. Clearly, fires such as the Madrid hotel fire are comparable for discussion purposes. The question is; why could steel columns that have had their fireproofing knocked free (as the official story likes to claim happened when the planes hit the towers) only survive less than an hour of fire, while steel columns with fireproofing intact in a much more feircely burning fire could survive 20+ hours without weakening noticeably? This is a troubling question, particularly when WTC7 is also included in the discussion. Did the debris from WTC1/2 also knock free some of the fireproofing? If not, why did it only survive 7 hrs or so of a relatively small fire (as compared to the Madrid fire)? Critics, do you not find any of these questions worth further investigation? If not, why not? |
I'm afraid the Madrid fire is a very bad comparison.
It's core structure was reinforced concrete and 'performed extraordinarily well' in keeping the building up. It was the failure of steel perimeter columns that caused partial collapse on upper floors.
Summary and further links here:
http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=197 |
Yes, I've studied these links and others about the Madrid fire. If you look at how the steel fared in the fire, that is relevant and comparable. We are talking about a building that was completely gutted. A fire that burned like a roman candlestick for hours. But yet the steel structure didn't fail in less than an hour, nor did it fail in 7 hours. I don't remember the exact duration but I read an estimated timeline of the consequences of the fire and I believe it was 12 or 14 hours before the steel began to fail. Yes the concrete survived the fire and prevented a complete collapse, but the floors that did collapse did not do so for many hours. So, again I return to the question of why the WTC buildings would fail so completely, so fast, given that it took so long for a much worse fire to affect steel structures. It remains a troubling question. |
The upper steel structure collapsed after about 5 hours. The fire started at about 11pm, and the collapse occurred at about 4am:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire /CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
This, despite the fact that the building suffered no prior structural damage and despite the fact that there was no mass bearing down on the structure from above (it collapsed under its own weight alone.)
Steel structures are vulnerable to fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Yes, I've studied these links and others about the Madrid fire. If you look at how the steel fared in the fire, that is relevant and comparable. We are talking about a building that was completely gutted. A fire that burned like a roman candlestick for hours. But yet the steel structure didn't fail in less than an hour, nor did it fail in 7 hours. I don't remember the exact duration but I read an estimated timeline of the consequences of the fire and I believe it was 12 or 14 hours before the steel began to fail. Yes the concrete survived the fire and prevented a complete collapse, but the floors that did collapse did not do so for many hours. So, again I return to the question of why the WTC buildings would fail so completely, so fast, given that it took so long for a much worse fire to affect steel structures. It remains a troubling question. |
Will you accept this as an axiom? "The more mass there is above the fire, the faster a steel structure will collapse."
Doesn't that sound reasonable?
It's exactly what happened at Ground Zero, where the second tower hit was the first to fall, because it had many more tons to support above the damaged section.
Was the mass supported by the steel structure of the Madrid building comparable to that supported by the WTC towers? If not, couldn't you make a prediction about how long it would take it to collapse? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | Just because the circumstances immediately prior to the collapses of the towers are unique does not mean they aren't comparable to other high rise fires. Clearly, fires such as the Madrid hotel fire are comparable for discussion purposes. The question is; why could steel columns that have had their fireproofing knocked free (as the official story likes to claim happened when the planes hit the towers) only survive less than an hour of fire, while steel columns with fireproofing intact in a much more feircely burning fire could survive 20+ hours without weakening noticeably? This is a troubling question, particularly when WTC7 is also included in the discussion. Did the debris from WTC1/2 also knock free some of the fireproofing? If not, why did it only survive 7 hrs or so of a relatively small fire (as compared to the Madrid fire)? Critics, do you not find any of these questions worth further investigation? If not, why not? |
I'm afraid the Madrid fire is a very bad comparison.
It's core structure was reinforced concrete and 'performed extraordinarily well' in keeping the building up. It was the failure of steel perimeter columns that caused partial collapse on upper floors.
