Conspiracy Debunker Challenge!!

[Lizathrose]

There's just one little problem wit' yer "analysis": Jet fuel running down the building or not, the fire only burned at the crash site, not multiple floors below.

Actually, the fire did indeed spread to several stories on the north tower, and the "crash site" wasn't localized to one insignificant portion of the building. The entire building wasn't ablaze in a complete firestorm, but several key pieces of architecture were directly exposed to a raging inferno that, over a long period of time, progressively weakened them -- namely, the large angle clips cited above that eventually gave way, which in conjunction with the severe structural damage imparted by the aircraft initiated failures in the outer box columns that eventually led to the progressive collapse of the floors above.

 

[Deadtosin]

architecture were directly exposed to a raging inferno that, over a long period of time, progressively weakened them --

Has anyone ever lit jet fuel on fire? I have. It burns up REAL quick. We do training every six months and light fires with jet fuel to put them out.

with that said, jet fuel wasnt burning in that building.. Office debris was. Office debris that is fire coded for a 110 story skyscraper (read: non-flammable).

Jets burn about 1000-5000lbs per hour depending on airframes, powerplant... weight.. etc. And thats in a controlled environment with jet fuel being fed into the engine. Imagine you light it ALL on fire all at once... its gone.

So, the argument of jet fuel burn temps is moot. And i wont buy the fact that pools of jet fuel were burning. Pools of jet fuel were found in cars on the streets below.. not burning.

Try it, Get some Kerosene (even though it burns slower than jet fuel), put it in a coffee can and throw it on a fire... Stand back though....lol. Cause this is what happened when those planes hit. Then you may want to throw some unburned kerosene on a tree.. or steel.. whichever... hey.. try a coke can. And light it. I bet it doesnt even melt the coke can it burns so quick. (although it may, havent tried it myself)

Jet Fuel Burn Rates - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

 

[Lizathrose]

both were collapsing roofs of theaters.. Not remotely close to the same. Theaters are completely hollow rooms. We are talking about a skyscraper. They are not even remotely in the same category.

You've stated that "no other steel framed building in history has collapsed due to fire alone." That isn't true. It's an inescapable falsehood. It's been widely-remarked that the McCormick was thought to be fireproof; its collapse is a reminder that steel is capable of yielding under stress induced by extensive fires. In terms of ascribing categories, you've alleged that "no other steel-framed building in history has collapsed due to fire alone," which to reiterate fails to recognize the unique variables associated with, and directly attributable to, Building 7's collapse, as listed above in a previous post.

 

[Lizathrose]

Has anyone ever lit jet fuel on fire? I have. It burns up REAL quick. We do training every six months and light fires with jet fuel to put them out.

with that said, jet fuel wasnt burning in that building.. Office debris was. Office debris that is fire coded for a 110 story skyscraper (read: non-flammable).

Jets burn about 1000-5000lbs per hour depending on airframes, powerplant... weight.. etc. And thats in a controlled environment with jet fuel being fed into the engine. Imagine you light it ALL on fire all at once... its gone.

So, the argument of jet fuel burn temps is moot. And i wont buy the fact that pools of jet fuel were burning. Pools of jet fuel were found in cars on the streets below.. not burning.

Try it, Get some Kerosene (even though it burns slower than jet fuel), put it in a coffee can and throw it on a fire... Stand back though....lol. Cause this is what happened when those planes hit. Then you may want to throw some unburned kerosene on a tree.. or steel.. whichever... hey.. try a coke can. And light it. I bet it doesnt even melt the coke can it burns so quick. (although it may, havent tried it myself)

Jet Fuel Burn Rates - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

Come on, now. Who said anything about jet fuel's temperature while aflame? For that matter, who asserted that the jet fuel in question lasted for any significant period of time? I'd agree that the jet fuel by itself arguably didn't significantly contribute to the ensuing failure of, say, the angle clips supporting the structures, but the ensuing office fires did. The fuel played the crucial role of igniting fires in both towers, and that's that. Nobody is attempting to insinuate that jet fuel was melting key pieces of structural steel in the towers, or that the jet fuel lasted for hours and hours.

