911 conspiracy theorists. What would convince you 911 WASNT a inside job

Sixtus

Simple question.

What would convince you that 19 fundamentalists hijacked 4 planes to attack the pentagon the twin towers and a 4th plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania?

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

Simple question.

What would convince you that 19 fundamentalists hijacked 4 planes to attack the pentagon the twin towers and a 4th plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania?

Evidence that they were "fundamentalists" for a start.

vforvictory

Sixtus wrote: »

Simple question.

What would convince you that 19 fundamentalists hijacked 4 planes to attack the pentagon the twin towers and a 4th plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania?

Have you seen Jim Corr on the Late Late show?

BloodBath

Or Evidence that it is possible that Hani Hanjour, someone who could barely fly a cessna, could have pulled off the maneuver on the final approach to hit the pentagon in a fully loaded 757.

Atomicjuicer

Footage showing how the other WTC buildings ignited and collapsed without even being directly hit.

All of them. I think WTC 7 was the furthest one away?

Colgem

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Evidence that they were "fundamentalists" for a start.

I think the evidence that they were fundamentalists is their actions killing 3,000 plus people.

Many of the hijackers made statements both on video and in print explaining their reasons for the attack.

Colgem

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Footage showing how the other WTC buildings ignited and collapsed without even being directly hit.

All of them. I think WTC 7 was the furthest one away?

Yes WTC 7 was the furthest away. The design of the WTC 7 contributed to it's collapse.



It's 2013, 12 years after the attack, expecting new footage at this point is unrealistic.

A better question, "what possible evidence that could exist would convince you 9/11 was not a inside jo?"

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

Or Evidence that it is possible that Hani Hanjour, someone who could barely fly a cessna, could have pulled off the maneuver on the final approach to hit the pentagon in a fully loaded 757.

There's this testimony from Guilio Bernacchia,

I’ve been a pilot for the past 27 years, first in the Italian Air Force, and then as a check Captain for an airline.

I have a good experience as a simulator instructor and examiner, (as a matter of fact one of my jobs was to train people with very basic experience…), and I flew NATO AWACS planes as an Aircraft Commander (air refueling qualified) and maritime patrol airplanes very low over water.

So, maybe immodestly, I think I can enter the 9-11 are

http://www.911myths.com/html/giulio_bernacchia.html

Provides scans of all his certifications


For starts he points out Hanjour had a full pilots licence and the claim that he couldn't pull this off is just selective editing of the flight school owner

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf


Other things about Hanjour

Chevrette said that the school's student, Hani Hanjour, lacked adequate English skills to gain his pilot's license. An FAA official responded to her concerns by suggesting that Hanjour could use an interpreter even though mastery of English is a requirement for a pilot. Chevrette said that when the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, she knew Hanjour must have been involved.
"I remember crying all the way to work knowing our company helped to do this," she said.
Chevrette said that Hanjour's English was so bad that it took him eight hours to complete an oral exam that should've taken two hours.

One 9/11 Commission footnote (to Chapter 7) is relatively positive. 170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52­57. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).

FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license. That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml

Hanjour was a average pilot with both a private and commercial licence.

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said" http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

So lets be clear a number of pilots including Hanjour's trainer think he could manage a 757.

Onto whether he could do it

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the ****ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn. It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."
"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

[QUOTE=Giulio Bernacchia]In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.[/QUOTE]



So to conclude a number of aviation experts think that those who were astonished by Hanjour's behaviour are just aghast at his recklessness, a recklessness that is plausible when you consider he was trying to crash a plane filled without innocent people into a building.

Bloodbath does that satisfy you?

Atomicjuicer

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Footage showing how the other WTC buildings ignited and collapsed without even being directly hit.

Flameing debris from the collapsing towers. No footage exists of it hitting the buildings as there weren't many cameras that close at that time.

