It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 20
59
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
Reading this thread the irony has just hit me that quite a few of the people here debating that 911 was not an inside job, just boxcutters yadda yadda, are probably working in or for the pentagon, which was one of the 911 targets.

Strange world.

An even bigger irony is that they have a high chance of being victims in the next false flag terror machination...


Read up about the "SS Poet." It sank at sea with all hands on deck. It was the boat used to ship (allegedly) the weapons to Iran, for NOT returning hostages.

>> I'd guess that a lot of the people are acolytes for think tanks -- rather than the CIA. The CIA needs smart people, and probably doesn't deal with part-time. Heritage Foundation, Kato Institute -- these organizations are funded by groups that lost the last big war. A lot of Libertarian and NeoCon groups get funding from parties that should be a concern for super-patriots. Strange stuff.

It's also likely, that some bloggers on the web are from reform schools -- probably in Florida and Texas. If you blog well, you get privileges from the Warden.

>> One cannot really know about the conspiracy, unless one is part of it.

Really, unless ATS does some IP address lookups -- we would never know. I think CrooksAndLiars or one of the other Progressive blogs actually did this once -- can't remember who, and they definitely nailed some people coming right out of a Republican think tank. About 4 years ago, another blog was getting hammered from an Air Force IP address -- also, NeoCon talking points.

So I know it happens -- but to what extent, I wouldn't know unless I ran the blog. And I really wish they'd do a little bit of snooping now and then, just for curiosities sake. Maybe not point out that Vitriol blogs from a secret bunker in Maryland -- but that perhaps, they might list the raw number of people who might be blogging from Navy.mil or from some Penal colony in Cuba -- that sort of thing.




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


You ignored the point I made that I couldn't find it. It was something I saw that was immediately AFTER the attack, because it was on the next day on TV.

Not a big deal to me and it wasn't my main point. You can pick and choose whatever you want to respond to, and ignore the larger issues.

If there were a crime scene and proper evidence collection, we might have something to discuss. I can only point to a video of a Demolition, and say, GEE THAT LOOKS LIKE THE WTC COLLAPSE, and nobody here, can find anything that looks like the WTC collapse that isn't a demolition.

If I find the photo, I'll post it. But it's kind of hard to find AUTHENTIC photos before they messed with the crime scene -- capiche? Comprende? It was a side comment -- I'm providing proof for most of what I say, just trust me on the rest because I don't have all day for this nonsense. Send a letter to Alex Jones if you have to.

Can you answer why the core is not still standing, when the heat/airplane was supposed to have broken away from it? The entire weight of that building was already on the core -- built for 3 times load capacity, was safely perched on the core for years. If you drop 10 stories 20ft -- about 5% of the mass, it is not enough increase in weight to crush the core -- it POSSIBLY, break some connections of the floors-- so that leaves a PANCAKE COLLAPSE as the only viable theory of a fire-caused complete failure. There is nothing feasible in this scenario to bring down the main support structure AND allow for a collapse due to pancaking. The IMPLOSION of fire theory, only works if the building didn't have an open floor plan. Those windows should have melted or been pulled in or pushed out by fires hot enough to weaken metal -- the curtain wall is only a few feet from the windows. It's fine to theorize that a perfect Jet Fuel fire could weaken the bolts equally, around the entire circumference of the building -- so that every bolt failed at the same time like we saw in the videos. But how can you explain it when a sheet of glass is less than 10' away?

There isn't one thing that even sounds realistic in the pro-Bush government Theory, because, let's not forget, whose reputation is on the line and who MUST have been the one to cover it up. If you want to blame another government -- they'd still need the help of the investigators. So either it was 19 guys with box cutters who didn't appear on the manifests, or it was the Bush government that lied about every disaster they were involved in.

Stick to what can be proved or not. And hint; Time stamps on Photos only works with people who are clueless about EXIF data -- they don't provide evidence.

If anti-truthers could find some evidence to support the theory that steel buildings collapse from fire, that would be really cool.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
If anti-truthers could find some evidence to support the theory that steel buildings collapse from fire, that would be really cool.


Careful. Now we'll start hearing about underpasses that were constructed with asphalt that thermally expand beyond their expansion joints and collapse.

But, when we compare another steel framed skyscraper on fire it's "apples to oranges".



[edit on 2/13/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

Notive I said "ITS THE SAME WAY FOR ANY FIRE" which includes a 47 story building such as the WTC 7. What part doesn't make sense? How do you get an entire building every square inch of it, to fail at the exact same time by fire?

