[Newsbot]

Title: Building near twin towers felled by fire, not explosives
Category: World
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2008-08-21 17:36:01

[robmik43]

Proof is never sufficient for conspiracy theorists.
Tinfoil hats ward off such trivialities as proof.

[Donny_Brasco]

robmik43 wrote:

Proof is never sufficient for conspiracy theorists.
Tinfoil hats ward off such trivialities as proof.

THis is the first EVER skyscraper to be felled by fire alone...

offices of natonal security and cia in there...I would have blown it up too preventing that info getting into the wrong hands.

B52's have self destruct capabilities. Why not a building containing national secrets?

I believe that it was felled by fire but I completely understand anyone who might think otherwise - given the reputation of the American govenment on telling the truth.

BTW, seen any WMD's lately?

[Heavy_Metal]

total BS, there are examples of buildings not falling after fires raging for over 12 hours..... and this bad boy fell after what 45 min....1 hour of burning....come on...you don't have to be a tinfoil hat wearing, sign carrying conspiracy theorist to realize something doesn't add up.

[hurley_108]

Heavy_Metal wrote:

total BS, there are examples of buildings not falling after fires raging for over 12 hours..... and this bad boy fell after what 45 min....1 hour of burning....come on...you don't have to be a tinfoil hat wearing, sign carrying conspiracy theorist to realize something doesn't add up.

Seven hours the fire burned. Seven hours in which the sprinkler system was at least partially compromised by the lack of water as the twin towers' collapses had broken the mains. RTFA.

[Heavy_Metal]

hurley_108 wrote:

Heavy_Metal wrote:

total BS, there are examples of buildings not falling after fires raging for over 12 hours..... and this bad boy fell after what 45 min....1 hour of burning....come on...you don't have to be a tinfoil hat wearing, sign carrying conspiracy theorist to realize something doesn't add up.

Seven hours the fire burned. Seven hours in which the sprinkler system was at least partially compromised by the lack of water as the twin towers' collapses had broken the mains. RTFA.

one hour, seven hours, it doesn't matter, the point is there are documented cases of buildings burning for 12-24 hours and not collapsing, this whole thing is a steaming pile of bull shit....

[Blue_Nose]

Heavy_Metal wrote:

one hour, seven hours, it doesn't matter

You're quite obviously determined to maintain your preconceived conclusions with comments like this. Pig-headedly sticking to certain details while completely ignoring others is typical of conspiracy theorists.

Heavy_Metal wrote:

the point is there are documented cases of buildings burning for 12-24 hours and not collapsing,

Did they also happen to have large portions of 110 storey skyscraper fall on them that initiated those fires?

[Heavy_Metal]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Heavy_Metal wrote:

one hour, seven hours, it doesn't matter

You're quite obviously determined to maintain your preconceived conclusions with comments like this. Pig-headedly sticking to certain details while completely ignoring others is typical of conspiracy theorists.

Heavy_Metal wrote:

the point is there are documented cases of buildings burning for 12-24 hours and not collapsing,

Did they also happen to have large portions of 110 storey skyscraper fall on them that initiated those fires?

ok....i'll humour you....

why didn't any of the buildings DIRECTLY BESIDE the two towers burn and fall? all of which would have sustained much more damage then that building....on that note...why didn't the buildings beside the WTC 7 building burn and fall, all would have been damaged (again) by falling debris.....

why are there cases of buildings being hit by planes (B-25 into empire state building 1945) and not collapsing?

this building was built to withstand fire, saying that the support structure was weakened by heat is flippin bull, especially since the sprinklers were working on the top level.....heat rises....and if it is met with water it will lower the temp of the top of the building.

what are these other facts that i am ignoring....please enlighten me.....

saying that fire felled this structure is just the easy way out and i'm not buying it...conspiracy theoryist....no....fucking realist....

[Blue_Nose]

Heavy_Metal wrote:

why didn't any of the buildings DIRECTLY BESIDE the two towers burn and fall? all of which would have sustained much more damage then that building....on that note...why didn't the buildings beside the WTC 7 building burn and fall, all would have been damaged (again) by falling debris.....

You mean like 6 WTC and 4 WTC? Maybe you're referring to 3 WTC.

Were you actually trying to suggest there that the surrounding buildings weren't completely destroyed?

Heavy_Metal wrote:

why are there cases of buildings being hit by planes (B-25 into empire state building 1945) and not collapsing?

Well, for one, the fires in the Empire State Building were extinguished in less than an hour. Secondly, that crash was an accident, so the pilot was obviously not intending to cause as much damage as possible.

Thirdly, the empty weight of a 767 is about 9 times that of a B-25, and that's not including the added weight of passengers, fuel, and cargo.

So yeah, if you ignore the fact that they were completely different buildings hit by much larger planes in entirely different circumstances, the 9/11 attacks were comparable to the B-25 accident.

Heavy_Metal wrote:

this building was built to withstand fire, saying that the support structure was weakened by heat is flippin bull, especially since the sprinklers were working on the top level.....heat rises....and if it is met with water it will lower the temp of the top of the building.

The fires weren't at the top of the building, though, and the sprinklers didn't put them out. Again, ignoring facts doesn't support your preconceived conclusions.

