A request about 911.

^You can see all the warehouse fires you want, it still won't make an office fire, that lasted less than an hour, cause a 110 story building collapse to it's basement while turning all the concrete to dust, and ejecting pieces of it's facade, weighing tons, up too 600ft away.

I'd also like to see the concrete you claim that wasn't turned to dust...

Originally posted by nick7261
Sorry this wasn't the answer you were looking for.

If you can provide me with my request from my OP then that would be the answer i am looking for.

But so far it's not the case.

Now allow me to show you what i would have wanted to see collapse in order to even remotely consider that 911 collapsed from structural failure...



Meet the legendary Madrid Windsor Tower Fire.










I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that the world trade center was constructed better then this building that didn't even collapse after 24 hours of like 100 times more intense fire then on 911.

Originally posted by selfless


Now allow me to show you what i would have wanted to see collapse in order to even remotely consider that 911 collapsed from structural failure...

You're making a flawed argument in the sense that for X to be possible X must have happened before. This is not true. Even more to the point, there is no possible X that is the equivalent to what happened to the WTCs on 9/11.

This is the type of pseudo-scientific argument that CTers have become infamous for. I'm not saying your conclusion is incorrect. I'm saying that the basis for your conclusion is easily refuted.

E.g., if you believe that the WTCs could not have collapsed due to the fires and the damage from the planes alone, then you're also implying that going forward NO office building will ever collapse due to fire and damage because none have collapsed before.

In other words, your premise is basically, "If it never happened before then it can't happen." Obviously this is a flawed premise. And that's not even addressing the fact that we don't know if any buildings have ever collapsed due to fire before. I personally saw a warehouse that did. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The fact remains that a building that was not even constructed as proficient as the world trade center withstood 24 hours of extremely more intense fire and did not even collapse.

While both world trade center buildings collapsed on the same day from a fire that was not even hot enough that a person was seen standing in the hole of the building where the little tiny fire was.

Now, the argument here is not my argument nor your argument. Don't try to pin down on me the fact that what happened to the world trade center is close to impossible to explain with out the element of explosives being involved.

This is not me imagining things, this is the facts of reality.


[edit on 16-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by nick7261
This is the type of pseudo-scientific argument that CTers have become infamous for.

I'm gonna tell you straight up, Most of us here don't appreciate these little insults towards conspiracy theorists. Keep in mind that you are saying this in a CONSPIRACY THEORY MESSAGE BOARD.

By acting the way you do, you are demonstrating a tone and a motivation that is not compatible with the desire to come on a conspiracy message board in the first place.

In other words, how contradicting is it for a person to insult conspiracy theorists by belittling them while at the same time being a registered member on the very same board....

Nick, you are demonstrating a huge conflict of interests.

Originally posted by selfless
The fact remains that a building that was not even constructed as proficient as the world trade center withstood 24 hours of extremely more intense fire and did not even collapse.

True. However, this building also was not hit at 400+ m.p.h. by a commerical aircraft.

While both world trade center buildings collapsed on the same day from a fire that was not even hot enough that a person was seen standing in the hole of the building where the little tiny fire was.

This is another flawed argument. Obviously the WTCs were on fire -just not in the location where the person was seen standing in the gaping hole.

Now, the argument here is not my argument nor your argument. Don't try to pin down on me the fact that what happened to the world trade center is close to impossible to explain with out the element of explosives being involved.

This is not me imagining things, this is the facts of reality.

The implosions of WTC1 and WTC2 are explainable with or without explosives involved. I personally believe that the explosives involved theory is far less plausible for WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 is a totally different story.

I'm gonna tell you straight up, Most of us here don't appreciate these little insults towards conspiracy theorists. Keep in mind that you are saying this in a CONSPIRACY THEORY MESSAGE BOARD.

By acting the way you do, you are demonstrating a tone and a motivation that is not compatible with the desire to come on a conspiracy message board in the first place.

In other words, how contradicting is it for a person to insult conspiracy theorists by belittling them while at the same time being a registered member on the very same board....