However there is ample evidence of large sections of debris going a large distance.
For example:
This damage done to the 3 World Financial centre, which is just next to the North Bridge on the map that Colgem posted
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/600000_pounds.jpg

A close up shows an unmistakable chunk of WTC1's cladding hanging from it.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WFC3_close.jpg

Or here: http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image71fema.jpg
This is the Bankers Trust building which is on the very bottom of the map

If large debris can make it as far as those buildings, similar sized ones or smaller ones can make it as far as all of the WTC buildings.

http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

Atomicjuicer

King Mob wrote: »

Flameing debris from the collapsing towers. No footage exists of it hitting the buildings as there weren't many cameras that close at that time.

However there is ample evidence of large sections of debris going a large distance.
For example:
This damage done to the 3 World Financial centre, which is just next to the North Bridge on the map that Colgem posted
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/600000_pounds.jpg

A close up shows an unmistakable chunk of WTC1's cladding hanging from it.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WFC3_close.jpg

Or here: http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image71fema.jpg
This is the Bankers Trust building which is on the very bottom of the map

If large debris can make it as far as those buildings, similar sized ones or smaller ones can make it as far as all of the WTC buildings.

http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

You left out the most significant part of my post when you quoted me.

Colgem

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Footage showing how the other WTC buildings ignited and collapsed without even being directly hit.

Many buildings in the wtc complex were destroyed, due to falling debris.

Why do you expect new footage to appear 12 years later.

All of them. I think WTC 7 was the furthest one away?

And the WTC 7 was the only one built over a subway station and a power substation.

Atomicjuicer

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

You left out the most significant part of my post when you quoted me.

I don't understand why it is significant.
It is the furthest of the WTC buildings as Colgem pointed out already.

I provided photos that show that very large chunks of debris made it large distances comparable to the distance between WTC1 and 7.
These photos also show that smaller debris could make it much much further.
It wouldn't have needed much flaming debris to start the fires and it wouldn't have needed to be that big. I have shown that such debris could have made it to all of the WTC buildings, including WTC7.

endacl

Reading the various conspiracy theories has me convinced that 19 hijackers carried it out, pretty much as described.

Atomicjuicer

Colgem wrote: »

Why do you expect new footage to appear 12 years later.

I don't but the op asked what would convince me.

It's the biggest physical mystery to me because WTC 7 was pretty far away.

Colgem

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

I don't but the op asked what would convince me.

Okay but that's like saying "I'd be convinced if I could see real time evidence of osama bin laden watching and planning the attacks. It's unlikely that there is any new footage of the WTC 7 collapse.

So aside from evidence that doesn't exist what evidence would convince you 9/11 was a inside job?

It's the biggest physical mystery to me because WTC 7 was pretty far away.

Its not a mystery, among the buildings in the WTC complex WTC 7 was one several buildings that collapsed.

Pretty far away is a relative concept. Being situation few hundred meters away from two of the largest skyscrapers as they collapse does not really fit into my concept of pretty far away. Brooklyn is pretty far away from the WTC complex.

weisses

Even without the structural damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires alone

stuar

Maybe if all the "hijackers" we're dead would be a good start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

Then a video of an actual plane hitting the pentagon would help, even 12 years later there's plenty of confiscated CCTV that would show an actual plane hitting the most heavily guarded building on the planet.

Also if some of the members of the 911 commission didn't call it a whitewash, would help.

If Silverstein didn't say they decided to pull it, WTC 7, God knows how they rigged it so fast.

If no squibs were visible on the collapsing towers, if firefighters and NYPD didn't hear and report explosions.

Just a couple of things.......

Colgem

stuar wrote: »

Maybe if all the "hijackers" we're dead would be a good start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

A long debunked myth. A case of two men with same names.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

In the decade since the attacks no one has managed to interview any of these "alive" hijackers.

Then a video of an actual plane hitting the pentagon would help, even 12 years later there's plenty of confiscated CCTV that would show an actual plane hitting the most heavily guarded building on the planet.

Guarded. Not CCTV. The Pentagon has it's own police force, a more effective way of protecting a building than CCTV.

Also if some of the members of the 911 commission didn't call it a whitewash, would help.

Which ones.

If Silverstein didn't say they decided to pull it, WTC 7, God knows how they rigged it so fast.