"Heat rises" is all you've got to counter the forensic analysis performed by hundreds of qualified engineers and scientists - talk about "flippin bull".

[Heavy_Metal]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Heavy_Metal wrote:

why didn't any of the buildings DIRECTLY BESIDE the two towers burn and fall? all of which would have sustained much more damage then that building....on that note...why didn't the buildings beside the WTC 7 building burn and fall, all would have been damaged (again) by falling debris.....

You mean like 6 WTC and 4 WTC? Maybe you're referring to 3 WTC.

Were you actually trying to suggest there that the surrounding buildings weren't completely destroyed?

Heavy_Metal wrote:

why are there cases of buildings being hit by planes (B-25 into empire state building 1945) and not collapsing?

Well, for one, the fires in the Empire State Building were extinguished in less than an hour. Secondly, that crash was an accident, so the pilot was obviously not intending to cause as much damage as possible.

Thirdly, the empty weight of a 767 is about 9 times that of a B-25, and that's not including the added weight of passengers, fuel, and cargo.

So yeah, if you ignore the fact that they were completely different buildings hit by much larger planes in entirely different circumstances, the 9/11 attacks were comparable to the B-25 accident.

Heavy_Metal wrote:

this building was built to withstand fire, saying that the support structure was weakened by heat is flippin bull, especially since the sprinklers were working on the top level.....heat rises....and if it is met with water it will lower the temp of the top of the building.

The fires weren't at the top of the building, though, and the sprinklers didn't put them out. Again, ignoring facts doesn't support your preconceived conclusions.

"Heat rises" is all you've got to counter the forensic analysis performed by hundreds of qualified engineers and scientists - talk about "flippin bull".

guy....engineers, scientists, doctors what ever will say what ever when they are paied enough money.....scientists claiming tobacco doesn't cause cancer comes to mind....

how many of those engineers and scientists were hired by the government? was there any independant research done? fuck FEMA wasn't even allowed on ground zero...

granted the physics of the 9/11 'attack' and the empire state building were different, but you must also take into account the WTC was BUILT WITH SPECIFICATIONS TO WITHSTAND A DIRECT HIT FROM A PLANE....who's ignoring the facts now?

enjoy the read and the videos....
http://www.abodia.com/911/eReports/Why% ... 0short.doc

that's ONE example on forign soil...

enjoy the video
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/no ... harges.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/032404firef ... scuss.html
- you want to contradict eye wittness reports?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/no ... hstood.htm
and finally look up the video loose change explains alot....

you go ahead and jump on that band wagon....i'll enjoy watching it fly off the cliff after the first turn....

[Zipperfish]

I don't understand how a fire involving mostly domestic building products (wood, drywall, plastic, diesel fuel) could lead to temperatures that would cause significant deformation of steel structural beams.

Quote:

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structures succumbed.

If they are referring ot WTC 7, where did the "extreme" heat come from?

[Blue_Nose]

Heavy_Metal, you should surely write to those engineers and scientists and inform them that the fact that heat rises undermines their entire analysis - they'll be unable to ignore such a professional assessment from an expert such as yourself.

Posting links to Loose Change isn't helping your case if you're aiming to come across as credible, and your little reading assignments are irrelevant until you can demonstrate that you've actually read and understand the report, and can offer some tangible evidence that their analysis, not your imaginary impression of it, is flawed.

[Regina]

[Heavy_Metal]

Blue_Nose wrote:

You should surely write to those engineers and scientists and inform them that the fact that heat rises undermines their entire analysis - they'll be unable to ignore such a professional assessment from an expert such as yourself.

Posting links to Loose Change isn't helping your case if you're aiming to come across as credible, and your little reading assignments are irrelevant until you can demonstrate that you've actually read and understand the report, and can offer some tangible evidence that their analysis, not your imaginary impression of it, is flawed.

aaaahhhh a weak retort to substantial legitimate evidence to the contrary of the governmental report.

what is there to misunderstand, the chemistry and physics of the 'illegitimate' sources are sound....but you know, feel free to contradict concrete mathematical equations....

can you see that cliff around the corner yet?

[Zipperfish]

Blue_Nose wrote:

You should surely write to those engineers and scientists and inform them that the fact that heat rises undermines their entire analysis - they'll be unable to ignore such a professional assessment from an expert such as yourself.

Posting links to Loose Change isn't helping your case if you're aiming to come across as credible, and your little reading assignments are irrelevant until you can demonstrate that you've actually read and understand the report, and can offer some tangible evidence that their analysis, not your imaginary impression of it, is flawed.

I haven't read the reports. Since I'm not a structural engineer, I don't imagine I'd get too far with them anyways. Actually, I don't follow the issue that much. Up until now, I was under the impression that they did detonate WTC becasue of fear of imminent structural failure as a result of seismic activity due to the collapse of the nearby WTC 1 and 2--this shows how much I pay attention! This is the first I've read that fire caused its structural failure. Should a building comeletely fail and collpase on itself in the case of a fire involving products regularly stored in that building? I don't think so. So what else was at play? Was their damage to WTC 7 from the collpase of WTC 1 and 2? Was the steel substandard? Was their a design flaw? Was it deliberately detonated?