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

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?

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

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.

I'm not twisting your words you said

Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

This is a demonstrably false statement.

BloodBath

By nit picking small sections of comments and taking things out of context rather than on the whole.

If I had a cracked bone I wouldn't say it was broken.

Why do you insist on comparing collapsed to partial collapse?

If that's how you win arguments then good luck to you.

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.

How did they come to the conclusion that fire alone would have taken the building down without any structural damage? The same computer model that they didn't release the values imputed for peer review is it? Thats not how reputable science works buddy.

King Mob

BloodBath wrote: »

How did they come to the conclusion that fire alone would have taken the building down without any structural damage?

It's detailed in the report, which you are rejecting without reading it seems.
It combined video and photo evidence, testimony from the people in the building, analysis of the collapse and aftermath and computer models.

All of this lead them to conclude that the collapse started with a particular column failing, then overloading the surrounding weakened columns and eventually pulling itself down. This scenario was the only plausible one that matched all of the evidence.


Now which part of this do you not agree with? What about it is impossible?
Is one column failing due to fire impossible?
Is multiple columns being weakened due to fire impossible?
Is columns failing after being overloaded impossible?

BloodBath wrote: »

The same computer model that they didn't release the values imputed for peer review is it?

This is not true. The values they inputted are in the report. But they are irrelevant to the discussion we are having at the moment.

Colgem

weisses wrote: »

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

Can you point please point out a single building that fits these points about the WTC 7 and survived.


Seriously, point out another skyscraper that was hit with debris from another building that had massive fires over multiple floors that were unfought.

Demanding that the world provide proof of another building that was like the collapse of the WTC 7 when the entire point of the WTC collapse is that there was nothing to compare the WTC 7 before or after.

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

Unless no other examples exist.

Can you provide a single example of a building like WTC that survived the collapse of the WTC in circumstances like 911?

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

By nit picking small sections of comments and taking things out of context rather than on the whole.

We're not you said;

Bloodbath wrote:

Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

If I had a cracked bone I wouldn't say it was broken.

Quite right.

You said that fires don't take down steel framed buildings.

It's a akin to you saying "car crashes don't break bones". Yet when you're provided with evidence of people having broken bones after car crashes you shift the goal posts and say "aha the car crash didn't break the bone, the impact with the concrete after the crash broke the bone".

Fire takes down steel framed structures.

Do you deny is statement is true. Answer the statement and explain why you think it isn't true.

Why do you insist on comparing collapsed to partial collapse?

If that's how you win arguments then good luck to you.

Because you've made a unequivocal statement

Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

When presented with evidence that fire does collapse steel framed buildings say like the steel framed Madrid building, you ignore it.

When presented with evidence that the WTC 7 was different to any other collapse you ignore it.

When presented with evidence that architects and egineers support the NIST model you ignore it.

How did they come to the conclusion that fire alone would have taken the building down without any structural damage?

The building had structural damage.

The fires were massive, uncontrolled, unfought for over 6 hours, and widespread.

Keep ignoring that part.

The same computer model that they didn't release the values imputed for peer review is it? Thats not how reputable science works buddy.

I've provided dozens of examples of engineers and architects using the NIST model of the collapse for further research.

Your claim is demonstrable false.

BloodBath

Going in circles here. You need to learn to read. I have made myself clear on this already several times. You have to be trolling at this stage.

How did they come to the conclusion that fire alone would have taken the building down without any structural damage?
The building had structural damage.

The fires were massive, uncontrolled, unfought for over 6 hours, and widespread.

Keep ignoring that part.

I know it had damage. I am still talking about the claim that the fire alone would have taken it down.

Colgem

BloodBath wrote: »

Going in circles here. You need to learn to read. I have made myself clear on this already several times. You have to be trolling at this stage.



I know it had damage. I am still talking about the claim that the fire alone would have taken it down.

We're going around in circles because your claim

Fire does not take down steel framed buildings.

Has been shown to be demonstrably false.

Brown Bomber

Colgem wrote: »

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

So only "fundamentalists" kill people??? You sure about that...?

Colgem wrote: »

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

Yeah here is Atta and Ziad Jarrah and laughing their asses off during theirs :rolleyes:



Atta's white, American, infidel-stripper girlfriend is going to be shocked when she finds out her ex lover is a "fundamentalist", what with all his gambling, drinking going to strip-clubs and so on.

Colgem

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So only "fundamentalists" kill people??? You sure about that...?
[/quoye]

I never sai they were fundamentalists.

Yeah here is Atta and Ziad Jarrah and laughing their asses off during theirs :rolleyes:



Atta's white, American, infidel-stripper girlfriend is going to be shocked when she finds out her ex lover is a "fundamentalist", what with all his gambling, drinking going to strip-clubs and so on.

I think you'll find out that this woman was going out with a completely different Mohammed

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Amanda_Keller

Brown Bomber

Colgem wrote: »

I think you'll find out that this woman was going out with a completely different Mohammed

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Amanda_Keller

Witness retracts uncomfortable statements after FBI harrasment :eek:

Here is more evidence of these crazy unfundementalist "fundamentalists"

On Sept. 7, 2001, Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi pounded down drinks at Shuckums Oyster Bar on Young Circle in Hollywood.
They played video games, then argued with a waitress and a manager over a $48 tab.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/911-mastermind-may-be-gone-but-troubled-memories-l/nLsCX/