Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

Status
Not open for further replies.
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
They do not allow logic.


Only FACTS... which you must always capitalize. Unfortunately they have their own parameters for what constitutes a fact... er FACT.
 
K

Keenly

Guest
random fact:

A steel structure has never, not once, collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11
 
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
Keenly said:
random fact:

A steel structure has never, not once, collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11
Click to expand...

If you would actually read the posts, it might help when defining your random parameters for "facts".

[youtube]ZaK5YVVaRCo[/youtube]

Steel structure, with the bonus of a cement core.




(see what I mean?)
 
TreesOfLife

TreesOfLife

Well-Known Member
what... huh? said:
If you would actually read the posts, it might help when defining your random parameters for "facts".

[youtube]ZaK5YVVaRCo[/youtube]

Steel structure, with the bonus of a cement core.




(see what I mean?)
Click to expand...
The building is still standing...

what... huh? said:
What do you not understand about what I have said? I mean... you quoted me... so it wasn't like you missed it. I said this is not just a roving youtube gangbang... it is a debate.

Are you afraid of going one argument at a time? Do you find safety in numbers?

DO YOU CONCEDE YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT?

If so, what, specifically, would you like to move to next? Because half of those 18 things I have destroyed in the last 3 pages since you came in. You have to actually address rebuttals, if you wish to have an argument. You can't just keep claiming your belief which has just been rebutted, as "fact", obscuring it in a flurry of OTHER bullshit.

Man up, and follow the rules of debate, or there is no point in wasting time with you. Any time I debunk something, you just move to something else you think is more winnable.

I have said I will address ANY FUCKING QUESTION, in order. I will absolutely admit when I am wrong, and have done so each time I have been since I came to this board, on any subject.

Why can you people not stay focused?


Your original claim was...



This was your original post. Your original argument was that 7 was the only building which sustained structural damage... and then asked me to support my claim that a really big building on fire fell on it... and I did.. and you have not contested anything that I have said. You just keep trying to make new points about single arguments I am having with other people.

Are you ready to concede this first argument before we move on?
Click to expand...
Facts speak louder than words.
 
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
The north wing completely collapsed. You may have noticed that it is different than wtc 1 2 or 7.


The north wing was a steel structure. It completely collapsed due only to "normal" fire.


Fact.



Silence speaks volumes. If you do not have the intellectual honesty to accept that you were incorrect about other buildings being made structurally unsound by the collapse of 1 and 2, then there is no point wasting time with you. If you wish to continue to debate the topic, that is one thing... but just ignoring evidence to the contrary and moving on is what heretics do.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
what... huh? said:
If you would actually read the posts, it might help when defining your random parameters for "facts".

[youtube]ZaK5YVVaRCo[/youtube]

Steel structure, with the bonus of a cement core.




(see what I mean?)
Click to expand...

FACT: that building is NOT a steel structure, it is a reinforced CONCRETE structure. You can find the facts about the fire and the building here :http://www.europeanfireacademy.com/cms/servlet/nl.gx.nibra.client.http.GetFile?id=710658&file=NSF09-Paper_Meacham_Mar29.pdf

Its a PDF document of the study done of the fire, it specifically states that it is a REINFORCED CONCRETE structure. Concrete cannot withstand fire the way Steel can. Oh and FWIW that fire raged for over 8 hours to cause a collapse. There goes your argument WH, find more lies for us to debunk.

For those who don't know, The building is the Architecture Facility at the University of Delft in the Netherlands. Its made of cement reinforced with rebar. IT IS NOT A STEEL BUILDING LIKE THE WTC BUILDINGS. Do not let What...Huh try to deceive you with lies.

edit: just went back and read your first post of this video and you actually posted that it was a reinforced concrete structure, which means that you have no clue what steel reinforced concrete is, Its a 1/2" piece of re bar ( Not Structural) through the middle of a slab of concrete, its used to help hold all the concrete together, it is not structural, i can take a piece of rebar and bend it into a circle with my bare hands. You can no longer argue this subject, you don't know the basics of what constitutes building materials. No wonder you believe they just fell.
 
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
I said a concrete core. I do have some clue, while no expert.

I watched the demolition and you are correct. It is not a seel structure. I am wrong. I should have checked more before posting... my laziness. Should have done due diligence. I'm very sick, that's my excuse. People shouldn't have to do my research for me.
 
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
The kader toy factory was a steel reinforced building that collapsed due to fire only.



So was the McCormick Center in Chicago. It had similar web trusses which failed.



That hotel fire in madrid had a partial collapse due to fire only...

[youtube]9gUzoUYJ2ec[/youtube]

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

That concrete core I keep going on about.

"The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors."

Yes ND... I will get to fireproofing. Right now I am addressing "normal fire" weakening and causing collapse of steel reinforced structures.
 
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
The multitude of steel structures you have shown have had a couple of key differences... not that it really matters...