Summary and further links here:
http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=197 |
Yes, I've studied these links and others about the Madrid fire. If you look at how the steel fared in the fire, that is relevant and comparable. We are talking about a building that was completely gutted. A fire that burned like a roman candlestick for hours. But yet the steel structure didn't fail in less than an hour, nor did it fail in 7 hours. I don't remember the exact duration but I read an estimated timeline of the consequences of the fire and I believe it was 12 or 14 hours before the steel began to fail. Yes the concrete survived the fire and prevented a complete collapse, but the floors that did collapse did not do so for many hours. So, again I return to the question of why the WTC buildings would fail so completely, so fast, given that it took so long for a much worse fire to affect steel structures. It remains a troubling question. |
The upper steel structure collapsed after about 5 hours. The fire started at about 11pm, and the collapse occurred at about 4am:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire /CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
This, despite the fact that the building suffered no prior structural damage and despite the fact that there was no mass bearing down on the structure from above (it collapsed under its own weight alone.)
Steel structures are vulnerable to fire. |
so your point is? yes it collapsed after 4 HOURS of burning and ONLY the top 10 floors, and it DIDNT collapse to dust before hitting the ground. OVERALL the building didnt fall. but less fire burned for less time in wtc1,2 and look what happened, not bad for buildings that were designed for a FULLY loaded 707 crashing into it. even a fire man got up to where the fire was he must of been immune to fire to get that far, he even spoke of putting out the fire, it must of been a raging inferno the fireman was just unqualified to know what he was talking about. no wait it was just a coincidence and im a tin foil hat wearer i mean why should i be questioning steel buildings falling due to fire and jet fuel. theres been so many examples of this im just a conspiracy theorists. fire , fuel building turning to dust after burning for a short time nonsense what an idiot i am why didnt i see it before of course its believeable. i just dont get why demolition experts spend millions on explosives when a box of matches and a little jet fuel will do. why dosnt someone write to a demolition expert and suggest using fire and jet fuel to bring down building? it would save them months of planning and all and save them a lot of money, you might even get a pat on the back for saving them money and a few quid thrown your way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | so your point is? yes it collapsed after 4 HOURS of burning and ONLY the top 10 floors, and it DIDNT collapse to dust before hitting the ground. OVERALL the building didnt fall.
|
Why should it? We've established that the only way to make any comparison at all between the two buildings is to compare only the steel portion of the Madrid tower to the entire WTC tower. The WTC tower is of course much, MUCH larger, so it would naturally behave differently.
| Quote: |
but less fire burned for less time in wtc1,2 and look what happened, not bad for buildings that were designed for a FULLY loaded 707 crashing into it.
|
It DID survive the crash, didn't you notice? However, the design didn't take into account the interactions of different properties of the building as it burned. This is why NIST has recommended that building engineering takes more of a systems approach in its failure analysis.
| Quote: | even a fire man got up to where the fire was he must of been immune to fire to get that far, he even spoke of putting out the fire, it must of been a raging inferno the fireman was just unqualified to know what he was talking about.
|
No. He said the fire was containable ON THAT FLOOR. He hadn't gotten to the main part of the fire yet.
| Quote: | no wait it was just a coincidence and im a tin foil hat wearer
|
Well, yes and no.
| Quote: | | i mean why should i be questioning steel buildings falling due to fire and jet fuel. |
Indeed. You're clearly not qualified.
| Quote: | theres been so many examples of this im just a conspiracy theorists. fire , fuel building turning to dust after burning for a short time nonsense what an idiot i am why didnt i see it before of course its believeable. i just dont get why demolition experts spend millions on explosives when a box of matches and a little jet fuel will do.
|
AND an airliner crashing into the building. Did you forget that part? It was on the news.