One wonders what would possess Silverstein to confess to mass murder in a tv interview. Because that's all there is to this baseless claim.

If no squibs were visible on the collapsing towers, if firefighters and NYPD didn't hear and report explosions.

Explosions don't mean explosives. Plenty of things could have exploded in the building during the fires. Power substations, fire extinguishers etc.....

Just a couple of things.......

A couple of very tenuous things.

Atomicjuicer

Interesting ads on this page...

Colgem

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Interesting ads on this page...

I'm not sure I see it. Also whats your point, Atlantic Airlines Training are in on it, and launched a ad campaign to announce this fact?

weisses

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Interesting ads on this page...

That one was funny

BloodBath

weisses wrote: »

Even without the structural damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires alone

Based on what? It's never happened in the History of steel frames skyscrapers and many have had blazing fires all throughout the building.

One of the basic design requirements would be to withstand fire.

BloodBath

BloodBath wrote: »

Based on what? It's never happened in the History of steel frames skyscrapers and many have had blazing fires all throughout the building.

One of the basic design requirements would be to withstand fire.

Based on the conclusions of the NIST report on WTC7.

Yes buildings are design to resist fire, but they are not perfect and on 9/11 some of these measures where not working. For instance the sprinkler system on lower floors was not working as they drew water from the city mains which were shut down in the area by the collapse of the towers. Another factor is that the fires were not fought by the fire department for a long time as they had more important things to deal with and when they did get around to tackling the fire, it was too late to do much good.

There have been many instances of steel framed structures failing due to fire alone. However even if there weren't this is not evidence that WTC7 could not have collapsed as it is a unique building under unique circumstances.

A stealth demolition of a skyscraper, or an explosive demolition of a skyscraper that was on fire, or an explosive demolition of a building that size have never happened before in the history of steel framed skyscrapers either, yet this does not exclude these as possibilities for you.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

Based on what? It's never happened in the History of steel frames skyscrapers and many have had blazing fires all throughout the building.

Several steel framed skyscrapers have collapsed. Take the Windsor building in Madrid. It suffered a partial collapse due to office fires. Which part of the building collapsed? The steel framed part.

One of the basic design requirements would be to withstand fire.

Indeed which is why building designers are required to fireproof steel supports.

Think about it, if steel framed buildings were designed to be fire resistant why would it be necessary (and legally required) to fire proof steel.

As to the WTC collapse (and indeed the WTC 7) yes these buildings are designed to withstand fires. There are not, nor are the expected to be immune to fires.

BloodBath

I never said it was demolished. I'm just saying there is no way in hell it would collapse from fire alone. A sprinkler system is not there to prevent collapse. Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

It's the basic physics of it. A steel framed skyscraper is a gigantic heatsink. Heat spreads from any source throughout the whole frame. The fires could never get hot enough to get them even close to collapse and unlike the main towers the building did not suffer significant damage to expose the protected steel frame to the fire. It would still have it's fire resistant coating.

If the Nist report claims fire could have taken the building down alone then I say the NIST report is a load of bollox.

There are multiple cases of similar sized buildings with far more severe longer burning fires and guess what? Not 1 of them collapsed.

Maybe you should think for yourself?

weisses

Colgem wrote: »

Several steel framed skyscrapers have collapsed. Take the Windsor building in Madrid. It suffered a partial collapse due to office fires. Which part of the building collapsed? The steel framed part.

Yes partial collapse while that building was fully engulfed in flames

yet building 7 only burning mainly on one side (fires on the north-side burned out by itself during the day)
manages to fall almost in its own footprint in about 15 seconds with partial free fall speed

NIST explained it in a nice computer model but when asked to provide the data used so it could be verified or recreated they refused to give the data ( apparently peer reviewed doesn't matter to much in some circumstances)

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

Simple question.

What would convince you that 19 fundamentalists hijacked 4 planes to attack the pentagon the twin towers and a 4th plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania?

