what happened to "screw 911 mysteries"

^Sry dude but it seems to me you have nothing but excuses not to answer the questions.

We're not going to get very far like that.

Are these guys Dumb ass CTers as well?

Patriots Question 9/11

The main clincher for me has very little to do with the physical evidence(which by the way was promptly cleaned up from the crime scene), but the obvious connections between the Bush family and the Bin ladens. And where the hell is Osama? Long dead I'd say but that still doesn't stop the Neocons from using him to spread fear.
Osama has not officially been charged with the crime. The FBI most wanted list only connects him to the embassy bombings.

FBI most wanted

Why? because it would lead to court proceedings that would open up a huge can of worms and do more to actually expose the the real criminals.

Can you explain this?
Alex Jones predicts 9/11 Attacks


[edit on 26-1-2007 by squiz]

in this poor exuse for a films 1st attempt to discredit the author . He said many steel structured buildings have fallen due to fire. REALLY? Which ones? Im still waiting.....

Originally posted by redhed718
He said many steel structured buildings have fallen due to fire. REALLY? Which ones? Im still waiting.....

Heres 2 for now.
www.wsws.org...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Now hurry up shift the goalposts.

Originally posted by Skibum
Once those columns are out of vertical they tend to be pretty close to worthless as load bearing members.

This isn't true at all. That's why engineers use things like centroid, moment of inertia (at the centroid) etc.


[edit on 1/26/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Skibum
Of course not, steel does bend you know.

So would the bolts and welds that are made of the same material. If the fires softened the steel columns and beams, then it is pretty much assured that the bolts and welds would be the same temperature...i.e. Law of thermodynamics. So, these weakened supports would be stronger than the columns themselves? I don't think so.

No need for fire or damage to the penhouse itself when the 40 or so floors below it are collapsing.

The fact that the penthouse collapsed first, I'd say this statement is false.

What is with you guys and melted steel. Steel doesn't need to melt to lose its load bearing capabilities.

Funny how they haven't found ANY steel that was subjected to these extreme temperatures.

Originally posted by Skibum
Heres 2 for now.
www.wsws.org...

This article only states collapse and then goes on about political BS. Was this steel certified? How much of the building collapsed? It doesn't say.

news.bbc.co.uk...

This one didn't even collapse. The roof collapsed but guess what, the columns (even while the beams bent and columns buckled) were still standing, giving the rest of the structure resistance.

Now hurry up shift the goalposts.

No shifting, just pointing out the errors in your comparisons. Also, did those buildings collapse in free fall with no resistance? Or was it a gradual collapse? That's the main point. Steel does lose strength with temperature, but it doesn't lose it in an instant giving no resistance.

The question should be "show me a steel skyscraper that has globally collapsed due to fire showing no resistance in the collapse". You show me one and I'll eat my words.

[edit on 1/26/2007 by Griff]

So Griff, you were standing inside the dust cloud and KNOW that it was freefall?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So Griff, you were standing inside the dust cloud and KNOW that it was freefall?

I use freefall as in no resistance. Not freefall as in the time it took. They seem to be close to each other but there is a difference.

The question should be "show me a steel skyscraper that has globally collapsed due to fire showing no resistance in the collapse". You show me one and I'll eat my words.

Thats precisely the goalpost shifting I was talking about. Thanks for playing. Even if I could show you a skyscraper that had collapsed due to fire, I would almost be willing to bet you would change the question again.

This one didn't even collapse. The roof collapsed but guess what, the columns (even while the beams bent and columns buckled) were still standing, giving the rest of the structure resistance.

The rest of the structure? That was the structure. The columns held up the roof, the roof collapsed and the supporting columns were bent and deformed, there was nothing else left to provide any more force to further bend the columns (like more floors above).

This article only states collapse and then goes on about political BS. Was this steel certified? How much of the building collapsed? It doesn't say.

Certified, I don't know. Still its an example of a steel framed building collapsing due to fire. Question answered.

Funny how they haven't found ANY steel that was subjected to these extreme temperatures.

So i guess I shouldn't hold my breath awaiting an answer to my question then. Since figuring out where in the official story they say the collapses were caused by melting steel would require you guys to actually look at the official story instead of relying on what you heard in some lie filled movie.

Originally posted by Skibum
The columns held up the roof, the roof collapsed and the supporting columns were bent and deformed, there was nothing else left to provide any more force to further bend the columns (like more floors above).

So you realize that there is a finite amount of energy (NOT an infinite amount) behind the falling masses in question here.

Why do they not even slow down as they fall and disintegrate into hundreds of thousands of tons of the same material they're made out of?