 

[kennethcadwell]

You've stated that "no other steel framed building in history has collapsed due to fire alone." That isn't true. It's an inescapable falsehood. It's been widely-remarked that the McCormick was thought to be fireproof; its collapse is a reminder that steel is capable of yielding under stress induced by extensive fires. In terms of ascribing categories, you've alleged that "no other steel-framed building in history has collapsed due to fire alone," which to reiterate fails to recognize the unique variables associated with, and directly attributable to, Building 7's collapse, as listed above in a previous post.

The McCormick Place Roof Collapse [h=2]The Most-Cited Example of a Fire-Induced Collapse of a Steel Structure[/h] Thermal weakening of structural steel is a crucial element of the official theory of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Since there are no examples of steel-framed buildings totally collapsing due to fire stress (outside of these three alleged examples) defenders of the theory frequently cite the McCormick roof collapse incident.
McCormick Place is a warehouse-type building that housed a large exhibition hall. It had a long-span roof supported by web trusses. When a fire broke out in an exhibition with many flammable displays it rapidly spread, and a portion of the roof collapsed within 30 minutes.
Comparisons of the McCormick Place incident to the collapses of the Twin Towers are sometimes made because the floor diaphragms on that constituted most tenant-space floors in the Towers were also supported by web trusses.
The first fact that should be noted in regard to any such comparison is that the McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building. Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST's endorsing the column failure theory to the exclusion of the truss failure theory.

Furthermore, the comparisons of the roof trusses of McCormick Place to the floor trusses of the Twin Towers is limited by the following facts:

• The floor trusses were insulated, unlike the roof trusses.
• The floor trusses spanned at most 60 feet, apparently much shorter than the roof trusses.
• The floor trusses had to support the floor loads of the concrete slabs and office furniture, whereas the roof trusses only had to support snow loading.

 

[Lizathrose]

Most definitely NOT the path of least resistance...

View attachment 87657

If the floors below a failing structure can't support the weight of thousands of tons of material above them, they're going to fail in turn, and they're likely going to do so without offering enough resistance to impart sufficient lateral momentum in time to significantly alter the course of the collapse. The towers collapsed within seconds, and in the first moments of the collapses, the upper portions of the towers fell almost exclusively at a nearly vertical axis. The "path of least resistance" in terms of lateral momentum is barely even applicable. It's basic math.

 

[Jackson123]

If the floors below a failing structure can't support the weight of thousands of tons of material above them, they're going to fail in turn, and they're likely going to do so without offering enough resistance to impart sufficient lateral momentum in time to significantly alter the course of the collapse. The towers collapsed within seconds, and in the first moments of the collapses, the upper portions of the towers fell almost exclusively at a nearly vertical axis. The "path of least resistance" in terms of lateral momentum is barely even applicable. It's basic math.

Let assume this theory is right.

Where the iron dust come from? Is collapse or jet fuel produce Iron dust?

 

[Deadtosin]

It's basic math.

Then your basic math is horrible. the planes struck between the 93 and 99th floors on a 110 story building. So much for that 1/3rd of the building coming down and if you thought that the rest of the tower beneath the impact was the least path of resistance (with your basic math) than you are completely dismissing the fact that the lowest floor can support a 110 story skyscraper with no problem to begin with. These aren't lincoln logs.

 

[Deadtosin]

But I digress...

[video=youtube;Mamvq7LWqRU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU[/video]

 

[Allin]

It's ridiculous to expect all steel-framed buildings to perform the same during an intense, prolonged fire, or a structural failure attributable to a fire, or a subsequent collapse. This is why it's the first time in history this building collapsed as it did. It's the first time in history a steel-framed structure constructed like this collapsed under the criteria above.

Maybe the specifics aren't as important as the overall. The overall claim is that America is under attack from the inside ('conspiracy', etc.) and not so much from 'terrorists' outside of America. It's not something Christians have to learn about; but it helps to know the signs of the anti-Christ and why certain aspects of society function the way they do.

