Building collapses with NO explosives.

blah blah blah.

Again, lets frame this question in the correct way.

Have you found any other steel framed high rise building which has been struck by a jet at 500 mph, and not had firefighting occur?

Find me one of those, and I'll show you another high rise steel framed building which collapses.

Try again.

Let's really frame it correctly according to the debunkers. It needs to be a fully fueled and loaded jet going 500 miles an hour. It can't just be one that is only lost in a fog looking to land with hardly any fuel in it. Because that's what the buildings were designed to take. Right? Remember that bull crap?

Because when NIST came out with the WTC7 report none of that crap seemed to matter anymore. Thermal expansion. Right?

What's next?
 
Let's really frame it correctly according to the debunkers. It needs to be a fully fueled and loaded jet going 500 miles an hour. It can't just be one that is only lost in a fog looking to land with hardly any fuel in it. Because that's what the buildings were designed to take. Right? Remember that bull crap?

Because when NIST came out with the WTC7 report none of that crap seemed to matter anymore. Thermal expansion. Right?

What's next?

Right. Here's a question from the FDNY Lieutenant's exam;

"how much does a 100 ft beam expand at 1200"​

Source: http://snurl.com/j5434 [Report from Ground Zero, page 7]

It's been o the exam for decades.
 
Right. Here's a question from the FDNY Lieutenant's exam;

"how much does a 100 ft beam expand at 1200"​

Source: http://snurl.com/j5434 [Report from Ground Zero, page 7]

It's been o the exam for decades.

Right. It just has never happened before or since and never will again. It's a miracle for skeptics.
 
Let's really frame it correctly according to the debunkers. It needs to be a fully fueled and loaded jet going 500 miles an hour. It can't just be one that is only lost in a fog looking to land with hardly any fuel in it. Because that's what the buildings were designed to take. Right? Remember that bull crap?

Because when NIST came out with the WTC7 report none of that crap seemed to matter anymore. Thermal expansion. Right?

What's next?

Oh no.

I'll happily take any jet moving at 500 mph into any steel framed high rise which burns for about an hour with the fires unfought.

I'll make it easier for you.

Find me one of those, and I'll show you anothe steelframed building which has collapsed.

what are you waiting for?

Are you a structural engineer? did you work on the design for the towers? I take the word of the designers any day of the week and two times on days ending in Y over your word that it is crap. But hey, I'm sure you an provide a peer reviewed engineering journal article which shows it is crap. Right?

And you are conflating issues. We are not talking about wtc7 specifically...

but since you have shifted to it... fine.

find me another open floor plan high rise building with fires raging across multiple floors with no firefighting occuring for 7 hours, and I'm pretty sure I will show you another building where thermal expansion has occurred...
 
Right. It just has never happened before or since and never will again. It's a miracle for skeptics.

Never before or since has there been a fire in a steel building where no firemen was able to fight the fire.

You've never read the NIST report. It shows why expansion of a specific beam caused the collapse.
 
[
Right. It just has never happened before
Plenty of steel framed buildings have burned and collapsed due to the steel softening... it has been told to you repeatedly

steel framed parts of other buildings have collapsed. Madrid towers, and others

and never will again.
One can hope. But if massive fires were to happen in sevral other open floorplan, steel framed buildings and go unfought for hours, I'd wager my paycheck vs yours that they would collapse.

It's a miracle for skeptics.

No... it is called basic engineering... go back to school and try to figure it out.
If I was as determined to call ******** on everything presented that all of the experts agree on, I'd go back to school and get that degree... and show them they are wrong. It isn't that hard to go back to school...what are you waiting for?

Oh twoof.

<facepalm>

personal incredulity and personal ignorance yet again. Steel framed trusses are known to collapse in fires. That is why it is on the firemans exam...

First time in history claim again? or the low probability events? Really?
 
Last edited:
No steel high rise building has ever been completely destroyed because of anything other than explosives. This is just a fact.

This thread can go on forever. Debunkers can throw all kinds of hissy fits forever.

It will never change that fact.
 
No steel high rise building has ever been completely destroyed because of anything other than explosives. This is just a fact.

This thread can go on forever. Debunkers can throw all kinds of hissy fits forever.

It will never change that fact.

Woooo Hoooo!!!!

First time in history claims.

wow..
and it was nice that you bolded it in your last post... COMPLETELY. personal ignorance and incredulity on display. Thank you for playing. Come on back when you have something new or interesting.
 
Woooo Hoooo!!!!

First time in history claims.

wow..
and it was nice that you bolded it in your last post... COMPLETELY. personal ignorance and incredulity on display. Thank you for playing. Come on back when you have something new or interesting.

That's just it. There is nothing new about it. It just doesn't happen and it never will.
 
That's just it. There is nothing new about it. It just doesn't happen and it never will.

Show us any steel-framed building involved in fire in which the Fire department was unable to fight the fire.

That's what happened to WTC7.
 
Pro.

Pretty please... pretty please show me just another steel framed building which was impacted by a jet moving at 500 mph which had unfought fires for an hour... and I'll show you another steel framed building which has collapsed.

Provide one, and I'll show you the other.

what are you waiting for?

ok fine. Show me a steel framed building which has has fires burn across multiple floors at the same time for 7 hours without sprinklers or firefighting and I'll show you another steel framed building with thermal expansion.

it is rather easy.

I know you don't understand models, or that you can look at something and see how it relates (it must just make them widdle neurons work too hard) but the top of the madrid towers is a perfect example... the unprotected steel warped and collapsed in an unfought fire... absolutely amazing that. Isn't it?
 
Pro.

Pretty please... pretty please show me just another steel framed building which was impacted by a jet moving at 500 mph which had unfought fires for an hour... and I'll show you another steel framed building which has collapsed.