Originally posted by Skibum
Thats precisely the goalpost shifting I was talking about. Thanks for playing. Even if I could show you a skyscraper that had collapsed due to fire, I would almost be willing to bet you would change the question again.

It is not goalpost shifting. It is reiterating the question to specify certain criteria that was accomplished on 9/11. You need to show more than just steel skyscrapers collapsing due to fire. You have to show collapse with NO resistance. Steel structures that collapse due to fire do so slowly (relative to freefall). That is because of resistance. Why didn't WTC7 have any?

The rest of the structure? That was the structure. The columns held up the roof, the roof collapsed and the supporting columns were bent and deformed, there was nothing else left to provide any more force to further bend the columns (like more floors above).

So, why did the penthouse of WTC7 fall completely onto the roof? Shouldn't it's columns just have been bent and deformed?

Certified, I don't know. Still its an example of a steel framed building collapsing due to fire. Question answered.

Question not answered. Did it fall at freefall?

So i guess I shouldn't hold my breath awaiting an answer to my question then. Since figuring out where in the official story they say the collapses were caused by melting steel would require you guys to actually look at the official story instead of relying on what you heard in some lie filled movie.

Since I am not the one who stated melted steel, I am not the one to prove anything to you. As far as watching movies. I don't have to watch movies to know how physics works. That knowledge comes from years worth of classes I'm afraid.

Hello everyone! Long time reader and first time poster I've only started to watch this video so this isn't my full opinion on the whole thing, its 2.5 hours long lol, but here are things that I've picked out so far in the first 10min of the video. The author has an argumentation style, and shall I say persuasion, in the way he presents his arguments. In the very begining he points out the fact of sleep deprivation. The two possibles repercussions of this are quite negative, in his favor of course. I'm reminded of an episode of Family Guy when Brian was on trial:

Lawyer: Which of the following two phrases best describes Brian Griffin?
Lawyer: "Problem drinker" or "African-American haberdasher"?
Peter Griffin: I guess "problem drinker." But that's...
Lawyer: Thank you. "Sexual deviant" or "magic picture that you stare at till you see something"?
Peter Griffin: "Sexual deviant," but that other one's...

Anyway here is what I have picked out so far.

1)The effect of sleep deprivation - He only gives one of two possible out comes leading you to pick one or the other, of which both are negative. This is like saying you could have an allergic reaction to TYLENOL but not everyone will. Everyone is different.

2)The dust sample. I'll admit I don't know much about this type of thing. I do ask, who did the test? How do you rule out something based on a sampling? All you can do with a sampling is predict the outcome of something to a probability. But a high probability doesn't make something fact and should be stated as such.

3)The pocket vs floor argument.....I'm pretty sure the firefighters and everyone could tell there was a fire on more than one level. The impact/explosion of the plane obviously destroyed several of the floors creating a hole or a "pocket" between several levels.

Due to the circumstances, neither side can give 100% explanation what happened. This means that you can't justifiably say that one is 100% right or wrong and people are allowed their opinion. I haven't finished the video as of yet so I'm just pointing out what I see as flaws in the argumentation styles. I believe I do have the information of free fall at home in my library and will try to see what I can come up with.

Originally posted by Skibum

Heres 2 for now.
www.wsws.org...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Ok, since I figured you would have at least a tiny amount of insite as to what the question was in the first place, and I was wrong, let me refraze the question, so that you can answer it correctly.

Can you show me a modern, fireproofed, tested to USA standards steel building that has collapsed due to fire?


The two examples you gave me were not fireproofed, and the steel was not tested to USA standards, and the buildings were not designed for fire in mind. On the other hand WTC7 was fireproofed, heat treated, USA standard, up to code, steel building, that was designed specificaly to survive massive fires. On top of that, there was more steel used in the building, meaning the heat from the fires would spread amoung all the steel, instead of being concentrated in one spot.


So do you understand now what we are saying?

Here is an example of what I really hate:

Guy 1 and guy 2 are talking about how all Christmas trees smell good, and guy 3 say nope! Not all! Guy 3 the proceeds to explain that fake, plastic, Christmas trees do not smell at all. Well obviously they were not talking about fake trees... duh...


In this case, we are not talking about old, berly standing, unfireproofed, not up to code steel buildings. We are talking about modern, designed to withstand almost anything, fireproofed, up to code steel buildings..

Even then, you found 2 examples, and there are only 2 more examples left, and those were also unfireproofed. Please, you think I haven't herd of those two examples you gave?? LOL.

-edit-

oh yeah, go ahead and say we are moving goal posts, who cares, at least we are not changing to a DIFFERENT GAME! Like you are.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by 1150111]

Originally posted by 1150111


Ok, since I figured you would have at least a tiny amount of insite as to what the question was in the first place, and I was wrong, let me refraze the question, so that you can answer it correctly.