But just to anwser the OP

Another building anywhere in the world collapsing almost in its own footprint in about 15 seconds with partial freefall speed due to fire... if that happens i will hold my hands up and wholeheartedly admit i was wrong regarding building 7 .... but so far it never happened and i think it will never happen ever

Colgem

weisses wrote: »

But just to anwser the OP

Another building anywhere in the world collapsing almost in its own footprint in about 15 seconds with partial freefall speed due to fire... if that happens i will hold my hands up and wholeheartedly admit i was wrong regarding building 7 .... but so far it never happened and i think it will never happen ever

Thats quite difficult. Few buildings have ever sustained the kind of damage that WTC 7. The fires in WTC 7 were not fought for over 6 hours. Few buildings are designed in the same way as WTC 7 was.

The issues about the WTC 7 collapse are

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

Essentially you're demanding that a unique event be recreated. Thats quite difficult if not impossible.

BloodBath

BloodBath wrote: »

I never said it was demolished. I'm just saying there is no way in hell it would collapse from fire alone.

Then how do you suppose that it did collapse? Because if it's not a demolition, why would there be a cover up? Why would the NIST report get it wrong?

BloodBath wrote: »

A sprinkler system is not there to prevent collapse. Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

A sprinkler system slows down the spread of fire.

BloodBath wrote: »

It's the basic physics of it. A steel framed skyscraper is a gigantic heatsink. Heat spreads from any source throughout the whole frame. The fires could never get hot enough to get them even close to collapse and unlike the main towers the building did not suffer significant damage to expose the protected steel frame to the fire. It would still have it's fire resistant coating.

If the Nist report claims fire could have taken the building down alone then I say the NIST report is a load of bollox.

According to the NIST report the failure of the building was because of one column giving out and spreading more load on other columns which were already weakened by the fire.
Steel gets weaker the more it heats up. It doesn't have to melt for it to give out.

How hot were the fires in WTC7 and how do you know that they couldn't get hot enough?

BloodBath wrote: »

There are multiple cases of similar sized buildings with far more severe longer burning fires and guess what? Not 1 of them collapsed.

Maybe you should think for yourself?

And again, not one of them shared the same blueprints as WTC7 or the same set of circumstances.

There are plenty of examples of steel framed structure that collapsed and failed due to fire, which show that they can be weakened by fire and for a column in a steel framed building to fail.

weisses

Colgem wrote: »

Thats quite difficult. Few buildings have ever sustained the kind of damage that WTC 7. The fires in WTC 7 were not fought for over 6 hours. Few buildings are designed in the same way as WTC 7 was.

The issues about the WTC 7 collapse are

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

Essentially you're demanding that a unique event be recreated. Thats quite difficult if not impossible.

Damage from the outside had nothing to do with the collapse (according to the officials) so we have a building that collapsed as i described due to fire alone .... I would have totally accepted when wtc7 would had partially collapsed

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

I never said it was demolished. I'm just saying there is no way in hell it would collapse from fire alone.

Those two statements are a oxymoron. You can't claim you don't believe it could collapse from fire alone. This must mean you believe that the fire had help. Correct?

A sprinkler system is not there to prevent collapse. Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

Now that simply isn't true

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

Notice this part

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/
24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

Continuing

Other Fires

In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt

About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf


Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf

All taken from

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

So there you have it bloodbath a list of steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire.

It's the basic physics of it. A steel framed skyscraper is a gigantic heatsink. Heat spreads from any source throughout the whole frame. The fires could never get hot enough to get them even close to collapse and unlike the main towers the building did not suffer significant damage to expose the protected steel frame to the fire. It would still have it's fire resistant coating.

Except it was struck by large chunks of the towers of WTC 1&2 during the collapse.

In addition the term is "fire resistant" coating. Not fire immune. The fires in WTC 7 burned unfought for over 6 hours long enough to damage the coating.

If the Nist report claims fire could have taken the building down alone then I say the NIST report is a load of bollox.

Which is your right. However engineers and architects the world over have taken the NIST report and used it the redesign and change the design of buildings built after it was released.

So they are swallowing the bollocks apparently.

There are multiple cases of similar sized buildings with far more severe longer burning fires and guess what? Not 1 of them collapsed.

Maybe you should think for yourself?