| Quote: | | why dosnt someone write to a demolition expert and suggest using fire and jet fuel to bring down building? it would save them months of planning and all and save them a lot of money, you might even get a pat on the back for saving them money and a few quid thrown your way. |
Because they use CONTROLLED demolition, and the manner that the towers collapsed was not controlled in any way. Did you know that all the buildings in the vicinity of the towers were either destroyed or had to be demolished afterwards? Once they factor in the cost of rebuilding all the adjacent structures, it wouldn't save the demolition experts much money at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | so your point is? yes it collapsed after 4 HOURS of burning and ONLY the top 10 floors, and it DIDNT collapse to dust before hitting the ground. OVERALL the building didnt fall.
|
Why should it? We've established that the only way to make any comparison at all between the two buildings is to compare only the steel portion of the Madrid tower to the entire WTC tower. The WTC tower is of course much, MUCH larger, so it would naturally behave differently.
| Quote: |
but less fire burned for less time in wtc1,2 and look what happened, not bad for buildings that were designed for a FULLY loaded 707 crashing into it.
|
It DID survive the crash, didn't you notice? However, the design didn't take into account the interactions of different properties of the building as it burned. This is why NIST has recommended that building engineering takes more of a systems approach in its failure analysis.
| Quote: | even a fire man got up to where the fire was he must of been immune to fire to get that far, he even spoke of putting out the fire, it must of been a raging inferno the fireman was just unqualified to know what he was talking about.
|
No. He said the fire was containable ON THAT FLOOR. He hadn't gotten to the main part of the fire yet.
| Quote: | no wait it was just a coincidence and im a tin foil hat wearer
|
Well, yes and no.
| Quote: | | i mean why should i be questioning steel buildings falling due to fire and jet fuel. |
Indeed. You're clearly not qualified.
| Quote: | theres been so many examples of this im just a conspiracy theorists. fire , fuel building turning to dust after burning for a short time nonsense what an idiot i am why didnt i see it before of course its believeable. i just dont get why demolition experts spend millions on explosives when a box of matches and a little jet fuel will do.
|
AND an airliner crashing into the building. Did you forget that part? It was on the news.
| Quote: | | why dosnt someone write to a demolition expert and suggest using fire and jet fuel to bring down building? it would save them months of planning and all and save them a lot of money, you might even get a pat on the back for saving them money and a few quid thrown your way. |
Because they use CONTROLLED demolition, and the manner that the towers collapsed was not controlled in any way. Did you know that all the buildings in the vicinity of the towers were either destroyed or had to be demolished afterwards? Once they factor in the cost of rebuilding all the adjacent structures, it wouldn't save the demolition experts much money at all. |
every point you raise i can only reply with LOL. for example: you say they prepared for a plane crashings into it but they didnt expect fires as a result of that? all your points are laughable. you make it sound like school kids designed that building not experts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | Just because the circumstances immediately prior to the collapses of the towers are unique does not mean they aren't comparable to other high rise fires. Clearly, fires such as the Madrid hotel fire are comparable for discussion purposes. The question is; why could steel columns that have had their fireproofing knocked free (as the official story likes to claim happened when the planes hit the towers) only survive less than an hour of fire, while steel columns with fireproofing intact in a much more feircely burning fire could survive 20+ hours without weakening noticeably? This is a troubling question, particularly when WTC7 is also included in the discussion. Did the debris from WTC1/2 also knock free some of the fireproofing? If not, why did it only survive 7 hrs or so of a relatively small fire (as compared to the Madrid fire)? Critics, do you not find any of these questions worth further investigation? If not, why not? |
I'm afraid the Madrid fire is a very bad comparison.
It's core structure was reinforced concrete and 'performed extraordinarily well' in keeping the building up. It was the failure of steel perimeter columns that caused partial collapse on upper floors.
Summary and further links here:
http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=197 |
Yes, I've studied these links and others about the Madrid fire. If you look at how the steel fared in the fire, that is relevant and comparable. We are talking about a building that was completely gutted. A fire that burned like a roman candlestick for hours. But yet the steel structure didn't fail in less than an hour, nor did it fail in 7 hours. I don't remember the exact duration but I read an estimated timeline of the consequences of the fire and I believe it was 12 or 14 hours before the steel began to fail. Yes the concrete survived the fire and prevented a complete collapse, but the floors that did collapse did not do so for many hours. So, again I return to the question of why the WTC buildings would fail so completely, so fast, given that it took so long for a much worse fire to affect steel structures. It remains a troubling question. |
The upper steel structure collapsed after about 5 hours. The fire started at about 11pm, and the collapse occurred at about 4am:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire /CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
This, despite the fact that the building suffered no prior structural damage and despite the fact that there was no mass bearing down on the structure from above (it collapsed under its own weight alone.)