Typical, blame others for your inability to phrase your own question correctly.

Here is an example of what I really hate:

Again, not my problem you cannot phrase your own question correctly.

So do you understand now what we are saying?

I understood what you were asking then, and I understand your changed question also.

Ultimately though your question is irrelevant. Just because something has never happened in the past does not mean it never can happen. We can add that to the list of logical fallacies you guys seem to have a habit of using.

oh yeah, go ahead and say we are moving goal posts, who cares, at least we are not changing to a DIFFERENT GAME! Like you are.

Again, not my problem you cannot phrase your own question correctly.

Also, I see you neglected to answer my question so I will ask it again.

Show me where the official story says the collapses were caused by melting steel? Please. Either show me where or admit you and everyone else that employs that line is full of it.

I hope you are not going to compare a temporary structure to a permanent structure such as the WTC complex? This is a poor comparison to WTC buildings 1,2 & 7

Taken from the link: www.wsws.org...

“Companies such as Kader Holdings need to move their operations rapidly to take advantage of the newest areas of low-cost labour. That it why the Kader factory outside Bangkok was never intended to be a permanent structure. Cheap shoddy buildings, which failed to meet even the minimal Thai construction requirements, were simply packed to overflowing with workers and machines. Elementary safety precautions were deemed to be unnecessary overheads.

“Thailand’s limited building and safety codes, minimal wage levels and factory regulations are not enforced. Indeed, the government in Thailand attracts foreign capital to its shores by openly advertising the lack of restrictions on the exploitation of workers. The Kader factory was no aberration. All the horrors of nineteenth century European capitalism—child labour, dirty and unsafe working conditions, shanty housing—are on display everywhere in Bangkok.” (1)

Originally posted by Skibum
Ultimately though your question is irrelevant. Just because something has never happened in the past does not mean it never can happen. We can add that to the list of logical fallacies you guys seem to have a habit of using.

Please show us how it happened then. The laws of physics and the behavior of steel do not just change one day. I submit more "evidence" from another post by Ultima1.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Gee you should really look at more steel buildings then just Madrid hotel. Thier are at least 4-6 different steel buildings that i can bring up that burned several hours some for over a day and had structural damage due to the fires and did not collapse like the towers or building 7.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.


2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Now that we have shown steel skyscrapers that have had structural damage and major fires and did not globally collapse. It's time for you to show us one that has. And just saying "anything can happen" is not an excuse nor is it evidence that it can happen.

Now that we have shown steel skyscrapers that have had structural damage and major fires and did not globally collapse.

I love how you word this. Typical from you guys. You make it sound like they were structurally damaged then had massive fires. If you guys would lose the lies and deliberate distortions you might actually get somewhere.
Oh wait that would require you to have tangible evidence, sorry you should stick with the lies and distortions.

It's time for you to show us one that has. And just saying "anything can happen" is not an excuse nor is it evidence that it can happen.

I don't have to prove anything. Its not time for me to show you anything. There is no need to, it makes no difference if one has or has not fallen in the past it makes no difference on what can happen in the future.


You've had five years...

Its time for you guys to present your evidence, not on some web forum, in real life. You claim to be an engineer, wheres your paper? Who did you submit it to for review? Let me guess, Journal of 911 Studies? Real integrity when you guys have to create your own journal to review your own papers, absolutely hilarious.

Where are your lawsuits, Wait you need evidence for those too.

You supposedly have 84% of Americans agreeing with you, this ought to be an open and shut case.

You can claim superior knowledge of physics and engineering all you want, but at the end of the day you have squat.







[edit on 27/1/07 by Skibum]

Skibum your efforts in this debate are 100% laughable. All you counter with in this discussion is reasons for not answering the questions. Do you not have evience? Even if you don't consider it evidence, do you even have any valid points?

If you don't have evidence, please give us at least a valid point or explination to the collapse of WTC7. We are giving 100's of valid points, and all you can do is tell us it doesn't matter? Please if you are not going to return some valid points, well, then this debate is being won by the people who don't use the "offical" story as our own way of thinking..

Also, can you please point out structural damage in this photo of WTC7 south face?



Heck I don't even see cosmetic damage, or fires.

Originally posted by Skibum
Its time for you guys to present your evidence, not on some web forum, in real life.

Also, do you understand that the very people who masterminded WTC7 have hidden all the evidence? All of the steel beams have been recycled, all of the structural papers are Top Secret, and a fellony to even look at?

Wow, why would the government do that? Oh I know why, because they are hidding something.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

Please do not insult or belittle other members.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by mrwupy]