Ground Zero Footage

originally posted by: Another_Nut
Care to explain the wtc fire in the 70s then?

By your logic it should have collapsed then

Right?

reply to: lexyghot

It was 1975 by the way.

What aircraft impacted the building on that day PLEASE TELL US

It's unbelievable you guy's don't see what YOU do, it wasn't only fires that caused the collapse.

Also read this.

The fire department on arrival found a very intense fire. It was not immediately known that the fire was spreading vertically from floor to floor through openings in the floor slab. These 300-mm x 450-mm (12-in. x 18-in.) openings in the slab provided access for telephone cables. Subsidiary fires on the 9th to the 19th floors were discovered and readily extinguished. The only occupants of the building at the time of fire were cleaning and service personnel. They were evacuated without any fatalities. However, there were 125 firemen involved in fighting this fire and 28 sustained injuries from the intense heat and smoke. The cause of the fire is unknown.

"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.

Now according to you guy's office fires are not intense that's not what's said above.

Were the FDNY able to fight the fires at 9/11

I just hope YOU and many others in your side don't have a job that requires ATTENTION to details because you don't have any

a reply to: wmd_2008

Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically. 

Says Lexi

u guys need to get your stories straight

No planes needed

Eta maybe u shouldn't start throwing insults if YOU CAN'T PAY ENOUGH ATTENTION TO THE POST BEING REPLIED TO.

and I'm an electrician. Much detail needed. Keep your bs. Even nist said it wasn't the planes. But u just make up whatever u need to to sleep better at night.

See who even when shown that the same thing happened twice it is STILL not good enough. U oser won't let ANYTHING be compared to 9/11 . No other fires.no other collapses. No other plane crashes

ALWAYS with the excuse that there were other factors

The real reason it because the os is bs and u guys just can't let your fragile world views be destroyed by the truth

It's really sad

a reply to: Another_Nut

The real reason it because the os is bs and u guys just can't let your fragile world views be destroyed by the truth

No because the conspiracy side can't get experts in the fields required to stand up and say it was an inside job.
After 13 years the only ones talking about it are Alex Jones and conspiracy websites.

Wouldn't you think that as the economy crashed and engineers lost their jobs some of them would band together and go to the media and prove it was an inside job?
No all they got was one person who lost his job and started a website to keep money coming in.
And even he never crosses the line of stating how it was done.

Wouldn't you think that the leaders and engineers in Iran would love to embarass the US by proving the OS is a lie?

originally posted by: Another_Nut
Care to explain the wtc fire in the 70s then?

By your logic it should have collapsed then

Right?

reply to: lexyghot

Nope.

1- there was no accompanying structural damage from plane impacts.
2- the fires were not started over multiple floors simultaneously
3- the fire protection was in place
4- the fires were fought

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: wmd_2008

Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically. 

Says Lexi

u guys need to get your stories straight

Our stories are in agreement.

Fires can collapse buildings if they lack their fire protection and not fought.

In the '75 fire, both were in place.

a reply to: Another_Nut

Kent

U have never contributed anything meaning full to these discussion

Only ridden on the coattails of other osers

U have nothing to say

So you can't explain why the rest of the worlds engineers would want to cover up the supposed breech of physics on 911?

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: wmd_2008

Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically. 

Says Lexi

u guys need to get your stories straight

Our stories are in agreement.

Fires can collapse buildings if they lack their fire protection and not fought.

In the '75 fire, both were in place.

"Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied"

From

www.fireengineering.com... wtc-towers.html

try again

Eta make sure that last sentence sinks in.

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut
Care to explain the wtc fire in the 70s then?

By your logic it should have collapsed then

Right?

reply to: lexyghot

Nope.

1- there was no accompanying structural damage from plane impacts.
2- the fires were not started over multiple floors simultaneously
3- the fire protection was in place
4- the fires were fought

Wait..what??

U said

"Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically"

Where did u mention any of your 1-4?

We call that moving the goal posts

And it shows u for what u are

Even your own "logic" can't be followed by u

Welcome to Sam's world

originally posted by: Another_Nut

"Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied"

From

www.fireengineering.com... wtc-towers.html

try again

Eta make sure that last sentence sinks in.

Your link is dead.
en.wikipedia.org...

" Fireproofing protected the steel and there was no structural damage to the tower"

junkscience.com...

"Berlau recounts how the effectiveness of asbestos fireproofing was proven during an intense Feb. 13, 1975 fire that burned for more than three hours in the elevator and utility shafts from the ninth to nineteenth floors of the first WTC tower – an area where asbestos fireproofing was still intact at the time. Despite the fire’s intensity – it burned nearly everything, including telephone panels and wiring, and got hot enough to blow out windows – the asbestos fireproofing contained the fire so that it did minimal damage to the rest of the building.