If you had any knowledge of construction you'd understand that fire and physical damage is going to affect different buildings differently.

A house is completely different then a skyscraper.
For example, the vast majority of houses are stick built while skyscrapers are built on a skeleton of steel beams and posts.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by jfj123
 


I don't think you seriously dealt with this -- this seems like you are being intellectually dishonest. This is an empty building, the Chinese are not going to war over it, and it has no strategic use -- why should they lie?

Maybe there was an insurance motive?
Maybe there was a a secret bunker under the building that needed to be destroyed.
I'm just using "truther" logic here.


There has to be motive in most cases. This is just a building that caught on fire and its only significance here, is that it was totally engulfed in flames and is still standing after 20 hours. Nothing like a real-world example.

WTC 1 & 2 were just buildings hit by big planes at high speed and were damaged by fire......


There is a constant chirping that the Truthers are illogical and grasping at straws --

I was pointing out how in the case of the chinese building, everyone is INSTANTLY accepting the official version without question. Your response is perfect because it shows your own double standard. You say, "why should they lie ? " Well why would the US lie? Your implication is that the chinese government is more trustworthy then the US government.


but the only evidence for a steel skyscraper, collapsing, much less in on itself at the speed of gravity, is the three building at the WTC. So, every explanation of how this can happen WITHOUT a demolition -- needs to be proved, because there is no examples to base it on.

So because it has never happened, it couldn't happen? More "truther" logic.


There is a lot of video of top-down demolitions --useful for larger buildings. They look so very much like the 9/11 tragedy. There are NO examples, of buildings not being demolished, falling quickly, nor completely and very few that don't slope to one side unless really wide. There are also other buildings that have been hit by airplanes. A 707 is nearly as large as a 757 -- also, no destruction of the building.

Other then the empire state building and s small cesna hitting an apartment complex, could you post pictures of other buildings...you said buildingS...plural.. that show a large, high speed aircraft hitting a skycraper?


>> To be clear; The Truthers don't need to prove that it was a Demolition -- the anti-Truthers need to prove that it was not.

WRONG. Basic rules of logical discussion would dictate that the individual making the claim AGAINST the accepted norm has the responsibility of providing evidence to support their claim. In other words, innocent until proven guilty.


It's funny. You can talk about Neuburu, Planet X, Space Embargoes, Lizard people invading and it is all civil and open minded more or less -- even the religion.

Are you kidding me? Have you actually read any of these threads ? It's the exact same thing in those threads as it is here.


But if you talk about 9/11, Global Warming, and Economics that might hurt some entrenched multinationals -- wow, there are people sitting on that topic ready to bury you. Why are people so much more vested in these Status Quo topics?

I personally wouldn't put 9/11 conspiracies, global warming and economics in the same category.


Alien spaceships and chem trails have a lot less evidence -- yet people have an open mind about them relative to these topics.

You might want to try reading those threads as well. Every thread polorizes into 2 groups TYPICALLY. Skeptics who want evidence and Believers who accept their truth without the need for evidence.


I didn't get into these conspiracy theories until after 9/11 by the way. That was my final break with believing the "Big Lies." The more I've learned -- the more I realize that what I was taught as a kid was only correct in the Names and Dates. Most of what we think we know, is wrong. Because nobody gets paid to tell you the truth unless you have a subscription to Consumer Reports.

So now even our teachers are in on the conspiracy? I told you this would happen. If you include everyone that is accused here, in the conspiracy, everyone would be involved accept us


[edit on 13-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
One of my favorite excuses "truthers" use is, how can a more fragile plane, damage a huge, strong buildings. I'm really surprised this has not come up yet ??

Or did I miss this one earlier in the thread? ??? ? ?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

Probably because the issue of the plane IS NOT ON TOPIC.Chinese building on fire,no collapse.BDG 7 no plane,little fire,"pulled".



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Hi Guys,

I went back several pages to see if any information regarding the Hotel was mentioned. I didn't see much. I hope this information is not redundant.

Griff, I found some information that you may enjoy reading. Arup actually used the lessons learned on 9/11 when designing:


The shocking events of 9/11 challenged both
industry and consumer perceptions of how safe
tall buildings are. Since then, building owners,
occupiers and developers have increasingly
called for building designs that are not only
taller than ever before, but more robust as well.