Steel structures are vulnerable to fire. |
I'm sorry about the mistake with the timing (not sure where I got the 12-14 hrs time period from) but the entire building was gutted by a fire that burned a hell of a lot more feircely and continually then the WTC fires, yet only the top floors failed, not the floors that should have been more affected by weight. I suspect that the highest temperatures in this fire were at the top, or were subjected to high temperatures for the longest period. I'm not going to disagree that concrete is more fire resistent than steel. I'm also not going to disagree with the assumption that a greater mass will cause steel to fail sooner than a smaller mass. However, that still doesn't adequetly explain IMO how quickly the WTC's steel supposedly weakened, given the lower temperatures and much shorter durations of peak temperatures that the WTCs would logically have been subjected to, as compared to the Windsor fire. Nor does it explain why the core steel columns in the WTC towers also completely collapsed. Wouldn't the steel in the less massive outer columns have collapsed sooner than the interior core columns? How does it come about that, in both WTC 1 and WTC 2, that the outer steel columns and inner core columns all contrived to fail at the same moment? This can also be asked of WTC7. If you believe that fire triggered the global collapse, isn't it odd that all the core columns contrived to fail together? Wouldn't one expect the collapses to occur more disjointly, as the Windsor hotel does? Question: did the collapse of the upper floors of the Windsor tower all occur simultaneously? This is an honest question - does anyone know?Also, the impacts of the planes on the towers were not identical. The 2nd plane didn't hit square on as the 1st did and much of it's fuel appears to burn out in the air. Would not these differences in impact characteristics have affected the timing of the collapses? Instead, despite this, all the columns fail at the same time. It just doesn't make sense to me.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | Just because the circumstances immediately prior to the collapses of the towers are unique does not mean they aren't comparable to other high rise fires. Clearly, fires such as the Madrid hotel fire are comparable for discussion purposes. The question is; why could steel columns that have had their fireproofing knocked free (as the official story likes to claim happened when the planes hit the towers) only survive less than an hour of fire, while steel columns with fireproofing intact in a much more feircely burning fire could survive 20+ hours without weakening noticeably? This is a troubling question, particularly when WTC7 is also included in the discussion. Did the debris from WTC1/2 also knock free some of the fireproofing? If not, why did it only survive 7 hrs or so of a relatively small fire (as compared to the Madrid fire)? Critics, do you not find any of these questions worth further investigation? If not, why not? |
I'm afraid the Madrid fire is a very bad comparison.
It's core structure was reinforced concrete and 'performed extraordinarily well' in keeping the building up. It was the failure of steel perimeter columns that caused partial collapse on upper floors.
Summary and further links here:
http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=197 |
Yes, I've studied these links and others about the Madrid fire. If you look at how the steel fared in the fire, that is relevant and comparable. We are talking about a building that was completely gutted. A fire that burned like a roman candlestick for hours. But yet the steel structure didn't fail in less than an hour, nor did it fail in 7 hours. I don't remember the exact duration but I read an estimated timeline of the consequences of the fire and I believe it was 12 or 14 hours before the steel began to fail. Yes the concrete survived the fire and prevented a complete collapse, but the floors that did collapse did not do so for many hours. So, again I return to the question of why the WTC buildings would fail so completely, so fast, given that it took so long for a much worse fire to affect steel structures. It remains a troubling question. |
The upper steel structure collapsed after about 5 hours. The fire started at about 11pm, and the collapse occurred at about 4am:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire /CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
This, despite the fact that the building suffered no prior structural damage and despite the fact that there was no mass bearing down on the structure from above (it collapsed under its own weight alone.)