 

[Lizathrose]

Then your basic math is horrible. the planes struck between the 93 and 99th floors on a 110 story building. So much for that 1/3rd of the building coming down and if you thought that the rest of the tower beneath the impact was the least path of resistance (with your basic math) than you are completely dismissing the fact that the lowest floor can support a 110 story skyscraper with no problem to begin with. These aren't lincoln logs.

Do you have any conception as to how much force would've suddenly been applied to the structures in question immediately following the initial collapse? Structures typically aren't designed to endure sudden stresses imparted by countless tons of material falling haphazardly onto them all at once, which induces uneven, sudden strains beyond ordinary tolerances on orders of magnitude. As far as "1/3 of the building coming down," where are you getting this? I've never asserted that a "third" of any of the towers suddenly collapsed. You'll have to refresh my memory.

 

[Jackson123]

But I digress...

[video=youtube;Mamvq7LWqRU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU[/video]

I don't see any large fragment touching building 7. If building 7 collapse because debris from twin tower, then the debris must in a large size, thousands giant debris, a ton a piece. Not in the form of dust.

A dust knock down steel frame building ?

 

[Lizathrose]

I don't see any large fragment touching building 7. If building 7 collapse because debris from twin tower, then the debris must in a large size, thousands giant debris, a ton a piece. Not in the form of dust.

A dust knock down steel frame building ?

Building 7 was damaged well before it collapsed.

 

[Jackson123]

Building 7 was damaged well before it collapsed.

damaged from what? and why not fall to the right or left? Why collapse in the same day with twin tower, when building 7 damage.

Every city had building safety department. I believe for commercial building they check every years. Eat least it what happen to my city.

If the building not safe, they will ask the owner to repair or close the building.

Back to twin tower, we see white dust in the video, ton of white dust. The expert analyse this white dust and find out there is an iron dust in the debris.

It is evident nano thermite and commercial thermit. Commercial termit is use in the demolition. for Nano thermit, only CIA and Mossad have it.

I hope you watch Professor Niel Video.

[video=youtube_share;N6kJ4EpmMw0]http://youtu.be/N6kJ4EpmMw0[/video]

 

[Deadtosin]

Building 7 was damaged well before it collapsed.

I find you ridiculous. Okay, maybe this will help you. If I make a building of Lincoln logs and I knock over the top one, sure the whole thing might collapse (well, I'd probably have to knock over more than the top one if I made it decently at all), in any case you will be able to watch section hit section and change the course of each segments decent (LINCOLN LOGS.) You are claiming (with absolute certainty) that 11-17 stories falling 10 feet into the 93 story skyscraper can cause the 93 story skyscraper to turn to dust== PAY ATTENTION=== in such a way that the top 11-17 stories can fall all the way to the earth at the same speed AS IF THERE WERE NO SKYSCRAPER BENEATH IT! That is absurd and quite frankly every argument I've heard against this thread is absurd. It's funny, I made this thread knowing there is no "logical" explanation for the collapse and I wanted the people who have a hard time digesting things to be forced to wrap their minds around it. In the end maybe all that I really proved was that I am not able to give sight to the blind.

Have skyscrapers burned? oh yeah, have they burned longer and more fierce? you bet. Did they fall? no... What is the argument for falling steel structured buildings? theater roofs.. Will one explanation for the twin towers work as an explanation for building 7? no. The aftermath of the collapses did they resemble any known falling steel structure in history? or did they resemble demoed debris? Demoed debris. Is all of this evidence in this thread? yes, absolutely. What do we get from you? big words, long sentences, ZERO substance. Much like Rachel's input. It's almost like you try to talk your way around the simplicity of the facts.

Most of the threads I find myself arguing in I worry that if I don't continue proving the other sides view as faulty, then countless unnamed visitors may get mislead. Luckily I don't have that worry on this thread. I am actually glad to see you here arguing like this, I've learned a lot about you here. Of course I've already known about Rachel.

 

[Jackson123]

Jet fuel maximum heat is 1517 F. It happen in lab in close chamber where no heat escape and oxygen rich.

And it not enough to melt Iron/steel structure.

In open air like twin tower with red flame and black smoke, the heat produce by jet fuel is only 400 + F I don't remember the exact number.

Why there is evident a melt steel?