The following three case studies demonstrate
Arup’s response to the new demands of this
changing market.






Arup’s response to the World Trade Center
disaster was swift, establishing an Extreme Events
Mitigation Task Force charged with evaluating the
risks of disasters similar to those that have taken
place in recent years, analysing the technical
challenges they represent and developing design
solutions to address them. With typical zeal, and
chaired by the late Tony Fitzpatrick, then chairman
of Arup’s Americas region, the task force mobilised
the might of the firm’s in-house research and
development capabilities and specialist teams on
tall buildings, fire, materials, structural analysis and
other disciplines to see what lessons could be
learnt from the World Trade Centre disaster.


www.arup.com...

www.arup.com...

www.arup.com...






Aftermath pictures:
www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I think the most important facts when comparing the two buildings:


The 34-storey TVCC, which required 92,000 sq m of external and internal Rheinzink cladding, consists of a 1,500-seat theatre, audio recording studios, digital cinemas, news release and a five-star hotel with ballroom and function facilities and a generous spa. The hotel tower was designed as a reinforced concrete frame plus core.


www.gulfconstructionworldwide.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Images, of building, before and after.

It is obvious, that WTC7 was imploded... especially when there has been a complete silence from our news stations, not one of them have dared touch the Bejing fire. They know a can of worms (truth) would be opened up - if they did. Funny - how something that should be news here, has a blackout about.





posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by king9072
Hahahahahahaha 20 pages later and the debate still rages.


How hard is this people? This can be tested on any scale, watch any video of a house on fire, the whole thing eventually becomes engulfed but the ENTIRE HOUSE DOES NOT COLLAPSE AT THE SAME TIME, INSTANTLY!


IT IS THE SAME WAY WITH ANY FIRE! COLLAPSE IS NEVER ENTIRE, AND NEVER EVEN!!!!!

HOW THE HELL DOES 50 STOREYS EVENLY COLLAPSE, AT A GIVEN MOMENT? IT DOES NOT HAPPEN!

END OF DEBATE!


Because a house behaves a certain way...a 47 story skyscraper should behave the same way?

Personal incredulity FTW!



Notive I said "ITS THE SAME WAY FOR ANY FIRE" which includes a 47 story building such as the WTC 7. What part doesn't make sense? How do you get an entire building every square inch of it, to fail at the exact same time by fire?


Strawman...no one is claiming that every square inch of the building had to fail at the exact same time.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


You ignored the point I made that I couldn't find it. It was something I saw that was immediately AFTER the attack, because it was on the next day on TV.


So you claim, but since you've provided nothing to support that claim then it's your word against mine....and I've got pictures to back up my claims.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
If there were a crime scene and proper evidence collection, we might have something to discuss. I can only point to a video of a Demolition, and say, GEE THAT LOOKS LIKE THE WTC COLLAPSE, and nobody here, can find anything that looks like the WTC collapse that isn't a demolition.


Then how would you know the difference?


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngstI'm providing proof for most of what I say, just trust me on the rest because I don't have all day for this nonsense.


I'm not going to "just trust someone" who is making false claims. If you can't provide evidence or proof to back them up then they're just your opinions.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Can you answer why the core is not still standing, when the heat/airplane was supposed to have broken away from it? The entire weight of that building was already on the core -- built for 3 times load capacity, was safely perched on the core for years. If you drop 10 stories 20ft -- about 5% of the mass, it is not enough increase in weight to crush the core


It didn't land on the core...it landed on the floor beneath.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
It's fine to theorize that a perfect Jet Fuel fire could weaken the bolts equally, around the entire circumference of the building -- so that every bolt failed at the same time like we saw in the videos. But how can you explain it when a sheet of glass is less than 10' away?


It didn't so much weaken the bolts, it caused the floors to sag. Many of the windows on the floors with the most severe fires were missing or damaged.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
There isn't one thing that even sounds realistic in the pro-Bush government Theory,


How does the towers falling due to fires instead of explosives work out to be "pro-Bush"? Was he not bad enough already that you have to manufacture elaborate conspiracies to blame on him?


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
because, let's not forget, whose reputation is on the line and who MUST have been the one to cover it up. If you want to blame another government -- they'd still need the help of the investigators. So either it was 19 guys with box cutters who didn't appear on the manifests,


They DID appear on the manifests....they did not appear on the "Victim list"...look it up and come back when you can get your facts straight.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
or it was the Bush government that lied about every disaster they were involved in.