Nick, you are demonstrating a huge conflict of interests.

The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance," not display ignorance. Claiming that I have a conflict of interest because I don't agree with every CT post is just silly.

you can believe it was the planes alone, and the fire but your logic would be flawed. Being that we add up the molten steel which indicates thermite, then the recorded blasts from across the river. the explosion and bomb reports. The smoke was black, indicating a lack of oxygen or smoldering, what caused the heat that the rescuers found, that are now dying thanks to official lies that air wasnt bad at GZ, was the melting stell from thermite, and timed balsting caps of some kind, no other explanation will ever be believed after the eyewitness video on top of all the alex jones vids and what others are saying..


______________________-
Our war is not with each other, but powers and principalities which seek to rule us. America is too cool to be ruled.

Originally posted by nick7261
This is another flawed argument. Obviously the WTCs were on fire -just not in the location where the person was seen standing in the gaping hole.

Are you kidding me? Where do you see a person waving in this picture?????

It would be impossible for a person to even be alive up there in this picture and yet the building did not collapse. Think about that for a while and try to grasp the logic of the situation.

Originally posted by nick7261
The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance," not display ignorance. Claiming that I have a conflict of interest because I don't agree with every CT post is just silly.

What i claim is exactly correct.

You don't just make it clear that you don't agree with every ''CT'' You make it quite clear that you ridicule the whole thing all together.

Originally posted by nick7261
This is the type of pseudo-scientific argument that CTers have become infamous for.

So why would a person who ridicules conspiracy theorists be a member of a message board DESIGNED for the purpose of which he ridicules in the first place.

Hence the term, conflict of interests...

This is just my opinion but I am sure many would agree with me on this one. Especially since they are also interested in conspiracy theories.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by nick7261
This is another flawed argument. Obviously the WTCs were on fire -just not in the location where the person was seen standing in the gaping hole.

Are you kidding me? Where do you see a person waving in this picture?????

It would be impossible for a person to even be alive up there in this picture and yet the building did not collapse. Think about that for a while and try to grasp the logic of the situation.

If you read my post I was referring to the photos of a person in the hole in WTC1. This photo is often posted as "proof" that the fires weren't hot. I believe if I remember correctly this was a point you tried to make in one of your previous posts.

Whether or not anybody was alive in the Windsor fire has nothing to do with 9/11. And this is what I was talking about when I referred to "psuedo-scientific" arguments that have been made by CTers for years. What happened with the Windsor fire has nothing to do with the WTCs.

Look at it another way. If a steel framed building would have collapsed due to a fire, would that prove that there were no CDs at the WTCs? Of couse not.

What i claim is exactly correct.

You don't just make it clear that you don't agree with every ''CT'' You make it quite clear that you ridicule the whole thing all together.

This is just an outright misrepresentation. But even if it were true, so what? Are you really that insecure or ego-centric to think that people who disagree with the "whole thing" shouldn't be allowed to post here?

So why would a person who ridicules conspiracy theorists be a member of a message board DESIGNED for the purpose of which he ridicules in the first place.

Hence the term, conflict of interests...

Like I said before, the motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance." Generally speaking, in my experience I've seen many people try to support CTs using flawed reasoning, as well as an almost total lack of education in the physical sciences.

Would you prefer that everybody here just become a cheerleader for any idea that's posted so long as it's a conspiracy theory?

This is just my opinion but I am sure many would agree with me on this one. Especially since they are also interested in conspiracy theories.

Why not just stick with discussing ideas instead of making the discussions personal? You see, ideas stand on their own. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter if the person who presented the idea has a "conflict of interest" or not, does it?

Here's my idea:

The damage done by the planes and the resulting fires in WTC1 and WTC2 were unique in the history of modern construction and building failures. Therefore, it is quite pointless to argue that CDs had to be used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2 based on the premise that no steel building has ever suffered a global failure caused by fire.