Provide one, and I'll show you the other.

what are you waiting for?

ok fine. Show me a steel framed building which has has fires burn across multiple floors at the same time for 7 hours without sprinklers or firefighting and I'll show you another steel framed building with thermal expansion.

it is rather easy.

I know you don't understand models, or that you can look at something and see how it relates (it must just make them widdle neurons work too hard) but the top of the madrid towers is a perfect example... the unprotected steel warped and collapsed in an unfought fire... absolutely amazing that. Isn't it?

Do you really think that buildings haven't been hit by planes before? What does it matter anyway? What plane hit WTC7? This is what you can't get around. After claiming for years how so unique it was what happened to two different towers on the same day, you then come back with a third collapse for a whole different reason. On the same day no less.

You're a skeptic?
 
Do you really think that buildings haven't been hit by planes before?

no, No, NO, NO. Bad truther. Stop trying to shift. I didn't say planes. Did I?

Since you are being uber specific about steel framed high rise buildings completely collapsing. I am being uber specific to make sure you can see how they relate. After all we have seen that simple models which demonstrate specific properties of the collapse you don't understand.

So stop trying to shift it to "planes" now. Show me a single open floorplan, steel framed building which has been hit by a JET moving at 500 mph with no firefighting (you know something similar to the towers) and I'll show you another building which has collapsed.

so please show me one, and then I'll show you another steel framed high rise which has collapsed completely due to fire.

You can't compare apples to oranges...

What does it matter anyway?
Shift, shift, shift noted. You are making a BS claim, and I am asking you to flesh it out and show me a comparable example. If you can't, then just admit that you cannot.

I cannot show you another high rise steel framed skyscraper which has collapsed, unless I show you a high rise steel framed skyscraper which has been hit by a jet at 500 mph, and burned for an hour unfought. Then I can show you 2.

What plane hit WTC7? This is what you can't get around.
truther strawman, and bs at that. I don't need to "get around it." No jet hit wtc7. It was struck by debris from the collaping towers, and the damage to the building was never fully documented.

Yet the collapse of the towers, started fires which burned unfought for 7 hours.
can you get around that?

After claiming for years how so unique it was what happened to two different towers on the same day, you then come back with a third collapse for a whole different reason.

Well gee... it would be mighty hard for anyone to claim the collapse of wtc7 was because a huge ****ing jet hit it at 500mph and it burned uncontrolled, huh?

But part of that is accurate... it was hit by something, and it burned uncontrolled for 7 hours... wowsers.

The meridian plaza fire was similar, with similar issues. The steel floor columns sagged up to 3 feet.. too bad it didn't burn as out of control or across as much of the building at one time.

Though I do wish there were better photographs of the damage.

Or we could look inside of wtc5 and 6 where there were partial collapses dueto the thermal expansion and the fires weakening the beams...

On the same day no less.

You're a skeptic?
Yup. I have been one my entire life. It has caused lots of problems.
I showed you that improbable events have happened in the past. That is the bitch about probability... sometimes weird **** happens.

Unlike you, I do real research. I know how, and I actually do research. Maybe it is because one of my masters degrees is in research methodology and information systems.

Lets see...
under 50 highly dedicated, college educated, focused individuals plan a daring attack which uses the policies and procedures against the enemy. The plan uses speed, cunning, luck and a good knowledge of the operational systems of the enemy. Using boxcutters, folding knvies, pepper spray and the arrogance of the enemy against them. 5 men per jet, cut up a few people, get them to open the door, and use the policy of the time (the pilot should do what the hijacker says in case there is a bomb) to slice the pilots throats and then fly the jets into 3 buildings and a field.

OR
a massive conspiracy involving up to thousands (tens of thousands depending on which twoof you ask) which is the rube goldberg machine of conspiracy theories, with no one ever speaking to their priest, confessing to the cops, getting arrested and bragging and no one ever coming forward.

There is one thing that twoofs in their ignorance and incredulity fail to realize. If this was a military operation (NSA, CIA, US military) it would be rejected ... numerous times. For all of the moving parts, all of the things which could go wrong. The military and intelligence agencies follow the KISS rule.

They could EASILY have pulled off a MUCH MORE horrific event, killing as many or more and gotten us directly into a war with whoever they wanted with under 100 people involved. But nooooooooo.
 
Do you really think that buildings haven't been hit by planes before? What does it matter anyway?

No plane ever hit an all-steel building which was unable to fight the fire.

That describes WTC1, 2, and 7.
 
If one of the jumpers had survived? WOW! Is that the same to you? It's just as possible for someone to jump out of a 70 store window and survive, as it is for 3 steel constructed buildings to collapse for two different reasons in one day? For reasons that have never happened before?

I don't think we have an argument.

No you don't have an argument.
 
No steel high rise building has ever been completely destroyed because of anything other than explosives. This is just a fact.

This thread can go on forever. Debunkers can throw all kinds of hissy fits forever.

It will never change that fact.
You are wrong or telling lies; but with google as your only source of education now that you have taken up delusion worship with the cult of 911 truth, you can't figure out much of anything.

Debunkers have you running and posting stupid. And you do a great job of posting stupid. This is proof.
 
No steel high rise building has ever been completely destroyed because of anything other than explosives. This is just a fact.

This thread can go on forever. Debunkers can throw all kinds of hissy fits forever.

It will never change that fact.

No it's not a fact and by saying so you are begging the question.
 
Do you really think that buildings haven't been hit by planes before? What does it matter anyway? What plane hit WTC7? This is what you can't get around. After claiming for years how so unique it was what happened to two different towers on the same day, you then come back with a third collapse for a whole different reason. On the same day no less.

You're a skeptic?

No buildings of that size have ever been brought down by CD so that would be a "first". Your "first time" argument works against you.
 

Back
Top Bottom