Most have a concrete core.
Most have a web like structure.
All have one or the other.



It was to make more office space... more shit to burn.
 
TreesOfLife

TreesOfLife

Well-Known Member
what... huh? said:
The kader toy factory was a steel reinforced building that collapsed due to fire only.



So was the McCormick Center in Chicago. It had similar web trusses which failed.



That hotel fire in madrid had a partial collapse due to fire only...

[youtube]9gUzoUYJ2ec[/youtube]

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

That concrete core I keep going on about.

"The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors."

Yes ND... I will get to fireproofing. Right now I am addressing "normal fire" weakening and causing collapse of steel reinforced structures.
Click to expand...
Very very cute. Obviously you didn't watch this video [youtube]j2_srNT8-Ow[/youtube]
 
pot scott

pot scott

Well-Known Member
as far as im concerned, if u got the nerve to say that 911 was an inside job, jus aim at ur head and pull the trigger
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
pot scott said:
as far as im concerned, if u got the nerve to say that 911 was an inside job, jus aim at ur head and pull the trigger
Click to expand...
Why would we want to do that? Why does it take nerve to say the obvious? If you are a denier state your reasons and produce evidence to back your statements. If you just what to shoot your mouth off with mindless denier bullshit save yourself the trouble.:neutral:

Wow ... you guys have been busy ... great videos ... you are really pouncing wh ... I love the way he believes he is winning arguments ... that kool-aid they give them really does the job. Remember several post ago when I told him the bridge shit don't wash ...we have proved time and time again ... apples and oranges ... so disregard any reference to the bridge ... well established to be bogus ... for those of you just joining us check the thread and you will see it was ground already covered.:hump:

:joint::hug:
 
pot scott

pot scott

Well-Known Member
GrowRebel said:
Why would we want to do that? Why does it take nerve to say the obvious? If you are a denier state your reasons and produce evidence to back your statements. If you just what to shoot your mouth off with mindless denier bullshit save yourself the trouble.:neutral:

Wow ... you guys have been busy ... great videos ... you are really pouncing wh ... I love the way he believes he is winning arguments ... that kool-aid they give them really does the job. Remember several post ago when I told him the bridge shit don't wash ...we have proved time and time again ... apples and oranges ... so disregard any reference to the bridge ... well established to be bogus ... for those of you just joining us check the thread and you will see it was ground already covered.:hump:

:joint::hug:
Click to expand...
just pull it
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Only a portion of the Mccormick centers roof collapsed. the Majority of the building stayed intact. Everything inside was reduced to ashes. The trusses on the WTC building were many many times more durable as they had to support floor loads, while the McCormick center only had to deal with snow loads. Not a very good comparison, but the kool aid drinkers love to site it as evidence, but again it was only a partial roof collapse, not a single wall fell.

FYI Concrete cores are inherently much weaker than steel cored buildings. the WTC towers are steel cored, the windsor tower burned for 26 times longer than wtc #2 , the only part that collapsed was the concrete perimeter slabs that caused failure of 3 floors and causing them to completely collapse. The building stood, even AFTER the floors at the top Collapsed.HUH that doesn't make sense, the Govt said that the pancake theory would destroy the whole building, especially after having burned for MANY MANY times longer than WTC Towers. Again it proves that the WTC towers should not have fallen. Also none and I mean NONE of the steel was insulated with fireproofing, nor did it have a fire sprinkler system, Both towers and #7 all had fire suppression systems that were fully operational, but somehow coincidentally did not work at all on 9-11. ALL government buildings have a monthly fire inspection and all devices are tested for proper operation, The sprinkler systems go through a quarterly test. Fire alarms are serious business, IF anything is amiss a fire alarm system will notify the proper people the minute something goes wrong.

The Tai toy factory was a 4 story building made completely of NON Structural steel siding supported by UNINSULATED steel girders, It was not reinforced at all, again there were no fire suppresion systems,not even a fire extinguisher. That building is SO SO VERY different it is comparing slide rules to apples, about the only thing in common with the WTC towers is that it was a building. The building was full of cotton and polyester stuffing material and a 3rd section was for plastics. Way more fuel than the towers had.
 
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
What is "supported by steel girders" if not steel reinforcement? It is there for looks? Did you look at the photograph? That was pretty big steel.

I am aware that only the roof collapsed on McCormick. It was the roof. There wasn't a 40 story building on top of it.

Funny that you believe concrete cores are less stable. Maybe you should make the folks who built and are building wtc 7 1 & 2. And all those steel buildings that didn't fall with them.



I'm sorry... I thought the argument was that normal fire doesn't make steel reinforced buildings collapse. Never has, never will... and it appears it has, and does.

"Only this part failed" doesn't really apply to "can't fail". Bigger beams? Are you kidding me? Of course the beams were bigger, they had to hold up MUCH MORE WEIGHT. Does the material have a lower melting point because its smaller, supporting... a roof? You did look at the pictures right? They weren't toothpicks, and the roof didn't look that stressful.