Further, I personally saw a steel building that collapsed on itself because of a fire, and posted a photo I found in about 20 seconds on Google of another steel framed building that collapsed due to fire. The point being that there have been steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire. To claim otherwise is incorrect.

By the way, here is another pic of a building in NY that collapsed due to fire. Notice how the steel beams warped and failed due to the heat. Steel does not need to liquify (i.e. melt) in order for a structure to fail.

Originally posted by nick7261
If you read my post I was referring to the photos of a person in the hole in WTC1. This photo is often posted as "proof" that the fires weren't hot. I believe if I remember correctly this was a point you tried to make in one of your previous posts.

I know this is what you meant and i was pointing out that if the fire on the world trade center was dim enough to have a person standing in the hole where the fire was, how come it collapsed while the Madrid building burned for 24 hours and it was impossible for people to even survive in that fire that took place but yet it did not collapse.

You simply misinterpreted what i meant.

Originally posted by nick7261
Look at it another way. If a steel framed building would have collapsed due to a fire, would that prove that there were no CDs at the WTCs? Of couse not.

No but at least it could give a tiny little winy chance that the world trade center ''could'' have collapsed from 1 hour of extremely little tiny winy dim fire.

Heh..



[edit on 17-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by nick7261
This is just an outright misrepresentation. But even if it were true, so what? Are you really that insecure or ego-centric to think that people who disagree with the "whole thing" shouldn't be allowed to post here?

It's not about ego it's about spotting a troll.

I consider people who go on message boards just to bash what the message board stands for to demonstrate monumental conflict of interests and give the impression that they are just here to disrupt people who have good intentions to be here.

That's just my personal opinion, nothing more.

Originally posted by nick7261
Like I said before, the motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance." Generally speaking, in my experience I've seen many people try to support CTs using flawed reasoning, as well as an almost total lack of education in the physical sciences.

Would you prefer that everybody here just become a cheerleader for any idea that's posted so long as it's a conspiracy theory?

It doesn't take physical science to realize that the way in which the world trade center collapsed is odd to say the least.

No cheerleader but at least realize that the hobby so to speak, of this forum is conspiracy theory and to come on here and insult the art of conspiracy theory is like going to a vegetarian message board and talk about hunting...

You got to at least understand the concept of a conflict of interests.

Originally posted by nick7261
Why not just stick with discussing ideas instead of making the discussions personal?

Good idea, you should have done that from the start and not insult conspiracy theories. I am only defending the forum in which you are registered at.

Originally posted by nick7261
Here's my idea:

The damage done by the planes and the resulting fires in WTC1 and WTC2 were unique in the history of modern construction and building failures. Therefore, it is quite pointless to argue that CDs had to be used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2 based on the premise that no steel building has ever suffered a global failure caused by fire.

Experts have said that the world trade center could have taken the impact of 10 planes like the ones on 911 and not fall. They explained how the way the world trade center is designed for a plane to crash into it would be no different then poking a spider web with a pencil.

Originally posted by nick7261
Further, I personally saw a steel building that collapsed on itself because of a fire, and posted a photo I found in about 20 seconds on Google of another steel framed building that collapsed due to fire. The point being that there have been steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire. To claim otherwise is incorrect.

And you are forgetting to mention that there was a earthquake and that caused the fire. Yes, i have seen buildings collapse from earthquakes before but i have never seen them turn to dust like the world trade center did.

Originally posted by nick7261
By the way, here is another pic of a building in NY that collapsed due to fire. Notice how the steel beams warped and failed due to the heat. Steel does not need to liquify (i.e. melt) in order for a structure to fail.

Yes but how long did the fire last? did it last a wooping 1 hour? Was the fire dim enough to allow a person to be standing there surrounded by little midget fires?

Give us more information about the building that collapsed.

Did the building pancake? Did the building turn to dust? Did the fire last for months under the rubbles afterwards? Etc etc etc...

This is a weird picture.

What is this building?

How did it collapse?

How come there is water under it?

This picture doesn't say much...