#41 05 Dec 2007 08:45 pm |
Regular Rep: 0  Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 175 OFFLINE | Also Dupontx, how many times in history has a fire weakened the metal of a steel building to the point of its collapse. I’ll tell ya. 3. The North Tower, South Tower, and WTC 7. Only 3 in history. First have blazed longer, with higher temps, and on more floors in numerous steel building and not once, have the ever had the steel weakened and caused it to fall. Not only that but some have even had the planes crash into them with similar effects.
WTC 7 was brought down because one of the larger towers debris smashed the lower part of it. Also no other building has been hit by a 757.
Also the the WTC were only able to take a 707 not a significantly larger 757.
Last edited 05 Dec 2007 09:29 pm by Dupontx123 | |
 | #42 05 Dec 2007 10:01 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51  Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
How many times has a boeing 767 crashed into the top floors of a high rise buillding, Zucas? Please, inform me.
If the plane had anything to do with the collapse of the building then why are you still mentioning the fire shit. It can’t be both. Either building was brought down due to structural damage caused by the plane impacting it, which by the way would have caused the tower to fall almost instantly after collision due to gravity. Or it it’s because over a period of time the fire weakened the steel causing it to collapse, which by the way has never happened once before now. Both make the other irrelevant. Choose one or shutup.
---
 
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #43 05 Dec 2007 10:02 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
And, oh, I forgot, how many controlled demolitions have ever fallen top to bottom?
How many controlled demolitions have been staged to fake a terrorist attack?
Please people if your going to make an issue at least give me something other than these petty posts.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #44 05 Dec 2007 10:03 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | Dupontx123 wrote:
Also Dupontx, how many times in history has a fire weakened the metal of a steel building to the point of its collapse. I’ll tell ya. 3. The North Tower, South Tower, and WTC 7. Only 3 in history. First have blazed longer, with higher temps, and on more floors in numerous steel building and not once, have the ever had the steel weakened and caused it to fall. Not only that but some have even had the planes crash into them with similar effects.
WTC 7 was brought down because one of the larger towers debris smashed the lower part of it. Also no other building has been hit by a 757.
Also the the WTC were only able to take a 707 not a significantly larger 757.
That’s not what the official report. Report stated that the building was weakened by the debris, but ultimately fell due to fires started up within the building that weakened the support system causing it to collapse. Get your facts straight.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #45 05 Dec 2007 10:06 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | Oh and Depontx I said in the first post info has to be unbiased. Meaning it can’t come from a debunking conspiracy theories site or likewise from a conspiracy theory site. There is always going to be bias within them which can manipulate opinions falsely.
Seriously why can’t I have people argue this that are smart.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #46 07 Dec 2007 02:06 pm |
Regular Rep: 0Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 175 OFFLINE | At no point did the NIST state the building only fell because of fire.
“3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don’t get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001. "
“7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6 . That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true."
This is from the National Institute of Standards and Technology website.
I think the term is OWNED.
Last edited 07 Dec 2007 02:09 pm by Dupontx123 | | #47 07 Dec 2007 05:54 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | Once again no link, and if you are quoting form something, you are quoting from an illegal source. The source has to be unbias, meaning a news site, not one specifically talking about conspiracies or debunking them thereof. Your a rookie at this and it shows. Come bakc with a little more practice.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #48 07 Dec 2007 06:24 pm |
Live like an angel, die like a devil Rep: 20 Joined: 01 Apr 2007 Posts: 12,763 OFFLINE | Zucas wrote:
Once again no link, and if you are quoting form something, you are quoting from an illegal source. The source has to be unbias, meaning a news site, not one specifically talking about conspiracies or debunking them thereof. Your a rookie at this and it shows. Come bakc with a little more practice.
Zucas, please, just read this.
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
Please, man, come on.
---
 Last edited 07 Dec 2007 06:25 pm by fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 | | #49 07 Dec 2007 08:16 pm |
Regular Rep: 0Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 175 OFFLINE | www.nist.gov
This is a waste of time. You’re not even argueing my points your just dismissing my FACTS. Non of which you have.
BTW you just stated that the National Institute of Science and Technology is an illegal source.
Last edited 07 Dec 2007 09:11 pm by Dupontx123 | | #50 07 Dec 2007 09:33 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Once again no link, and if you are quoting form something, you are quoting from an illegal source. The source has to be unbias, meaning a news site, not one specifically talking about conspiracies or debunking them thereof. Your a rookie at this and it shows. Come bakc with a little more practice.
Zucas, please, just read this.
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
Please, man, come on.
Dude I’ve read all these debunking sites. But that is not what this is. This is a proffesional topic debating the issue. Meanign we don’t use one sided articles or sites.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #51 07 Dec 2007 09:34 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | Dupontx123 wrote:
www.nist.gov
This is a waste of time. You’re not even argueing my points your just dismissing my FACTS. Non of which you have.
BTW you just stated that the National Institute of Science and Technology is an illegal source.
If you would have provided it I wouldn’t have called it an illegal source cuase it was never there. Watch yourself buddy.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #52 07 Dec 2007 09:35 pm |
Live like an angel, die like a devil Rep: 20Joined: 01 Apr 2007 Posts: 12,763 OFFLINE | Zucas wrote:
fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Once again no link, and if you are quoting form something, you are quoting from an illegal source. The source has to be unbias, meaning a news site, not one specifically talking about conspiracies or debunking them thereof. Your a rookie at this and it shows. Come bakc with a little more practice.
Zucas, please, just read this.
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
Please, man, come on.
Dude I’ve read all these debunking sites. But that is not what this is. This is a proffesional topic debating the issue. Meanign we don’t use one sided articles or sites.