False dilemma - en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Stick to what can be proved or not. And hint; Time stamps on Photos only works with people who are clueless about EXIF data -- they don't provide evidence.


I never said a time stamp would prove anything...I asked for proof of when the photo was taken.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
If anti-truthers could find some evidence to support the theory that steel buildings collapse from fire, that would be really cool.


If steel buildings can't collapse from fire...why must the steel be fireproofed?

Did you know that steel becomes less and less rigid the more it is heated?

How do you think a temperature increase of 100, 500, 900 degrees would affect the load-bearing capacity of a steel beam?

[edit on 13-2-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by king9072

Notive I said "ITS THE SAME WAY FOR ANY FIRE" which includes a 47 story building such as the WTC 7. What part doesn't make sense? How do you get an entire building every square inch of it, to fail at the exact same time by fire?

If you had any knowledge of construction you'd understand that fire and physical damage is going to affect different buildings differently.

A house is completely different then a skyscraper.
For example, the vast majority of houses are stick built while skyscrapers are built on a skeleton of steel beams and posts.



I just wanted to reply that the obviousness of this comment should not warrant a reply. If people want to engage in a discussion, they might as well read the comments like; "these are two steel buildings that are slightly different," or "no two skyscrapers are the same -- that said..."

I really don't know what to do with these comments. Are we wasting our time?

For example; no more examples that "houses are made of sticks." It's comments like that ... well, pretty much, I guess, this is the point where the thread dies.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
After the global catastrophic failures of SlepTIMBER Irrelevance, I don't cook anything on my gas stove for more than one hour. I'm proud to report that I've made my kitchen much safer, with NOT ONE melted item of cookware since 2001. (terrorists will melt a pan soon just to test my 'meddle')

I think it's pretty obvious why the newer Chinese high rises are so indestructable..... well they're using the airplane nose piece technology made famous on 9/11.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
I think it's pretty obvious why the newer Chinese high rises are so indestructable..... well they're using the airplane nose piece technology made famous on 9/11.


Actually it's pretty simple...the Chinese building's frame & core were reinforced concrete...not steel.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


You ignored the point I made that I couldn't find it. It was something I saw that was immediately AFTER the attack, because it was on the next day on TV.

So you claim, but since you've provided nothing to support that claim then it's your word against mine....and I've got pictures to back up my claims.

>> Not really. You have photos showing cut beams. You don't have photos showing how all the beams looked BEFORE the cleanup crew arrived, do you? That's what I'm looking for -- well, not really, because as I said this wasn't my central point. If of course, we see ANY beams cut at a right angle that were not part of cleanup - THAT can only happen with a cutting charge or demolition work.


Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
If there were a crime scene and proper evidence collection, we might have something to discuss. I can only point to a video of a Demolition, and say, GEE THAT LOOKS LIKE THE WTC COLLAPSE, and nobody here, can find anything that looks like the WTC collapse that isn't a demolition.

Then how would you know the difference?

>> More than one investigator, procedural evidence. A photographer who is bonded has to survey the scene BEFORE anyone can touch anything. It has to do with the credibility of the inspectors -- and with this, you'd have more than one agency involved and other third-parties could come in and extract samples of the steel. The FBI was involved in the first WTC bombing, and they tracked everyone down, and had a jury trial. Everyone was punished and no tanks were sent after the bad guys. Case closed, no $500 Billion wasted on wars that linger. You would probably get more by going to a few police procedure or FBI blogs to ask how they secure a crime scene and make a credible case. The Public has a right to know and due process. Notice, that not just the detainees rights were violated at GitMo, but because of torture and a lack of anyone following procedure and evidence -- most of them regardless of background, will be let go -- if not all of them. Likely, everyone has reason for a grudge now and nothing was solved.


Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngstI'm providing proof for most of what I say, just trust me on the rest because I don't have all day for this nonsense.


I'm not going to "just trust someone" who is making false claims. If you can't provide evidence or proof to back them up then they're just your opinions.

>> Great, my opinion, move on. Most people can trust what I have to say, but of course, in your world you must presume they are false - fine by me. But I'll assume that you believe what you say to be true, and value it based upon how thoughtful your comments are. You can't really discuss things if you have no assumption of integrity.


Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Can you answer why the core is not still standing, when the heat/airplane was supposed to have broken away from it? The entire weight of that building was already on the core -- built for 3 times load capacity, was safely perched on the core for years. If you drop 10 stories 20ft -- about 5% of the mass, it is not enough increase in weight to crush the core


It didn't land on the core...it landed on the floor beneath.