It was steel, that doesn't fail, not fireproofing. It was "against the laws of physics". You lost all of this at the bridge... you just won't come around. Steel gets hot enough to fail in normal fire. Once you agree to this, we can move to fireproofing.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
A normal fire does not cause steel to fail in 57 minutes. you can prove this to yourself, get a lighter and a girder, hold the lighter to the girder for 57 minutes and let me know if it melted. It didn't did it? Get a frickin flame thrower for all I care and just see if you can get that girder hot enough to fail in 57 minutes. There ya go, your argument has been disproven and it was all too easy. Some of your examples burned for 26 times as long as the WTC fires, making the WTC fires miniscule by comparison. Your argument and your evidence is only making your hole deeper WH.
 
K

Keenly

Guest
what... huh? said:
What is "supported by steel girders" if not steel reinforcement? It is there for looks? Did you look at the photograph? That was pretty big steel.

I am aware that only the roof collapsed on McCormick. It was the roof. There wasn't a 40 story building on top of it.

Funny that you believe concrete cores are less stable. Maybe you should make the folks who built and are building wtc 7 1 & 2. And all those steel buildings that didn't fall with them.



I'm sorry... I thought the argument was that normal fire doesn't make steel reinforced buildings collapse. Never has, never will... and it appears it has, and does.

"Only this part failed" doesn't really apply to "can't fail". Bigger beams? Are you kidding me? Of course the beams were bigger, they had to hold up MUCH MORE WEIGHT. Does the material have a lower melting point because its smaller, supporting... a roof? You did look at the pictures right? They weren't toothpicks, and the roof didn't look that stressful.

It was steel, that doesn't fail, not fireproofing. It was "against the laws of physics". You lost all of this at the bridge... you just won't come around. Steel gets hot enough to fail in normal fire. Once you agree to this, we can move to fireproofing.
Click to expand...

i only read the first sentence so ill correct the flaw i found


steel reinforcement = rebar

steel girder = HUGE beam of steel


which one is stonger?

edit: upon further inspection it seems yet again your talking about something that we arent...


"I'm sorry... I thought the argument was that normal fire doesn't make steel reinforced buildings collapse."

no...


buildings that are made completely out of steel.... not steel reinforced concrete... there is a HUGE difference...

ill state my fact again....

not 1 STEEL (not steel reinforced) building has collapsed due to fire before OR since 9/11
 
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
Keenly said:
i only read the first sentence so ill correct the flaw i found


steel reinforcement = rebar

steel girder = HUGE beam of steel


which one is stonger?

edit: upon further inspection it seems yet again your talking about something that we arent...


"I'm sorry... I thought the argument was that normal fire doesn't make steel reinforced buildings collapse."

no...


buildings that are made completely out of steel.... not steel reinforced concrete... there is a HUGE difference...

ill state my fact again....

not 1 STEEL (not steel reinforced) building has collapsed due to fire before OR since 9/11
Click to expand...
Well... I was actually talking about ND's claim, which appears to be different than yours... but none the less, you can play too.

1. WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not made completely of steel. The claim to this point was actually that "steel structures do not collapse because of fire". The argument has been, for years now, that "normal fires" could not have been hot enough to cause failure in the steel because of the properties of the metal itself. I have demonstrated in several ways now that it could.

That is why ND is now clinging to asbestos. Because I have demonstrated that "normal" fires DO and HAVE caused structural failure in structural steel. That is the argument I had to first win (several times now) to move forward.

The building fires which collapsed were supported by big assed steel beams, which failed due to "normal fire" alone.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 never failed due to normal fire before. That is an accurate statement. The buildings were unique, and drawing comparisons to other buildings when it suits you, and claiming that they "weren't like" them when it doesn't is a rat race we can run all day.

McCormick was a steel structure, thought to be "fireproof". It was not.

WTC 1&2 was a tube design. Steel in the middle, steel on the outside, with long girders connecting them in order to maximize office space. It is unique in this way.

I have demonstrated that "normal fire" causes failure in steel. Every example I give will be different than WTC. Every example you give will be different than WTC. So it is important that we agree, if nothing else, on fundamentals... or we can have nothing to debate... only run in circles we think mimic the circumstances, on either side of them.

I defeated this argument with the bridge.

Normal fire causes structural failure to HUGE structural steel beams.

I did not address fireproofing, or sprinklers, or gravity, or fireproof passports. Just this one, simple, clearly exampled piece of information... and have been defending the obvious for 20 some pages now.

We must agree on fundamentals. I will ask 3 questions.

1. Did this happen as reported, yes or no?


2. What is the temperature of an open air gasoline fire?

3. If steel is "normal fire" proof, why do building codes mandate that they be coated with fireproofing?

I am not asking you to determine the validity of my questions. I am simply asking for them to be answered. Please answer these questions in your replies attacking me, my integrity, and my intelligence... just try to work them in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top