Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rufus_1611, May 3, 2007.
Viewing Time - 5:55
The whole premise of this tinfoil hat scenario is that "No steel building has ever collapsed as a result of fire". This is false.
The other ridiculous assertion is the mythilogical announcement of building 7 as haven fallen before it actually did. What these nuts with an agenda fail to mention is that reports of building 7 was actually that the building was on fire and had begun to fall, or is falling. There was one female reporter who announced that it had fallen but in such times of emergencies reporters have mispoken such as this. One reporter with an inaccurate report does not make a conspiracy. I am embarrased for them as well all who continue their lunacy. Really this is beyond ignorant.
"All" being Italians?
Anyone who buys into it as humans not races. Nice try though.
what agenda? just curious
You understand that the WTC structures count for 2/3 of the steel structure collapses described in your quote? Could you please elaborate on the 2 structural steel buildings that were not WTC structures that collapsed on their own foot-print, at the rate of gravity, as a result of fire?
Hard to say. But they have been on this kick ever since it happened. It is weird how the Italians have such an interest in proving this wacko lunacy. It is most certainly driven by something other than the truth. This is to easy to debunk.
Is the human race, human or a race?
I wasn't trying anything, I was looking for Carpro to elaborate on his brief statement, guess I got his spokesman to do it for him.
Were those firefighters lunatics too when they said "7 is exploding". Do you suppose that firefighters might know the difference between an explosion and a fire?
Maybe you should read the link.
It's a 10 page document. Fine, I thought maybe you had already read it. I'll look it up.
I'm sure I'm a little slow, sometimes, but what 'in blazes' (pun intended,) is 'Building 7' to begin with?"
7 World Trade is a 47-story steel framed high rise that was not hit by an airplane and collapsed allegedly as a result of fire on September 11, 2001. You are not slow, it is a story the mainstream does not like to talk about.
The first non WTC building listed is...
Alexis Nihon Plaza
"As stated in Section 4.2.2, the believed cause of failure in this case was the welds that held the angle connecting the girder to the column flange. Investigation concluded that the section that collapsed was not exposed to excessively high temperatures from the fire (Isner, 1986) (Source: http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-050406-105306/unrestricted/rnacewicz.pdf)
Further, this building did not even collapse but rather a partially collapsed 11th story fell on the 10th and the floors above the 11th came down. Notice that the bottom 10 floors did not pancake.
"There was no automatic sprinkler system installed in the building. On October 26, 1986 a fire began on the 10th floor, then spread to the 11th and 12th floors, and later to the top floor. Approximately five hours after the fire started, a section of the 11th floor collapsed onto the 10th floor. The fire was declared out the following morning. There were no fatalities or injuries." (Source: http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf)
The second building is One New York Plaza and this allegation is just outlandish because that building is still standing tall in New York today.
Your source chart Table 1 states "Summary of Multi-Story Building Fires With Collapses". They are not listing building collapses but they have included any building with a floor collapse. The World Trade Center structures 1, 2, 5 & 7 collapsed to the ground.
There has never been prior to 9/11 or since 9/11 a steel-framed high-rise that has collapsed to the ground, pancaking on to its own foot-print, for any cause other than controlled demolition.
No steel framed high-rise on 9/11 collapsed to the ground, pancake style, onto its own footprint, for any other cause than controlled demolition.
For once I agree with 2 Tim. This is the stuff of tin foil hatism!
Well, I would suggest that you read some interviews with Thaddeus Crapster, if you can find them. He was interviewed on TV at the time. The buildings were partially designed that we to limit the damage to other buildings that would occur if the building fell over.
Also, building sometimes have design flaws, either in the original design or the implementation. One example is a building in NYC that is built over a church and is on three legs. It was designed to withstand hurricane force winds. But, during the implementation, rivets were used instead of bolts (or vice versa; I haven't seen the documentary in a while), and that counteracted part of the design. It withstood the hurricane, but the alteration was corrected afterward.
One thing that most conspiracy theory types like to throw around is the melting point of steel. All that needed to happen in any of the buildings, even building 7, is to heat the steel beyond the point where it loses structural integrity. If it used welds instead of rivets or something such as that, then the collapsing would begin, and it would continue at the rate of gravity.
It's a safety feature.
The only way that building could collapse at the rate of gravity would be if the entire structure failed simultaneously. Like in a demolition.
What the wackos are not willing to take into consideration is that several skyscrapers were destroyed all in the same day in the same area which is unprecedented.
Let us not forget that airplanes did in fact hit the two buildings and then crumbled to the ground around the others which most certainly would have destroyed the foundation of the other buildings to some degree.
Now, what you want to to is put your tinfoil hat on and convince everyone that the media is hiding the murder of thousands of people making them accomplices to who knows who or what.