>> Which is attached to the core before a floor lands on it. Is this too complicated? At some point, you have to talk about the core. Either it gets pulled down with the floor -- meaning the bolts are attached, or it breaks the bolts and it is still standing. If the first hypothesis is true -- then it never was a pancake collapse and could have only fallen due to explosives. You cannot have both things be true at the same time, and this is not something that needs EVIDENCE, it's a simple principle here. The floor below is supported and attached or it isn't. Which is it? Breaks free of the core and collapses (leaving the core), or pulls the core down -- meaning, there could never have been a free-fall collapse or even a collapse at all, because the core is sufficient to hold the top floors up, whether or not they tumble down.


Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
It's fine to theorize that a perfect Jet Fuel fire could weaken the bolts equally, around the entire circumference of the building -- so that every bolt failed at the same time like we saw in the videos. But how can you explain it when a sheet of glass is less than 10' away?


It didn't so much weaken the bolts, it caused the floors to sag. Many of the windows on the floors with the most severe fires were missing or damaged.

>>Many were damaged? This is a new theory, or maybe one of the many I read and didn't remember because it was lame--my mind edits for content. The steel and concrete is both sagging and expanding -- which is it? If it was expanding, the walls would be getting pushed outward, if it was sagging the walls get pulled inward. Regardless of that -- it is the tension of the floor that suspends between the curtain wall and the core -- so the curtain wall would flex -- it doesn't really care because it's the network of diagonal struts and tension that holds it up -- I've been mentioning it was designed like a bridge, right? Even though we saw no evidence of sagging (no walls moved), it wouldn't damage the structure. The STIFFNESS is provided by the floor -- not the outer wall. The shape of the wall is smooth, because all the floors are the same size. That building was designed for 3 simultaneous strikes by 707's and a 100MPH gail force wind. The power of the wind routinely pushes the whole structure with lots of force -- as it does ALL skyscrapers. All modern skyscrapers are built on flexible structures. I've already linked to this evidence. This is tiresome.

>> CONTINUED >>

Mod edit: Fixed quotes.

[edit on 2/13/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Reinforced concrete is ruined by heat,doncha know?The moisture,especially in newly poured batches,expands much more than the aggregate and sand and lime.Sorta crumbles.Steel might sag but,except for WTC,never fails.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The WTC walls appear stiff, but any distortion in the flooring would change the shape -- not reduce the strength of the structure -- like every suspension bridge in this side of the galaxy. The LOAD bearing outer wall flexes, actually, whenever pushed by the wind. There are counterweights I believe at the top, that were moved in opposition to the motions of the building and damp any swaying, because it was DESIGNED to flex.
Curtain wall NOT RIGID = No collapse from distortion in floors >> move on to next theory.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
There isn't one thing that even sounds realistic in the pro-Bush government Theory,



How does the towers falling due to fires instead of explosives work out to be "pro-Bush"? Was he not bad enough already that you have to manufacture elaborate conspiracies to blame on him?

>> Because it is only his people who could have stopped NORAD and the airforce from taking down planes that are hijacked for an hour. Due to a flight attendants call, they knew before one of the planes left the ground that it was hijacked.
>> Only our government could have covered up the fact that explosives were used in the investigation of the ruins.
>> Ergo, either it fell due to fire, or it fell due to demolition. If it fell due to demolition -- the ONLY group that could have covered it up and interfered with stopping the planes is the Government. That government was run by a certain man who pushed the Patriot Act, the two bogus wars, phony evidence for those wars. And of course, he had help. He didn't need to mastermind anything while reading "My Pet Goat." This is why executives all around the world don't need to be smart if they can hire other people -- happens all the time, just ask anyone in a large company.
>> And I noticed that we didn't get to a realistic Pro-Bush theory, just redirected to "Bush-bashing."


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
because, let's not forget, whose reputation is on the line and who MUST have been the one to cover it up. If you want to blame another government -- they'd still need the help of the investigators. So either it was 19 guys with box cutters who didn't appear on the manifests,



They DID appear on the manifests....they did not appear on the "Victim list"...look it up and come back when you can get your facts straight.