I think I've disproven the statement above.

runswithascript

Oh my God, I cannot believe they gave these nuts their own forum but at least it keeps them away from the other boards.

Jim Corr is a nut and I am sure his family cringe whenever they see him in the media. The man is not playing with a full deck of cards.

If you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy you are also a nut.

Mod: Banned

weisses

Colgem wrote: »

Those two statements are a oxymoron. You can't claim you don't believe it could collapse from fire alone. This must mean you believe that the fire had help. Correct?



Now that simply isn't true



Notice this part

[/SIZE][/FONT]




Continuing




All taken from

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

So there you have it bloodbath a list of steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire.



Except it was struck by large chunks of the towers of WTC 1&2 during the collapse.

In addition the term is "fire resistant" coating. Not fire immune. The fires in WTC 7 burned unfought for over 6 hours long enough to damage the coating.




Which is your right. However engineers and architects the world over have taken the NIST report and used it the redesign and change the design of buildings built after it was released.

So they are swallowing the bollocks apparently.



I think I've disproven the statement above.

I didn't see any reference to buildings that collapsed in under 20 seconds almost into their own footprint at partially free fall speed due to office fires

Unless I'm missing something

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And again, not one of them shared the same blueprints as WTC7 or the same set of circumstances.

There are plenty of examples of steel framed structure that collapsed and failed due to fire, which show that they can be weakened by fire and for a column in a steel framed building to fail.

So why are you thanking a poster who uses these same buildings to disprove the CT point?? But when used by a CT er you state that the buildings don't share the same blueprint?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So why are you thanking a poster who uses these same buildings to disprove the CT point?? But when used by a CT er you state that the buildings don't share the same blueprint?

Because they show that it is possible that steel frame structures can fail due to fire alone.
In those examples struts and columns were weakened and failed due to fire therefore it shows that struts and columns could have been weakened and fail in WTC7.

They however cannot show that it is impossible for WTC7 to collapse because they are of different construction. The buildings that didn't collapse could have had something that WTC7 did not have, like a more robust structure or less of a load than WTC7. Or it could be that these buildings did not have the same flaws and weaknesses that WTC7 had that contributed to it's collapse.
This would mean that they could have survived where WTC7 failed.

Now why did some steel framed buildings collapse, but others not?

BloodBath

Then how do you suppose that it did collapse? Because if it's not a demolition, why would there be a cover up? Why would the NIST report get it wrong?

I don't know but I do know it was not from fire. I was responding to his claim that even if the building wasn't damage it would have collapsed from fire alone.

A sprinkler system slows down the spread of fire.

Exactly, which gives people more time to evacuate and firefighters more time to control it. Not to prevent collapse.

According to the NIST report the failure of the building was because of one column giving out and spreading more load on other columns which were already weakened by the fire.
Steel gets weaker the more it heats up. It doesn't have to melt for it to give out.

I am aware of all of that. I think everybody is at this stage. It would not have got weak enough for collapse from fire alone. The fires weren't even severe. Weakened columns would show signs of partial collapsing. It wouldn't just go hey I've had enough and collapse uniformly at near free fall speed.

How hot were the fires in WTC7 and how do you know that they couldn't get hot enough?

I know what the max limits could have been and how steel distributes heat to the whole structure minimising heat build up in small areas.

There are plenty of examples of steel framed structure that collapsed and failed due to fire, which show that they can be weakened by fire and for a column in a steel framed building to fail.

Care to share some of these many examples?

BloodBath

Those two statements are a oxymoron. You can't claim you don't believe it could collapse from fire alone. This must mean you believe that the fire had help. Correct?

It's not an Oxymoron. He claimed the building could have collapsed from fire alone and I said that it couldn't. This doesn't mean that I believe it was demolished. It's possible a combination of damage and fire could do it but not fire on it's own.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

Partial collapse is not a full collapse. The one full collapse had unprotected trusses. WTC7 had protected ones and wasn't hit by planes so the protection was intact. It also had core columns. You get the information from a debunking site and pass it off as unbiased information?