A subsequent fire analysis report from an engineering firm noted that the fire, “while reported in the press to have been very hot, did not damage a single primary, fireproofed element.”

You have been called out and busted

and shown as the bridge dweller u are

U have been shown to not only understand newton but English as well

U fight facts with wiki

Google wtc fireproofing . My quote is from the first link

And shows the fireproofing wasn't applied as per my quote.

Your own logic fails so u move the goals

typical of someone who has no leg to stand on

Good day


a reply to: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut


Google wtc fireproofing . My quote is from the first link

And shows the fireproofing wasn't applied as per my quote.

Your quote says, and I believe it, that IN SOME AREAS, fire protection was never applied.

You have zero evidence whatsoever that it wasn't applied in the areas affected in the '75 fire.

there are numerous quotes from the fire chief about the '75 fire, and nowhere does he mention a lack of fire protection in that area. No one else mentions it either.

Instead, he mentions the need for sprinkler systems. Not a peep though about fire protection, SFRM, etc.

And you can't find one either, otherwise you'd post it and make a valid point.

Instead of providing this evidence, you resort to insults.

Therefore, it is proven that you have taken the route of scoundrels cuz you have nothing.

a reply to: lexyghot

Common Sense does NOT trump science.

You may not know that early on Fire Engineering Magazine was editorializing about the pathetic and criminal disregard for proper forensic procedures at WTC. How can science prevail when proper forensic protocol is ignored?

It cannot, and even Common Sense recognizes that.

a reply to: Salander

Forget it man

He doesn't know the difference between

"Some" (Synonyms: a bit, a few, a little)

And

"Numerous" (Synonyms: big, copious, diverse, great, infinite, large, legion, lousy with, multifarious, multitudinal, multitudinous, plentiful, populous, profuse, rife, scads, several, sundry, thick, umpteen, various, voluminous,)

A lost cause

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

Common Sense does NOT trump science.

Agreed.

You may not know that early on Fire Engineering Magazine was editorializing about the pathetic and criminal disregard for proper forensic procedures at WTC.

I do know.

How can science prevail when proper forensic protocol is ignored?

Proper science takes another path then. If steel is not available for testing, then models are used. And it works just fine.

It cannot, and even Common Sense recognizes that.

Common sense doesn't say that at all.

Common sense tells most people that there are many roads to any destination. Some are better than others.

And besides, it woukdn't matter to truthers anyways. Any evidence that bucks their theory is thrown out cuz they claim it's fake. or they aren't able to understand implications of it. Or ignored entirely.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Salander

Forget it man

He doesn't know the difference between

"Some" (Synonyms: a bit, a few, a little)

And

"Numerous" (Synonyms: big, copious, diverse, great, infinite, large, legion, lousy with, multifarious, multitudinal, multitudinous, plentiful, populous, profuse, rife, scads, several, sundry, thick, umpteen, various, voluminous,)

A lost cause

All this bluster...

And all it would take is a quote that states that the areas affected by the '75 fires lacked fire protection.

But you can't cuz it doesn't exist. But I, on the other hand, DID provide 2 quotes that reference how well the fire protection worked in the '75 fire.

You now understand that everything you've been told about by truther sites how buildings can't fall due to a fire has been a lie.

You've been lied to and you're mad. So instead of facing that fact, you are insulting me repeatedly instead of examining what we on this side of the fence have been saying all along.

I understand your pain. It's difficult to handle being lied to.....

a reply to: lexyghot

Common Sense is a bit like obscenity--nobody can define it, but everybody recognizes it when they see it.

If all the forensic evidence was removed before it could be properly analyzed, how can the scientific method prevail?

It cannot.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

Common Sense is a bit like obscenity--nobody can define it, but everybody recognizes it when they see it.

No, not at all like obscenity. Nearly everyone has been exposed to porn, and off color jokes, etc. So there is a body of evidence and experience that our entire society uses to judge what is obscene.


However, not very many people at all have experience with designing tall buildings, nor with a doing a forensic examination of a building collapse. The events of 9/11 were unprecedented.


Common sense cannot be used.

If all the forensic evidence was removed before it could be properly analyzed, how can the scientific method prevail?

It cannot.

Steel was removed from GZ, but stockpiled at the scrap yard. FEMA's guys had ready access to the steel in the months that followed. They picked out those that they felt would be of interest to help study the collapse.

The guys working for FEMA have the experience to judge what needs to be saved. THEY are qualified to use THEIR common sense when picking out what steel needs to be saved. Granted, they haven't seen an event like this either, but as engineers, they should know just by looking what is of no interest.

The scientific method can prevail because not every scrap of steel needs to be looked at. YOU cannot use YOUR common sense to judge whether or not that is true.

a reply to: lexyghot

Judging from this post, you are very gullible.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

Judging from this post, you are very gullible.

Judging from your post, you are not just very gullible, but have no argument.