>> I just checked, and you are indeed correct: Faxes of Flight Manifests
I'll give you that point -- but there was no revealed manifest for years -- this just came out in the Moussaoui Trial Exhibits, no wonder I hadn't heard of it. So there is a FAX from a website, alleged to be from the case. I still have a problem with that particular case -- because the witness had an electrocution belt on and was tortured to the point of being certifiably incompetent and drooling. I'll accept the manifest -- but this court case looks like one in a Banana Republic. None of the evidence in that trial was untainted, nor do I know that someone just didn't type the names into a manifest list and FAX it. We have to accept this trial, however, otherwise we couldn't have any basis for reality.

That's why I say that 9/11 was a Rape Case. It's the fight for justice, and its denial, and the humiliation of the process, that is doing more damage than the deed. The Moussoui trial will always be a black mark and a stain on our Judicial System. When some third-world dictator, gets called out for repressing his rivals in fake trials -- they only need to point to this case as precedent.

But I will admit that they were submitted as a FAXed manifest at the Moussaoui Trial.

So, then we have lost our point that there must have been someone removing the names or they weren't on the planes -- however, I'd like to prove that in a court of law -- but it really isn't material to the concept of a Demolition.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
or it was the Bush government that lied about every disaster they were involved in.



False dilemma - en.wikipedia.org...

>> I have that bookmarked too--very handy. You are partially correct -- just because Bush lied about everything else, and screwed the country -- doesn't mean on THIS one thing, he isn't telling the truth. It's not a false dilemma -- it's more of an ipso facto or an ad hoc -- "because of this, therefore this." In a court of law, it would be inadmissible as evidence, however, to any police officer, this would be evidence of Prior Criminal Activity. If I have to list the crimes, I would never get to a point. I'm stating, that you are taking the word of known liars and crooks -- and that is your ONLY source for the story. If they had released Video from the Pentagon and had an open investigation -- well, then we wouldn't have to trust just the Bush administration, would we?

It is strange that the evidence for Bush's innocence, is the incessant accusations of criminal activity from the "Left" -- and 80% of the planet. It's like saying that, because a bank robber was accused of 25 cases of robbing banks by the FBI, that this particular bank robbery is not possible -- because of all the accusations. I'm not even sure if there is a term for that kind of fallacy -- maybe we can call it "Delusional" and move on?

I believe that Bush and company deserve a fair trial. Prior criminal activity is justifiable for search warrants and to proceed with an investigation. IN this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. That's why I'd start the trial with all the other crimes as probable cause. I don't see how this is a false dilemma at all. The assumption that I could convict based upon prior crimes would be, a false dilemma, and you made a false dilemma assuming that was my intention. My intention is a fair trial -- and I think we have ample evidence for that. We don't have ample evidence, to prove that fires brought down the buildings.

>> CONTINUED

Mod edit: Fixed bold text.

Note: you left out the forward slash "/" to end the bold text.

[edit on 2/13/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
>> NOTICE HOW LONG THIS IS GETTING? If everyone argues minutiae on everything and no facts get established, then you have to PROVE every comment.

What I'm hoping to do, is stick to things that don't require PROOF, in that they are facts about buildings, the structure of the WTC, and logic -- because ALL THE EVIDENCE IS RUINED. The main suspects; Bush or Bin Laden, both have an interest in the case. So do we. But one of these guys, had only his people at the crime scene and kept all the evidence. So why is Bush helping Bin Laden -- or whomever, escape justice?

Let's move on...


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Stick to what can be proved or not. And hint; Time stamps on Photos only works with people who are clueless about EXIF data -- they don't provide evidence.



I never said a time stamp would prove anything...I asked for proof of when the photo was taken.

>> Careful, anyone can go back a few pages and clearly read "Tim Stamp." But, if you were just saying that to get proof of the time it was taken -- well, that is not possible. See how frustrating it is arguing something where all the evidence was tampered with? I suppose, if the Bush administration gets into power again, and there is another attack/false flag, they will have learned from their mistakes. Any photo that anyone gives you, can only be "timed" by some sequence of events. But any photo of the wreckage, would be a day or two later when the dust settled -- and by then the cleanup had started. So you might guess that some photo was before the cleanup has lots of dust or smoke around it -- but how can you verify that? Same problem with all the photos of cut beams people thought were from the tragedy -- since you have no chain of evidence, you really can't tell anyone that they were all caused by the cleanup effort--you can always re-cut a pre-cut beam, or just SAY you cut it. The FBI could have tested the cuts, and known if they were pre-collapse or not. But of course, they weren't involved.