Except it was struck by large chunks of the towers of WTC 1&2 during the collapse.

In addition the term is "fire resistant" coating. Not fire immune. The fires in WTC 7 burned unfought for over 6 hours long enough to damage the coating.

As were many of the building surrounding them. I am willing to accept it's a possibility if the evidence adds up. Again people are taking what I said out of context. My original comment was in reply to the claim that the building could have collapsed from fire alone.

I think I've disproven the statement above.

No you haven't. You've proven me right but thanks anyway.

Oh my God, I cannot believe they gave these nuts their own forum but at least it keeps them away from the other boards.

Jim Corr is a nut and I am sure his family cringe whenever they see him in the media. The man is not playing with a full deck of cards.

If you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy you are also a nut.

Yeah anyone that thought the Nazi party started the Reichstag fire was a nut too right?

Enjoy your ban buddy, don't come back.

BloodBath

BloodBath wrote: »

I don't know but I do know it was not from fire. I was responding to his claim that even if the building wasn't damage it would have collapsed from fire alone.

There is not one single other explanation that can explain how the building collapsesthat is not full of the holes and impossibilities that you are using to reject the official explanation (only that these are valid).
Nor can you provide a single plausible reason why the government would cover up the real cause of the collapse if it wasn't a demolition.

BloodBath wrote: »

Exactly, which gives people more time to evacuate and firefighters more time to control it. Not to prevent collapse

And if they aren't working the fire burns hotter for long and spreads out more.

BloodBath wrote: »

I am aware of all of that. I think everybody is at this stage. It would not have got weak enough for collapse from fire alone. The fires weren't even severe.

How do you know that it would not have gotten weak enough? What are you basing this assertion on?

BloodBath wrote: »

Weakened columns would show signs of partial collapsing. It wouldn't just go hey I've had enough and collapse uniformly at near free fall speed.

But the building did not collapse uniformly at near free fall speed.
The roof buckled in one section when the first column failed, the collapse then spread outwards from that section dragging the internal structure first then pulling the outer facade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrzeN-wvHD4

Note how the penthouse on the left of the frame vanishes and collapses before the rest (most conspiracy videos leave this part out), then the roof falling in before the main part of the building

This is consistent with the official explanation of one column failing and spreading it's load to other columns that could not support it.

BloodBath wrote: »

I know what the max limits could have been and how steel distributes heat to the whole structure minimising heat build up in small areas.

Ok, so what was it? How did the heat distribute through the steel and how did this prevent the columns from weakening?

BloodBath wrote: »

Care to share some of these many examples?

Colgem has posted an extensive list.

Is it possible that a steel framed building can collapse due to fire?
If not, why did those buildings collapse, partially collapse or made firefighters worry that they would collapse?
If so, why then is it impossible for WTC7?

BloodBath

I didn't even want to get into this debate.

I simply made a comment about the claim that the fire alone would have made the building collapse without any structural damage.

If you have all the answers and want to debate something then please go to the JFK thread and explain CE399 to me.

Colgem

weisses wrote: »

I didn't see any reference to buildings that collapsed in under 20 seconds almost into their own footprint at partially free fall speed due to office fires

Unless I'm missing something

Firstly Bloodbath claimed no steel framed building collapsed from a fire period[/b.

I was correctly that.

Secondly. Only part of the WTC 7 complex fell for a brief period of time at freefall speed. And it did not collapse into its own footprint.

Please answer the post that is directed at you.

The issues about the WTC 7 collapse are

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

Essentially you're demanding that a unique event be recreated. Thats quite difficult if not impossible.

BloodBath

Colgem wrote: »

Firstly Bloodbath claimed no steel framed building collapsed from a fire period[/b.

I was correctly that.

Secondly. Only part of the WTC 7 complex fell for a brief period of time at freefall speed. And it did not collapse into its own footprint.

Please answer the post that is directed at you.

One building which had unprotected trusses and no central columns. A building engineered by an 8 year old would probably collapse too.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

It's not an Oxymoron. He claimed the building could have collapsed from fire alone and I said that it couldn't. This doesn't mean that I believe it was demolished. It's possible a combination of damage and fire could do it but not fire on it's own.

