For you youngsters: Plane Hits Empire State Building (Video), page 6

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 22 times

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 11:04 PM by Prove_It_NOW

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Human_Alien

Buildings don't collapse when hit by planes ?

Sure they do , take a look :

www.youtube.com...

Steel and concrete-reinforced buildings won't collapse due to fires ?

Sure they will , here , take a look :

www.911myths.com...

edit on 25-9-2010 by okbmd because: (no reason given)

NOTE
Upon further examination , I must conclude that the youtube video in my first post is obviously a fake .

edit on Sun Sep 26 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: per member request

OKBMD is now doing what's called "back tracking"....as evidenced from above.

Your original post stated that steel and concrete reinforced BUILDINGS won't COLLAPSE due to fire.
You posted a photo of the Madrid Windsor building, which strangely, as many photo show, is STILL STANDING.

Now you're breaking down your debate to mean "certain parts of buildings" or "steel sections collapsing".

You've changed you debate which is available for all to see if they read your posts.

I debunked your first video as a fake. YOU debunked YOURSELF before I did. You even admitted that you asked the moderator to remove it. (guess it's too embarrassing)

Your own PHOTO that you point to as proof of the Madrid Windsors COLLAPSE....debunks YOU simply by seeing the PHOTO and understanding the word "COLLAPSE". I.E. The majority of the structure is still standing, it still qualifies as a standing structure. I.E. It is a very badly burnt, melted, building...which is mainly intact.

You are now being disingenuous after being given multiple times to simply say you concede, and you were wrong. You cannot let go so now you're spinning a different debate and moving the goal posts.

The tactic is widely known and transparent.

If you said that "steel integrity can be weakened by fire" or that "a section of a building has collapsed due to fire"....we wouldn't be here.

I would say nice try, but it isn't. It is flat out disingenuous.

Now YOU are on ignore.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 11:23 PM by babybunnies

Just goes to show that an airplane crashing into a building doesn't cause it to collapse, even one built in the 1930's.

THREE that were both built to modern building code should definitely have been able to withstand the impact of a jet, and the debris caused by the other two building "collapses"

If even only one of the buildings had of come down, I might have believed that it was JUST terrorism, but with ALL THREE collapsing, I just can't believe that modern day New York building code is that shoddy.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 11:34 PM by Varemia

Please, enjoy:

This explains all the HUGE differences between the Empire State Building and the WTC towers:
vincentdunn.com...

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 11:51 PM by impressme

reply to post by okbmd

like it or not

They are not the facts but your opinion, nothing more.

So, You like most debunkers are trying to convince me that the OS is all true based on “your opinions”. Like it or not, science proves you are wrong and science outweighs your opinions.

Structural steel collapsed in the Windsor , due to fire . Therefore , it is not unreasonable to say that structural steel in WTC collapsed due to fire .

Opinions, opinions, opinions. where is your science? All you got is he said, she said I know because my government told me so on MSN etc…

edit on 26-9-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-9-2010 @ 01:23 AM by debunky

Originally posted by babybunnies
Just goes to show that an airplane crashing into a building doesn't cause it to collapse, even one built in the 1930's.

THREE that were both built to modern building code should definitely have been able to withstand the impact of a jet, and the debris caused by the other two building "collapses"

If even only one of the buildings had of come down, I might have believed that it was JUST terrorism, but with ALL THREE collapsing, I just can't believe that modern day New York building code is that shoddy.

erm... 7 buildings collapsed. WTC 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7.
4,5 and 6 only partially, but they weren't high rise.

One of the interesting things about buildings: They get less stable the more technology advances. Why? Less Eyeballing. If you have to guess any component, you better err on the side of caution. The more accurately you can calculate the stress a structure will suffer in normal use, and the better you can calculate how much structure is "good enough"

Ever heard of en.wikipedia.org... right next to WTC 7, similiar damage didn't collapse. Why? Built in 1907.

reply posted on 28-9-2010 @ 01:50 PM by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Originally posted by technical difficulties

I implore you to do your own research but I will touch upon this ever-so-slightly.

Oddly enough, the Windsor Tower lacked fireproofing on the upper floors yet still stood. On the other conspiracy hand, all THREE WTC towers had sufficient fireproofing yet all..............crumbled and are no more.

But you're right. Nothing to see here. Keep the cattle line movin'........................

edit on 25-9-2010 by Human_Alien because: fix quote

Oddly enough the Windsor Building wasn't hit by a plane nor heavy debris and had a different design from the towers.

edit on 28-9-2010 by technical difficulties because: edit

reply posted on 28-9-2010 @ 01:50 PM by technical difficulties

double post

edit on 28-9-2010 by technical difficulties because: double post

reply posted on 28-9-2010 @ 03:19 PM by Varemia

Just something to add. Multiple sources I've found have attested to the lack of sufficient fireproofing in the WTC. They used a cheap spray-on fireproofing after the codes were set with a minimum level of fire-resistance level. Buildings like the Empire State Building had much more impressive fire-proofing. I'm pretty sure anyone can read about it in the link I posted just a couple posts ago. It is also currently in my signature.

reply posted on 28-9-2010 @ 08:16 PM by impressme

reply to post by Varemia

They used a cheap spray-on fireproofing after the codes were set with a minimum level of fire-resistance level.

Perhaps that is how the thermite was applied during the asbestos abatement program.

Asbestos in the WTC

The WTC Towers were built from 1968 to 1972. A slurry mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed on as fireproofing material. But this practice was banned by the New York City Council in 1971. This halted the spraying, but not before hundreds of tons of the material had been applied. Some but not all of it was later removed in an abatement program.

911research.wtc7.net...

Thus, the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or
even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic
or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the
WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of
“hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”. Indeed,
the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent
film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips
which survived the WTC destruction.

www.bentham-open.org...

I have to believe, the people hired to do the spray applications had no idea they were spraying Super na-nothermite, on the core columns and floor trussals. It had to been done during the abatement program.

edit on 28-9-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-9-2010 @ 08:38 PM by Varemia

reply to post by impressme

If you check the link on thermite in my signature, you'll find that thermite did not even need to be applied. The buildings were already giant thermite reactions waiting to happen. The airplane and the molten aluminum acted as catalysts for the most part.

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^