Its taking it from a logical standpoint. Just read it man. Its very informative. Hell, I believed the whole conspiracy thing before reading man. Im asking nicely.
---
| | #53 07 Dec 2007 09:39 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | Dupontx123 wrote:
www.nist.gov
This is a waste of time. You’re not even argueing my points your just dismissing my FACTS. Non of which you have.
BTW you just stated that the National Institute of Science and Technology is an illegal source.
Oh I have numerous points bro but I’m waiting for you to read the first post and follow the rules that are provided. Which states no ranting, must post a scoure, and sources must be legal meaning can’t be directly from the government, from a truthist site or an anti truthist site. If you don’t wish to follow the rules of the debate and simply post randomly then so be it but I will not respond to any of them until you do.
Secondly you gave me a link to a site but not directly where the quote that you got from meaning how the hell am I supposed to read this directly. You must give me a direct link to the wording you quoted or I won’t be able to confirm your not bullshitting. This is a real debate son, not some child play that you think is a game. Either follow the rules and act proffesional or get the hell out.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #54 07 Dec 2007 09:48 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Zucas wrote:
fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Once again no link, and if you are quoting form something, you are quoting from an illegal source. The source has to be unbias, meaning a news site, not one specifically talking about conspiracies or debunking them thereof. Your a rookie at this and it shows. Come bakc with a little more practice.
Zucas, please, just read this.
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
Please, man, come on.
Dude I’ve read all these debunking sites. But that is not what this is. This is a proffesional topic debating the issue. Meanign we don’t use one sided articles or sites.
Its taking it from a logical standpoint. Just read it man. Its very informative. Hell, I believed the whole conspiracy thing before reading man. Im asking nicely.
I just told you I’ve read all this shit before. I’m still on the wall about the thing as well and that is what this topic is for. For people on both sides to present info from unbiased media sites or people to try and find out what really happened. Not for people to post BIASED debunking or conspiracy theory sites as scources.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #55 07 Dec 2007 09:51 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | bAyBeE_ChRoNiC wrote:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
This is the counter-argument against the article in Popular Mechanics about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories.
I would think no matter how many threats a day they get, a threat of that magnitude should be taken seriously, especially
when its been confirmed that other world leaders warned America that something like that would happen.
Ha I like this haha. I remember that History Channel show that tried to debunk all the conspiracy theory stories using that Popular Mechanics thing which I knew from the beginning was a load of bull after reading what they had stated. Not to mention that History channel special was so bias haha. Gosh why can’t people debate these things without having to make sure they lead one way or another. Why not just take the undeniable facts and derive a conclusion.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #56 07 Dec 2007 10:01 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | Dupontx123 wrote:
At no point did the NIST state the building only fell because of fire.
“ 3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don’t get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001. "
“ 7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6 . That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true."
This is from the National Institute of Standards and Technology website.
I think the term is OWNED.
But I guess if you really do want to debate despite your incompetence to follow the rules from that same NIST:
Now, several of you have heard about or thought about the fact that the jet fuel would have burned, caused the building to burn, and probably think the jet fuel played the sole role in the fires. The jet fuel acted much like a matchstick. It was something that spread throughout the building in those affected floors and caused ignition of the fires. But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes. So what burned over the next hour, or hour and a half, was really the contents of the buildings, the everyday contents of the buildings.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pdf
Basically if that jet fuel only burned for 10 minutes at that temperature then that is not long enough to weaken the steel sufficiently to turn it into “gum” and cause it to collapse. And god knows that 40 minutes of burning of rugs, paper, rags, ect doesn’t burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Meaning either there is an incosistency with NIST, which would make them an invalid source, or something else. The Jet fuel didn’t burn long enough to sustain temperatues high enough to weaken the steel to a point of collapse, making that theory completely invalid and impossible. Jet Fuel wasn’t present long enough for that to be logical.
Back to the drawing boards my good sir.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #57 09 Dec 2007 07:55 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 40 Joined: 14 Feb 2007 Posts: 20,254 OFFLINE | Zucas wrote:
fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
How many times has a boeing 767 crashed into the top floors of a high rise buillding, Zucas? Please, inform me.
If the plane had anything to do with the collapse of the building then why are you still mentioning the fire shit. It can’t be both. Either building was brought down due to structural damage caused by the plane impacting it, which by the way would have caused the tower to fall almost instantly after collision due to gravity. Or it it’s because over a period of time the fire weakened the steel causing it to collapse, which by the way has never happened once before now. Both make the other irrelevant. Choose one or shutup.
not to take sides but i heard of a steel building (not anythign as important as the WTC) collapsed due to a huge fire...i cant recall what the building was called though.
---
  | | #58 09 Dec 2007 07:57 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 40Joined: 14 Feb 2007 Posts: 20,254 OFFLINE | didn’t the terrorist try to bomb the WTC back when Clinton was in office? it was a car bomb or somethign like that...
---
| | #59 09 Dec 2007 09:08 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 51Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 39,252 OFFLINE | Demon Slayer wrote:
didn’t the terrorist try to bomb the WTC back when Clinton was in office? it was a car bomb or somethign like that...
Something like that.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #60 09 Dec 2007 09:28 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 40Joined: 14 Feb 2007 Posts: 20,254 OFFLINE | Zucas wrote:
Demon Slayer wrote:
didn’t the terrorist try to bomb the WTC back when Clinton was in office? it was a car bomb or somethign like that...
Something like that.
yea...just making sure i was right on that.
---
| |
|
Previous Page - Locked - Next Page |
Moderated by: Admins, Superusers |
»
Politics
» The 9-11 Terrorist Attacks: What Really Happened?