So to be clear you don't believe the WTC 7 complex was demolished on purpose.

Why do you think it's proof of a inside job?

Partial collapse is not a full collapse.

It's incredibly rude to not read my posts.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/t...ons/tr-049.txt

About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p...ons/TR-068.pdf


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p...ons/TR-061.pdf


Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p...ons/tr-135.pdf

The one full collapse had unprotected trusses. WTC7 had protected ones and wasn't hit by planes so the protection was intact.

But the fire was unfought for over 6 hours, it was fought in these other buildings.

It also had core columns. You get the information from a debunking site and pass it off as unbiased information?

Please point out any errors in the article.

As were many of the building surrounding them. I am willing to accept it's a possibility if the evidence adds up. Again people are taking what I said out of context. My original comment was in reply to the claim that the building could have collapsed from fire alone.

We are taking it in context.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

I didn't even want to get into this debate.

I simply made a comment about the claim that the fire alone would have made the building collapse without any structural damage.

Then what do you think caused the collapse and why do you think the NIST got it wrong.

And why are engineers and architects using the NIST report to help model new buildings.

If you have all the answers and want to debate something then please go to the JFK thread and explain CE399 to me.

This thread is about 9/11 kindly don't try and take it off topic.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

One building which had unprotected trusses and no central columns. A building engineered by an 8 year old would probably collapse too.

List of steel framed buildings that collapsed or suffered a partical collapse due to fire

Unprotected steel fails in Madrid's Windsor Building fire, concrete core stands. Go
Three multistory steel-framed factory buildings quickly collapse due to fire Go
Unprotected steel truss roof quickly fails in fire at McCormick Place, Chicago Go
Fire damage to protected steel in One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia Go
Noises in steel buildings during fire equals danger! Go
NIST: Fire Protection of Structural Steel in High-Rise buildings (white paper) Go
Underwriters Labs post-9/11 WTC fire testing, ASTM E119 standard Go
The discipline of structural fire protection after 9/11 Go
Performance of unprotected steel and composite steel frames exposed to fire (Master's Thesis) Go
Effect of Support Conditions on Steel Beams Exposed of Fire (Master's Thesis) Go
Fire safety engineering forum (numerous papers) Go
Eurocode: Introduction to Structural Fire Engineering (Powerpoint presentation) Go
Determination of fire induced collapse mechanisms of multi-story steel framed structures Go
Some interesting thoughts on WTC fire protection, steel vs. concrete, redundancy, new materials Go
Restrained fire resistance ratings in structural steel buildings Go
Fire Protection Engineering: The future of fire simulation at NIST Go
NIST early WTC fire simulation experiments and photos Go
(Posted again) NIST WTC 7 Interim Report June, 2004 Go
FEMA Report 403, Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Go
NIST best practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings (draft) Go
NYC Dept. of Buildings WTC Task Force recommendations report Go
NIST NCSTAR1-1C Maintenance and Modifications to WTC 1, 2 &7 Structural Systems Go
Silverstein & Insurers commissioned own WTC failure studies Go
Scientific American: New Thinking to Make Skyscrapers Safer Go
Manuel Garcia Jr.: The Thermodynamics of 9/11 Go
Chris Marrion of ARUP USA Go

Links to several fire studies from Peter, an architect with experience in designing high-rises
Publications of the University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research Program Go
The behavior of lightweight composite floor trusses in fire Go
Arup Fire on Tall Buildings and the Events of 9/11 Go
Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms of Multi-Storey Steel Framed Structures Go

Book: Why Buildings Fall Down (great for the layman)
Publications of the Fire Safety Association

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/somelinkstostudiesandexamplesofthebehavi

Steel framed buildings with fire protection have collapsed.

Your statement that

bloodbath wrote:

Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

Is utterly erroneous.

BloodBath

BloodBath wrote: »

I didn't even want to get into this debate.

I simply made a comment about the claim that the fire alone would have made the building collapse without any structural damage.