Steel structures are vulnerable to fire. |
I'm sorry about the mistake with the timing (not sure where I got the 12-14 hrs time period from) but the entire building was gutted by a fire that burned a hell of a lot more feircely and continually then the WTC fires, yet only the top floors failed, not the floors that should have been more affected by weight. I suspect that the highest temperatures in this fire were at the top, or were subjected to high temperatures for the longest period. I'm not going to disagree that concrete is more fire resistent than steel. I'm also not going to disagree with the assumption that a greater mass will cause steel to fail sooner than a smaller mass. However, that still doesn't adequetly explain IMO how quickly the WTC's steel supposedly weakened, given the lower temperatures and much shorter durations of peak temperatures that the WTCs would logically have been subjected to, as compared to the Windsor fire. Nor does it explain why the core steel columns in the WTC towers also completely collapsed. Wouldn't the steel in the less massive outer columns have collapsed sooner than the interior core columns? How does it come about that, in both WTC 1 and WTC 2, that the outer steel columns and inner core columns all contrived to fail at the same moment? This can also be asked of WTC7. If you believe that fire triggered the global collapse, isn't it odd that all the core columns contrived to fail together? Wouldn't one expect the collapses to occur more disjointly, as the Windsor hotel does? Question: did the collapse of the upper floors of the Windsor tower all occur simultaneously? This is an honest question - does anyone know?Also, the impacts of the planes on the towers were not identical. The 2nd plane didn't hit square on as the 1st did and much of it's fuel appears to burn out in the air. Would not these differences in impact characteristics have affected the timing of the collapses? Instead, despite this, all the columns fail at the same time. It just doesn't make sense to me. |
Many colleges and universities offer night classes on a wide variety of topics. I'm learning advanced OOP techniques using Java at my local community college. They also offer physics, materials science, chemistry, fluid dynamics, statics, applied mechanics, building safety certification, and a variety of other topics that might contribute to your understanding of what happened to the buildings at Ground Zero.
Just a friendly suggestion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk wrote: | | Many colleges and universities offer night classes on a wide variety of topics. I'm learning advanced OOP techniques using Java at my local community college. They also offer physics, materials science, chemistry, fluid dynamics, statics, applied mechanics, building safety certification, and a variety of other topics that might contribute to your understanding of what happened to the buildings at Ground Zero. |
Fine, I'm an idiot who knows nothing about Physics. Obviously, it must be extremely foolish of me to not understand how likely, indeed expected, it is that the core support structures of each building failed basically simultaneously such that they fell basically straight down, other than a chunk of one tower which miraculously disintegrates in mid-air the moment it begins to fall slightly off the vertical. Oh wait, that's just physics, isn't it?
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiv
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: 9:11 Press For Truth is a great film.. |
|
|
MiniMauve, don't concern yourself about the above comments by Chipmunk Stew and other critics. Advanced 'Object Oriented' Programming does not give him any knowledge of physics. In fact, as someone who has studied physics, albeit many years ago now, I can tell you that the collapse of the Twin Towers and the WTC defied the laws of physics, and myself and others have argued this in other postings on this site. I'm afraid that even the likes of Chipmunk Stew with his OO programming can't defy laws of physics, unless, of course, he is doing fantasy games programming.
This thread was about the film "911: Press For Truth". My copy of the DVD arrived from America a few days ago, and I watched it last night. I thought it extremely good, and demonstrated clearly to me that officials and politicians in the American Government are covering up and lying. Rice was literally caught with her knickers down in a bare faced lie about what intelligence warnings there were prior to 9/11, and it was clear that the cosseted liars in the criminal Government very much 'looked after themselves' in taking travelling precautions prior to the alleged attacks. However, it did not raise any of the questions we raise on this forum regarding 9/11, except the question as to why no fighters were scrambled. But, in my opinion, that does not matter, as whatever the arguments and questions which rage on about 9/11, both on this forum and others, no-one knows exactly what happened that day, so the critics here who want us to give them answers will have to be disappointed.
