9/11 - What has officially been debunked?

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by HowardRoark
ALL buildings can collapse due to a fire.

But no skyscraper EVER has. I've seen pictures of skyscrapers that have burned for hours and are still standing. Even Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones says this:

deseretnews.com...

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire.

And that's just one example I have. So I don't think a skyscraper can collapse due to fire and I'm not even an expert saying this.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Watch out, Mr. Mulder. You have to be careful with how you word things around Mr. Roark.

You should say "skyscraper," or "steel skyscraper" when you're referencing those specifically. If you just say "building," Howard will have a field day posting pictures of wooden two-story buildings that have burned down.

Just sharing some experience.

Thanks. I went ahead and changed that just to be safe.

CAN is like saying COULD.
But NONE have ( present ) and NEVER did ( past ) except on 9/11

Originally posted by mrmulder
But no skyscraper EVER has. I've seen pictures of skyscrapers that have burned for hours and are still standing.

Ah, but how many of those are steel framed skyscrapers?

How many were built over electrical vaults with elaborate transfer trusses on the 6th floor?

How many of them were severely damaged by falling debris before they caught fire?



[edit on 20-4-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Ah, but how many of those are steel framed skyscrapers?

How many were built over electrical vaults with elaborate transfer trusses on the 6th floor?

How many of them were severely damaged by falling debris before they caught fire?
[edit on 20-4-2006 by HowardRoark]

As Mr. Jones pointed out: "No steel-framed building." So obviously he's saying no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire.

You need to show me pictures of the severe damage to the building.



[edit on 20-4-2006 by mrmulder]

How about testimony from Captain Chris Boyle, an 18 year veteran of the NYFD?

. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.

You said:

Originally posted by mrmulder
I've seen pictures of skyscrapers that have burned for hours and are still standing.

Did you bother to find out if they were, in fact, steel-framed buildings?



[edit on 20-4-2006 by HowardRoark]

Damaged by falling debris.... you mean dust?
As for that image... sorry, but that is NOT smoke from WTC 7 at all.It is DUST from tower 1 as it moves up and down the streets.As you can see in videos, the dust went in all directions.As it went down the street towards WTC 7, wind direction made it appear that the buidling was producing it, when in reality, it is dust being pushed upwards as it goes through the surrounding buildings.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You said:

Originally posted by mrmulder
I've seen pictures of skyscrapers that have burned for hours and are still standing.

Did you bother to find out if they were, in fact, steel-framed buildings?



[edit on 20-4-2006 by HowardRoark]

As a matter of fact I have.

So what happened to the rest of the building if only dust was falling? There would have been steel pillars, and framing, and a lot of other large chunks of debris falling with the buildings.

Originally posted by mrmulder
As a matter of fact I have.

And did you find out that the Parque Plaza and the Windsor tower were in fact largely concrete framed strucures?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by mrmulder
As a matter of fact I have.

And did you find out that the Parque Plaza and the Windsor tower were in fact largely concrete framed strucures?

Weren't you asking about steel-framed buildings? Why are you now mentioning concrete framed strucures

I was thinking of the 32 story steel-framed builing in Madrid.

www.davesweb.cnchost.com...

[edit on 20-4-2006 by mrmulder]

Double post. Sorry.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by SMR
Damaged by falling debris.... you mean dust?
As for that image... sorry, but that is NOT smoke from WTC 7 at all.It is DUST from tower 1 as it moves up and down the streets.As you can see in videos, the dust went in all directions.As it went down the street towards WTC 7, wind direction made it appear that the buidling was producing it, when in reality, it is dust being pushed upwards as it goes through the surrounding buildings.

Look again, the damage to the Winter garden and other buildings indicates that that picture was taken long after the dust cloud moved off.

Check this video out. The smoke is coming from the building.

www.911myths.com...

another angle.






[edit on 20-4-2006 by HowardRoark]

The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction

The building featured two heavily reinforced concrete transfer structures (technical floors) between the 2nd and 3rd Floors, and between the 16th and 17th Floors respectively. The original cladding system was fixed to the steel perimeter columns and the floor slabs. The perimeter columns were supported by the transfer structures at the 17th and 3rd Floor levels.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

The Windsor Tower had a concrete core that the WTC didn't have. The WTC was all steel construction.

I am talking about this poopy image here.

Originally posted by mrmulder

I was thinking of the 32 story steel-framed builing in Madrid.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by mrmulder]

Which was a concrete framed structure. The core columns and the mechanical floors were concrete framed. The outer portion of the top, was steel. That part collapsed.

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

www.concretecentre.com...

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by SMR
Damaged by falling debris.... you mean dust?
As for that image... sorry, but that is NOT smoke from WTC 7 at all.It is DUST from tower 1 as it moves up and down the streets.As you can see in videos, the dust went in all directions.As it went down the street towards WTC 7, wind direction made it appear that the buidling was producing it, when in reality, it is dust being pushed upwards as it goes through the surrounding buildings.

Look again, the damage to the Wintoer garden and other buildings indicates that that picture was taken long after the dust cloud moved off.

Check this video out. The smoke is coming from the building.

www.911myths.com...

another angle.

That's WTC7? I thought it was taller than that. Regardless, from that picture the building wouldn't have come down the way it did. If there was a hole in the side it would have tilted over. I'm no expert but that's just me thinking logically.

I'm going to let you in on something:

Just because WTC7 didn't have an identical twin somewhere else on the globe, doesn't mean it came down naturally.

Since that's been your defense so far on this thread, why don't you go on the offensive a little and post something to actually prove that the fire brought it down. That doesn't mean waving your arms and saying, "lots of fire!" That means something a little more scientific.

So, have anything scientific and conclusive? Because those videos sure look a lot like a demo to me.

Originally posted by mrmulder
That's WTC7? I thought it was taller than that. Regardless, from that picture the building wouldn't have come down the way it did. If there was a hole in the side it would have tilted over. I'm no expert but that's just me thinking logically.

Considering it had a hole 20 stories tall !!!!
Man, I like how images get appear when it is 'time' for them to appear.Most have no time stamp on them so they are just put in the order that best fits the official story.Must be guys going, " this one looks like it goes here, and this one here, wait, make sure the time of day looks right..."