And I have explained why this comment is not a sound one.
You are making assertions that are unsupported, contrary to evidence and ultimately even more nonsensical than you are accusing the official story to be.

It's clear that it's entirely possible for columns in a steel framed building to fail and weaken due to fire alone as the examples provided by Colgem show.
I have explained how the collapse of WTC7 began with the failure of one column due to fire.
So it is possible that WTC7 collapsed due to fire.

You however have not provided any reason at all to think that your comment, that the collapse was impossible, is true.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Because they show that it is possible that steel frame structures can fail due to fire alone.
In those examples struts and columns were weakened and failed due to fire therefore it shows that struts and columns could have been weakened and fail in WTC7.

They however cannot show that it is impossible for WTC7 to collapse because they are of different construction. The buildings that didn't collapse could have had something that WTC7 did not have, like a more robust structure or less of a load than WTC7. Or it could be that these buildings did not have the same flaws and weaknesses that WTC7 had that contributed to it's collapse.
This would mean that they could have survived where WTC7 failed.

Now why did some steel framed buildings collapse, but others not?

None of these links show collapsing buildings like wtc7 if there are point them out please

Again you cannot include and exclude other examples just so they fit your own narrative

weisses

weisses wrote: »

None of these links show collapsing buildings like wtc7 if there are point them out please

No they don't, and I didn't claim they did. However they did collapse, thus they show that it is possible for steel framed buildings to fail.
This means the statement: "it is impossible for a fire to make a steel framed building collapse" demonstrably false.

weisses wrote: »

Again you cannot include and exclude other examples just so they fit your own narrative

I am doing no such thing. I explained why they cannot be used to show that it is impossible for WTC7 to collapse in the post you quoted.

They however cannot show that it is impossible for WTC7 to collapse because they are of different construction. The buildings that didn't collapse could have had something that WTC7 did not have, like a more robust structure or less of a load than WTC7. Or it could be that these buildings did not have the same flaws and weaknesses that WTC7 had that contributed to it's collapse.
This would mean that they could have survived where WTC7 failed.

Can you please explain what parts of this you disagree with?

weisses

Colgem wrote: »

Firstly Bloodbath claimed no steel framed building collapsed from a fire period[/b.

I was correctly that.

Secondly. Only part of the WTC 7 complex fell for a brief period of time at freefall speed. And it did not collapse into its own footprint.

Please answer the post that is directed at you.

isn't it interesting it did reach free fall speed

I did in post 30

and while your at it it would be nice if you put the link in from the site where you copy and pasted the list from Now it looks you made it all up yourself

BloodBath

So to be clear you don't believe the WTC 7 complex was demolished on purpose.

Why do you think it's proof of a inside job?

Where did I say this. Again putting words in my mouth. I don't know is the answer, neither do you. I can't disprove the Nist report. I'll say it again for the 5th time. My original comment was in reply to weisses claim that the building would have collapsed from the fire alone even without any structural damage.

I'll say it again. Partial collapse does not equal collapse so you can go delete all your partial collapse and see how many you are left with.

You can keep twisting my words all you want.

BloodBath

BloodBath wrote: »

My original comment was in reply to weisses claim that the building would have collapsed from the fire alone even without any structural damage.

But this is what the NIST report concludes and backs up with evidence.
The only explanations for this is they they are somehow just mistaken or that they are intentionally lying.
But since you, an untrained, nonspecialist in the fields of architecture, material science and demolition (unlike the people who contributed to the report) can supposedly see the obvious that fire cannot cause the building to collapse, this means they must be lying.

However you cannot provide any good reasons for why they might want to lie or any explanation for why they'd lie in a way were anyone random person could see through it.

Your comment implies all of that nonsensical stuff is more likely than the idea that your non-expert assertion that fire can't make a steel framed building collapse could be wrong.

Does this really seem reasonable for other people to accept?

Colgem

weisses wrote: »

isn't it interesting it did reach free fall speed

A unique situation.

and while your at it it would be nice if you put the link in from the site where you copy and pasted the list from Now it looks you made it all up yourself

I posted the link to the article in another post.

Do you want to discuss the points or where they are written.