Prof Niels show in the video on Sept 16, 5 days after 911, the heavy duty equipment debris taker, pick up melt iron.

It is evident of nano thermit. melt iron doe to Fire not survive in a day on the air temperature before it harden like regular iron.

 

[Stephen63]

Do you have any conception as to how much force would've suddenly been applied to the structures in question immediately following the initial collapse? Structures typically aren't designed to endure sudden stresses imparted by countless tons of material falling haphazardly onto them all at once, which induces uneven, sudden strains beyond ordinary tolerances on orders of magnitude. As far as "1/3 of the building coming down," where are you getting this? I've never asserted that a "third" of any of the towers suddenly collapsed. You'll have to refresh my memory.

Thank you for your own smoking gun observation, Lizathrose. Haphazard was what the fall should have been, but it wasn't. In any haphazard fall of several tons, part of the building would have held, & the upper area above the fire, unburned, virtually untouched, would have fell over the side of the collapse in one piece....but it didn't. Thank you for your observation.

 

[Stephen63]

Guys, I think it's time to put Lizatroll on 'ignore'

 

[GodIsSalvation]

We might never get the full story or evidences of 9/11 in our lifetime. We may never know why Building 7 collapsed.

However, I am interested in whomever thinks 9/11 was an inside job, if they could please explain this interview taken shortly after 9/11 in which not only does Osama bin Laden confess, but he details his means, motives, details into his planning of this attack, etc. All of which align with the narrative that indeed 9/11 was perpetrated by al-Qaeda for the reason of islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Rwo-Oicj8

[video=youtube;t9Rwo-Oicj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Rwo-Oicj8[/video]

 

[Lizathrose]

I find you ridiculous. Okay, maybe this will help you. If I make a building of Lincoln logs and I knock over the top one, sure the whole thing might collapse (well, I'd probably have to knock over more than the top one if I made it decently at all), in any case you will be able to watch section hit section and change the course of each segments decent (LINCOLN LOGS.) You are claiming (with absolute certainty) that 11-17 stories falling 10 feet into the 93 story skyscraper can cause the 93 story skyscraper to turn to dust== PAY ATTENTION=== in such a way that the top 11-17 stories can fall all the way to the earth at the same speed AS IF THERE WERE NO SKYSCRAPER BENEATH IT! That is absurd and quite frankly every argument I've heard against this thread is absurd. It's funny, I made this thread knowing there is no "logical" explanation for the collapse and I wanted the people who have a hard time digesting things to be forced to wrap their minds around it. In the end maybe all that I really proved was that I am not able to give sight to the blind.

Have skyscrapers burned? oh yeah, have they burned longer and more fierce? you bet. Did they fall? no... What is the argument for falling steel structured buildings? theater roofs.. Will one explanation for the twin towers work as an explanation for building 7? no. The aftermath of the collapses did they resemble any known falling steel structure in history? or did they resemble demoed debris? Demoed debris. Is all of this evidence in this thread? yes, absolutely. What do we get from you? big words, long sentences, ZERO substance. Much like Rachel's input. It's almost like you try to talk your way around the simplicity of the facts.

Most of the threads I find myself arguing in I worry that if I don't continue proving the other sides view as faulty, then countless unnamed visitors may get mislead. Luckily I don't have that worry on this thread. I am actually glad to see you here arguing like this, I've learned a lot about you here. Of course I've already known about Rachel.

Frankly, your arrogance belies your ignorance as far as structural engineering and architecture, so I'm tempted to forgive you. Unfortunately, I'm really going to have to insist that well-established, working theories concerning the collapse of each tower exist, and the reasons I've given aren't negated in the slightest by your uninformed appeal to intuition, which is meaningless in the context of the science of structural engineering. I've stated the criteria by which we might be able to meaningfully compare the WTC's towers with those of steel-framed structures in the past, and you've yet to offer similar parallels and well-substantiated explanations as to why they didn't fail.

The devil's in the details. Start offering analytically considerable rebuttals to what's been given or stop parading your arrogant pretense. You're only making a fool out of yourself. And, please, stop mentioning "lincoln logs." They're fundamentally irrelevant.