On the witness stand, I'd be sure to put a lot of people who cleaned up the mess under oath. If you support the truth, maybe you can push for a trial to exonerate the government at the time. Until that happens -- there is no PROOF either way. Any steel beams proven to be cut before or during the collapse, would be proof of a Demolition. Doesn't happen any other way.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
If anti-truthers could find some evidence to support the theory that steel buildings collapse from fire, that would be really cool.



If steel buildings can't collapse from fire...why must the steel be fireproofed?

>> Hey, that's a good question -- I'm no building expert, but I imagine it is to prevent heat from being transferred to other floors. You contain the fire and turn on the sprinklers. The fire-proofing and water sprinklers were not original to the WTC construction. They were put in AFTER the North Tower had a fire raging on two floors. The risk to the steel in any fire is miniscule -- temperatures may get hot, but you have to have a LOT OF HEAT, for a long time to weaken the steel -- because it conducts. Since to the engineers, fires, other than the magic ones at the WTC, are not a risk to the structure, you want to contain the fire and allow the occupants to live. That's why they probably spray on the fire-proofing. It's NOT for the Steel. I'd take 30 seconds to verify this, if I doubted my on abilities at logic.


Did you know that steel becomes less and less rigid the more it is heated?

>> Really? That would mean it would bend. Did I see the walls distort on the WTC in the video? No I did not. Less rigid does NOT mean a spontaneous failure. It also has to be a lot closer to the melting point. Your stove has a thin sheet of metal around it, and it gets nearly as hot as a normal office fire 550 degrees vs. about 850 degrees. Does it get weaker as a result? No. But even if it did, it would BEND -- it would not crumble. It could not possibly do so evenly in any real-world event.


How do you think a temperature increase of 100, 500, 900 degrees would affect the load-bearing capacity of a steel beam?
[edit on 13-2-2009 by adam_zapple]

>> Go look at this picture of the Building in China engulfed in flame. I'd say its about 850 degrees Fahrenheit at its hottest (what I read was about the hottest an office fire can get)-- a lot hotter than that WTC fire FOR MOST OF THE TIME IT BURNED. So, not much. Even at 900 degrees, it would take more than a day to apply enough HEAT to weaken it enough for collapse. Go check on the history of high-rise blazes. Most buildings are built to have two times load capacity -- which means, even at a 50% reduction due to fire, they would not fail, and they definitely would bend and slump and not suddenly. Even wood fires don't seem to collapse a the speed of gravity, unless the whole structure is engulfed in flame--the fire in China is an example of that, while the WTC was burning way up at the top -- what collapsed everything below the fire if the core was not destroyed from below? The WTC was built with 3 times load capacity by the way, because they had never built such a large structure before. NOTHING was damaging the structure below the fire at the WTC -- what made if collapse so quickly? A downdraft? We don't see any of the debris bounce back up or even slowed down. TIME is required for the energy above to overcome the structure below.

>> CONTINUES



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Here is the point that is often missed by the Pro-Bush Coincidence Theory Advocates (PBCTA for short). You HAVE TO PROVE, that the heat of an office fire can collapse a steel building in order for the WTC PBCTA to have merit. You see, the Kerosene (Jet Fuel) that everyone says is so dang important -- was burnt up in the first 15 minutes. Either it was, and you have the highest possible temperature, or it wasn't all consumed and it never reached that peak temperature. That's 15 minutes. After that, no matter what the ignition, the fire cools down to whatever it is burning -- which is all the stuff in an office. So the damage had 15 minutes to occur to the steel -- not enough time, even if it were close to melting, to actually effect a structure, because it is transmitting heat away -- you have to overcome the conductance of metal and it's heat load to melt it. For instance, one Arc Welder, though very, very hot, can't melt a steel beam -- because while hot, it doesn't have enough heat for the entire beam.

Even though it never had enough heat load, the NEW THEORY, that might help the PBCTA is to say that there is a delayed collapse. The 15 minutes of extreme heat, set up a weakness, and the later fire somehow exploited. I don't know how. Below a critical temperature, you can heat steel forever. Steel has never displayed total instantaneous failure in the real world -- it always bends way before it breaks. We would have seen a lot of slumping, before anything broke. And any pancaking would take over a minute as the force was transferred, and it would have to leave the core standing.

>> I think I've spent enough time with this. I wouldn't mind some Truthers chiming in and saying if my theories are plausible, and that Bush and Company deserve a fair trial.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join