Blacksmith settles debate

[TuHolmes]

Why WTC7 of all buildings? There were other buildings much closer in proximity to WTC 1 and 2. Plus, the manner in which WTC7 fell was completely unlike the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Somehow of all of the buildings, they knew WTC7 was going to collapse. They evacuated all rescue and emergency personnel from that area alone. It fell about eight hours after the other buildings. Look at this map and tell me why this building collapsed while others did not.

Obviously the only answer I could possibly provide would be that the building had some structural flaw that couldn't handle the shock.

[Twaddle]

Ropo - why did this building not collapse in China after massive fire? I thought the steel would be weakened and become noodles??

Allow me to help.  This building is Type 1 construction (Fire Resistive).  Plus, it was not hit by a Boeing 747 jet.  Hope this helps. 

[240 is Back]

i've quit following CTs.   They're still amusing but I haven't clicked that board for months or years, and usually avoid these threads altogether.  believe what you want. 

[Las Vegas]

lmfao Ropo attacking everyone

 

[obsidian]

Allow me to help.  This building is Type 1 construction (Fire Resistive).  Plus, it was not hit by a Boeing 747 jet.  Hope this helps. 

All tall buildings are Type 1 - by code. And WTC7 was also not hit by a 747. The fires in the Beijing tower was much more severe than WTC7 - fact!

Type 1: Fire-Resistive
Type 1 structures are high-rises, and they’re the stoutest of all construction types when exposed to fire. High-rises are usually defined as buildings more than 75 feet tall, with some agencies making amendments for buildings that are 35–55 feet tall.

Type 1 structures are constructed of concrete and protected steel (steel coated with a fire-resistant material, most often a concrete mixture), and are designed to hold fire for an extended amount of time in order to keep the fire at bay in the room and/or floor of origin.

As far as the typical ventilation operation of getting on the roof and cutting a hole, that’s not really an option when dealing with Type 1 construction. Even horizontal ventilation becomes challenging, as the windows are thick, tempered glass and may not be an efficient way to ventilate the structure.

Ladder companies must be aggressive in securing the stairwells for both firefighters and victims evacuating the structure. If the structure meets building code, it will be equipped with self-pressurizing stairwells and have HVAC systems that will aid in air movement. If necessary, the ladder company may need to mechanically pressurize the stairwells using a series of fans strategically placed at the base of the stairwell and every 10–12 floors depending on the effectiveness of the fans. The fire protection and fire-related systems in these buildings are overwhelming, so crews should make it a priority to locate a maintenance worker and keep them close throughout the incident.

Type 1 structures are easy to identify on height alone. It’s important for firefighters to know their city’s building codes, as this may affect which features are found inside the structures. Ladder crews should frequent Type 1 buildings in their area and be familiar with the systems that they may encounter (elevators, HVAC, fire pumps, etc). Finally, they must not forget to maintain good working relationships with the maintenance workers at these buildings.

[obsidian]

i've quit following CTs.   They're still amusing but I haven't clicked that board for months or years, and usually avoid these threads altogether.  believe what you want. 

You're untrue to yourself. You know the game is rigged. You know politics is all a scam. Yet you pose with your Republican vs Democrat posts.

You're not fooling anyone. Only morons and gullible fools still believe in the left / right fairy tale.

[240 is Back]

i enjoy politics.  i enjoy it because i love debate.  I like back and forth, verbal ownings over issues.  in real life, i never talk politics, outside of debating whatever topic on holidays with a little bourbon in me... but in real life, I'll debate and argue over ANYTHING.   keeps me sharp.

for me, politics is more real than most things on TV.   Kardashians?  NBA playoffs?  Fix is in ANYTHING there's millions of dollars at play.  Politics is 'live history'.  I actually have a degree in history - being a high school history teacher was my original plan.  A lot of history is bullshit written by the winners... we'd hear a whole different reichtag story if Hitler won WWII.   But since everything is coated with lies, down to "who's the best lover you've ever had baby?" ... why not enjoy the fibs for the entertainment that they are?

[Parker]

i enjoy politics.  i enjoy it because i love debate.  I like back and forth, verbal ownings over issues.  in real life, i never talk politics, outside of debating whatever topic on holidays with a little bourbon in me... but in real life, I'll debate and argue over ANYTHING.   keeps me sharp.

for me, politics is more real than most things on TV.   Kardashians?  NBA playoffs?  Fix is in ANYTHING there's millions of dollars at play.  Politics is 'live history'.  I actually have a degree in history - being a high school history teacher was my original plan.  A lot of history is bullshit written by the winners... we'd hear a whole different reichtag story if Hitler won WWII.   But since everything is coated with lies, down to "who's the best lover you've ever had baby?" ... why not enjoy the fibs for the entertainment that they are?

