Ground Zero Footage

a reply to: GenRadek

Critical thinking? Good heavens, how can a person claim critical thinking skills while still believing all these years later that the damage observed at WTC was caused by burning office fires? How?

a reply to: lexyghot

that steel fails pretty quickly in a fire.

good one...next you will be telling us buildings are designed to fall

a reply to: Salander
How can you explain the requirement for fire proofing on steel in buildings?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

What is "quickly"? An hour? 2 hours? A day?

3 minuets and 40 seconds.






How's it going with finding a larger more in-depth investigation than 911. Any luck yet ?

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

What is "quickly"? An hour? 2 hours? A day?

3 minuets and 40 seconds.

How's it going with finding a larger more in-depth investigation than 911. Any luck yet ?

That video does not work in my country.

What jet fuel? This jet fuel...

originally posted by: Another_Nut

well lets see .

we have now established fire cant bring down the towers

REALLY well the Towers were NOT brought down just by office fires were they!!

Now as for office fires.

Some data from one location of the Cardington Fire tests for an office fire!!!!

26.5 104 515 795
27.0 108 523 798
27.5 113 529 798
28.0 119 534 798

First column time in mins others temp in degrees C for 3 different locations

Here is some beam data.

42.5 1053 973 936
43.0 1055 973 937
43.5 1055 971 935
44.0 1055 971 936

First column time others temps in degrees C

Now the temp v strength graph for steel.



Please stick to wiring because YOU know NOTHING ABOUT STRUCTURES .

cosmicconvergence.org...
Dont know if anyone has seen this one. Lots of good info concerning 911

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

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

It's not excuses You have to consider ALL the events and construction type it's common sense I have used this before and will use it again.



Using YOUR logic I could enter NASCAR or a F1 Grand Prix and have a chance of wining because it has 4 wheels and an engine and somewhere for me to sit doesn't IT!

Now it doesn't accelerate,handle or have the same power or top speed so do YOU now see the FLAW in your logic.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

That video does not work in my country.

Try this one.




I guess you have conceded 911 was the largest most in depth investigation in US history, you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

a reply to: waypastvne

The second video is also not available in Canada.

Don't believe anything you see on National Geographic. They are tools for state propaganda. It is not just 9-11. There are a number of other issues they distort information on.

No because u could still draw comparisons

even though u might not win the race

We wanna know why u didn't win the race

So we start looking at engines...Well u have a small one and the F1 didn't

How about weight?

See u can compare different things and gleam useful info

Unless u r an oser

And just not on 9/11

Eta the fire in 75 is apples to apples as to the nist reason the towers fell

Including fireproofing missing from truss ends where they attached to the perimeter wall

a reply to: wmd_2008

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Another_Nut

well lets see .

we have now established fire cant bring down the towers

REALLY well the Towers were NOT brought down just by office fires were they!!

Now as for office fires.

Some data from one location of the Cardington Fire tests for an office fire!!!!

26.5 104 515 795
27.0 108 523 798
27.5 113 529 798
28.0 119 534 798

First column time in mins others temp in degrees C for 3 different locations

Here is some beam data.

42.5 1053 973 936
43.0 1055 973 937
43.5 1055 971 935
44.0 1055 971 936

First column time others temps in degrees C

Now the temp v strength graph for steel.

Please stick to wiring because YOU know NOTHING ABOUT STRUCTURES .

that's called adding a goal post

please point out where a plane was mentioned in this quote

Text "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. 

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

That video does not work in my country.

Try this one.

I guess you have conceded 911 was the largest most in depth investigation in US history, you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

It still won't play. Is this from Discovery channel? It used to be Canadian but since a US media company bought it we must not allow it here. I guess we have rules when it comes to BS.

Why would I concede to that? Have you read the NIST report? It is funny you say "conceded" since even NIST conceded that there models were confined to time restraints.

a reply to: Another_Nut

No its not because there is NO structural damage in the 1975 event and because of that NO massive loads above structural damage.

Also fire fighters fought the fires so only in your warped reality could you compare the two.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


In a steel frame warehouse construction the under side of the roof and trusses are not sprayed. Fire fighters want the fire to burn through the roof so the fire fighters can put it out from the top down.

I think you are lying here and making this up.

I don't think it is their intentions to collapse the roof trusses in a fire and there is no attempted to fire protect the roof trusses.

Fire codes are different for warehouses vs multi story office buildings.

However, if you need evidence that a single story, non fire protected warehouse building can collapse after a very short time of fire, I can provide links that prove it.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: lexyghot

that steel fails pretty quickly in a fire.

good one...next you will be telling us buildings are designed to fall

Of course not.

But truthers are of the opinion that they CANNOT FAIL in a fire.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Another_Nut

No its not because there is NO structural damage in the 1975 event and because of that NO massive loads above structural damage.

Also fire fighters fought the fires so only in your warped reality could you compare the two.

yea.. why is it EVERY piece of evidence presented gets the

No its not because...

insert whatever u can to avoid

see how u can compare the

Cardington Fire tests

to 9/11

but i cant compare the ACTUAL FIRE in 1975?

or any tests or crashes or, well, ANYTHING

its silly

ive proven my point using THE ACTUAL INSPECTORS quotes

still not enough

so i give up

good day all

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


Why would I concede to that?

Cuz you have no way to counter his statement would be my guess.....

Have you read the NIST report?

I have read most of it.

.....even NIST conceded that there models were confined to time restraints.

What does this mean?

originally posted by: Another_Nut





but i cant compare the ACTUAL FIRE in 1975?

It's actually proof for us that steel will not fail when it has its passive fire protection intact and when the fires are fought. I provided proof that the SFRM was present in the fire zones. You have provided proof that SFRM was absent in numerous areas. You seem to think that a statement of "numerous areas" automatically includes the areas on fire in '75. Everyone can see that you are in error, except you.

so i give up

good day all

Yes, we think clearly and with a high level of reading comprehension.

We understand that a clear statement that references how well the SFRM preformed in the '75 fire trumps any statement made in the 90's saying that SFRM was never applied in numerous areas.

You have failed to make your point. You are proven wrong.

We have proven our point.