However, what the film "9/11: Press For Truth" does is back very well the call by the people of the world for a proper, full, thorough and independent inquiry with the proper legal powers to cross examine witnesses, call for documents and other evidence, and really ask searching questions. If they then, after examining all the evidence, support the 'official' 9/11 explanation, then so be it. But, in my own opinion, I would be surprised if a proper inquiry would reach that conclusion.
I wouldn't have any hesitation in lending my DVD out to start introducing someone to the questions concerning 9/11. It was a great film, in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | chipmunk wrote: | | Many colleges and universities offer night classes on a wide variety of topics. I'm learning advanced OOP techniques using Java at my local community college. They also offer physics, materials science, chemistry, fluid dynamics, statics, applied mechanics, building safety certification, and a variety of other topics that might contribute to your understanding of what happened to the buildings at Ground Zero. |
Fine, I'm an idiot who knows nothing about Physics. Obviously, it must be extremely foolish of me to not understand how likely, indeed expected, it is that the core support structures of each building failed basically simultaneously such that they fell basically straight down, other than a chunk of one tower which miraculously disintegrates in mid-air the moment it begins to fall slightly off the vertical. Oh wait, that's just physics, isn't it? |
The point is, MM, that in some cases, you're asking a bunch of questions that have been answered or can be answered, but when you get the answers you reject them. And in other cases, you're asking the wrong questions, such as "How does it come about that, in both WTC 1 and WTC 2, that the outer steel columns and inner core columns all contrived to fail at the same moment?" which is asking for an explanation for something that did not occur. The structural members all failed in rapid succession, but not simultaneously. This is typical in structural failures because loads are shared. If a load exceeds the bearing limit of one structural member, it will fail, and its share of the load will be transferred to the other members, causing others to fail, which will cause their share of the load to be transferred to the remaining members, etc. A chain reaction that can happen very rapidly, particularly when you're dealing with large loads like, say, a building.
I'm just suggesting that a refresher course in some of these concepts couldn't hurt. And it may help you avoid getting suckered by bad physics like Judy "Billiard Balls and Keebler Elves" Wood's analysis of the twin towers collapses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: 9:11 Press For Truth is a great film.. |
|
|
| spiv wrote: | | Rice was literally caught with her knickers down |
Really! Cool! Do they have pictures? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: |
The point is, MM, that in some cases, you're asking a bunch of questions that have been answered or can be answered, but when you get the answers you reject them. |
But i've found just as many people and sites that also question (reject is too strong a word for where I'm at) your and other critics answers. Why are their credentials less than yours? I think it was telecastration who said that it is similar to court cases where both the defender and the prosecutor provide experts to testify whom basically cancel each other out. One is left to decide for oneself. Despite my sarcasm, I'm not an idiot, and the tower collapse as theorized by the 911 commission does not adequetly explain what happened to my satisfaction.
| Quote: | | And in other cases, you're asking the wrong questions, such as "How does it come about that, in both WTC 1 and WTC 2, that the outer steel columns and inner core columns all contrived to fail at the same moment?" which is asking for an explanation for something that did not occur. The structural members all failed in rapid succession, but not simultaneously. This is typical in structural failures because loads are shared. If a load exceeds the bearing limit of one structural member, it will fail, and its share of the load will be transferred to the other members, causing others to fail, which will cause their share of the load to be transferred to the remaining members, etc. A chain reaction that can happen very rapidly, particularly when you're dealing with large loads like, say, a building. |
Again with the black and white mentality. My point is that even a second's delay between one side of the tower's outer columns failing should logically have caused the collapsing floors to lurch sideways, not fall straight down. We can argue back and forth on this forever. The most important point I can get across is there IS enough contradictory testimony and suspicious evidence to warrant a deeper look into 911. Your and other critics continual refusal (except for some rare exceptions) to even consider such an option tells me that you are unwilling to consider anything that threatens your entrenched ideas.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