Have you watched "The Man in the High Castle"? It gives an alternate look at history.

[Ropo]

Ropo - why did this building not collapse in China after massive fire? I thought the steel would be weakened and become noodles??

How fucking hard it is to understand, that WTC towers are only buildings, which are A. HIT BY AN AEROPLANE AS BIG AS BOEING 767 B. EXPERIENCED CATASTROPHIC FIRE? It shouldn't be as hard as it seem to be, so it can't mean anything else than the fact, that your ability to comprehend even the simplest things is altered by insanity. I mean how  fucking stupid you have to be if you think that those planes didn't mean anything regarding the collapse? I know you foil hats love videos, so how about this? In this video you see what happen when car hit the object 200 kilometers per hour:

Car weights something like 1.5 tons and it has speed of 200 km/h, and it is able to trash a similar car + move 4 tons of concrete barriers for meters in second. Weight of the 767 - 222 is 150 tons and it has speed of 8-900km/h. Regardless how fucking stupid you are, when that kind of mass hit anything at all, it have to mean something?

Secondly, there isn't any explosives on this planet, which explodes without any kind of signs of explosion. In the other video you see what a real explosion looks like. If you are able to point out anything which even slightly resembles to the thing what you will see in this video, from any of the 9/11 videos, then we could continue this discussion:

We both know that we didn't see anything like that at the 9/11 attack, and this is quite typical explosion of the 100-200 lb of charge. To break the structure steel of the WTC towers, you would need hundreds of similar charges. It is amazing that all that energy can collapse building, but it doesn't even break the fucking windows. When the ragheads blow up the van in the basement of the WTC, there were few dozen people who got the injuries from the flying glass, even if that explosion were deep underground. How many there were at the 9/11? Almost none, while there should be thousands.

[Kim Jong Bob]

Yes, Wiggs, you tell the guy who has worked with steel and metal his whole life the truth!!! Next thing you will be walking into emergency rooms, telling doctors how to perform surgery!! FACT!!

haha

Good find coach posted this now on a tinfoil hats fb page he and his friends will melt and say the guh id paid bu the gpverment to say that hahA

[Ropo]

I want to see him do a video at 1500 degrees.

And also, let's assume some columns and beams are noodles. Not all of them will be. Especially the ones in WTC7. How can they be noodles? Show me videos / photos of massive fires in WTC7! If a couple are noodles the structure will sag / partially collapse. It will not pancake demolition style.

Ropo, don't be a fucking moron!!

Denial of the facts of life isn't a mark of intelligence, it is plain and simple stupidity. If 800-1000°C is enough to make the steel loose 80% of it's strength, what will 1500°C do? There were 22 floor above the fire, which is 1/5 of the building and so fore it weights 100 000 tons. How long you can hold that load up with some noodels? 56 minutes..

Show me the video about the explosions in the WTC towers? Until you do that, there isn't really anything to talk about, because the collapse of the WTC 7 was the result of the collapses of the towers. Prove otherwise, or shut the fuck up.

[Kim Jong Bob]

I dunno much about WTC7, all I would say is the momentum of a plane hitting a large skyscraper in a crowded city would be enormous and cause a lot of collateral damage. P=mv   

Say the plane was 79,000kg x 600kph - that is enormous damage with a lot of stuff to damage around you. I don't know though, WTC7 was never an issue here so won't say more.

it was a big fire underneath wtc7 that weakend the building..People  have to look how the building was constructed .nothing strange with wtc falling like a cardhouse when you know it.

And that theory about the journalist  talking about the buildimg falling before it fell why would the goverment tell a fucking journalist about  killing lots of its own people, makes no sense

[Ropo]

it was a big fire underneath wtc7 that weakend the building..People  have to look how the building was constructed .nothing strange with wtc falling like a cardhouse when you know it.

And that theory about the journalist  talking about the buildimg falling before it fell why would the goverment tell a fucking journalist about  killing lots of its own people, makes no sense

And the WTC 7 was the building which really had a big fuel deposit for the emergenry generators. Foil hats have try to put it here and there, but in fact WTC 7 had tanks of 42000 gallons 

[Twaddle]

All tall buildings are Type 1 - by code. And WTC7 was also not hit by a 747. The fires in the Beijing tower was much more severe than WTC7 - fact!

Type 1: Fire-Resistive
Type 1 structures are high-rises, and they’re the stoutest of all construction types when exposed to fire. High-rises are usually defined as buildings more than 75 feet tall, with some agencies making amendments for buildings that are 35–55 feet tall.

Type 1 structures are constructed of concrete and protected steel (steel coated with a fire-resistant material, most often a concrete mixture), and are designed to hold fire for an extended amount of time in order to keep the fire at bay in the room and/or floor of origin.

As far as the typical ventilation operation of getting on the roof and cutting a hole, that’s not really an option when dealing with Type 1 construction. Even horizontal ventilation becomes challenging, as the windows are thick, tempered glass and may not be an efficient way to ventilate the structure.

Ladder companies must be aggressive in securing the stairwells for both firefighters and victims evacuating the structure. If the structure meets building code, it will be equipped with self-pressurizing stairwells and have HVAC systems that will aid in air movement. If necessary, the ladder company may need to mechanically pressurize the stairwells using a series of fans strategically placed at the base of the stairwell and every 10–12 floors depending on the effectiveness of the fans. The fire protection and fire-related systems in these buildings are overwhelming, so crews should make it a priority to locate a maintenance worker and keep them close throughout the incident.

Type 1 structures are easy to identify on height alone. It’s important for firefighters to know their city’s building codes, as this may affect which features are found inside the structures. Ladder crews should frequent Type 1 buildings in their area and be familiar with the systems that they may encounter (elevators, HVAC, fire pumps, etc). Finally, they must not forget to maintain good working relationships with the maintenance workers at these buildings.

I'll try to make this as simple as possible.  

WTC1 and WTC2 both hit by Boeing Jets.  Both burned unabated until their collapse.

WTC7 hit by debris from WTC1, and burned unabated until it's collapse.  

No other high-rise structure fire has had these same circumstances.  

Plus, WTC7 had a very shitty building design.  Hope this helps!

[Twaddle]

And the WTC 7 was the building which really had a big fuel deposit for the emergenry generators. Foil hats have try to put it here and there, but in fact WTC 7 had tanks of 42000 gallons 

The structural collapse of WTC7 had nothing to do will fuel deposits in the building.  Hardly any of the fuel burned, and what did burn had a negligible effect on the building.

[Twaddle]

Show me videos / photos of massive fires in WTC7! If a couple are noodles the structure will sag / partially collapse. It will not pancake

WTC7 was burning unabated for 7 hours.  It was not a small fire, it was a very large contents fire on multiple floors.


http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

The fires in the Beijing tower was much more severe than WTC7 - fact!

Do you have any scientific data to back up the above statement?   

[obsidian]

How fucking hard it is to understand, that WTC towers are only buildings, which are A. HIT BY AN AEROPLANE AS BIG AS BOEING 767 B. EXPERIENCED CATASTROPHIC FIRE? It shouldn't be as hard as it seem to be, so it can't mean anything else than the fact, that your ability to comprehend even the simplest things is altered by insanity. I mean how  fucking stupid you have to be if you think that those planes didn't mean anything regarding the collapse? I know you foil hats love videos, so how about this? In this video you see what happen when car hit the object 200 kilometers per hour:

WTC7 was NOT hit by an airplane moron. There were not massive fires as claimed.

This is a massive fire!

[obsidian]

Obviously the only answer I could possibly provide would be that the building had some structural flaw that couldn't handle the shock.

Sources?? You are speculating.

[obsidian]

Denial of the facts of life isn't a mark of intelligence, it is plain and simple stupidity. If 800-1000°C is enough to make the steel loose 80% of it's strength, what will 1500°C do? There were 22 floor above the fire, which is 1/5 of the building and so fore it weights 100 000 tons. How long you can hold that load up with some noodels? 56 minutes..

Show me the video about the explosions in the WTC towers? Until you do that, there isn't really anything to talk about, because the collapse of the WTC 7 was the result of the collapses of the towers. Prove otherwise, or shut the fuck up.

Bullshit. This building had much worse fires than WTC7 and yet it was fine after the fires died out.

And btw, the WTC buildings are the only steel skyscrapers in the history of the world that have ever totally collapsed due to fire.

Beijing - did not collapse:


The First Interstate Bank Building - did not collapse:


Windsor Building - did not collapse:




WTC7 - collapsed - lol!

[obsidian]

 

Plus, WTC7 had a very shitty building design.  Hope this helps!

This is a bullshit statement. Where's your sources on the structural design of WTC7? It was a fairly recent structure built to modern standards. How are you qualified to say the structural design was shitty? Are you fucking serious?

Moron!!

[obsidian]

Do you have any scientific data to back up the above statement?   

Are you trying to say the fires in the Beijing tower was less severe than WTC7? Are you looking at this comparison??? Are you an imbecile???

This


VS

[10pints]

Obsidian,

Is there a single CT you do not believe in? If so, please can you tell us which one it is?

[TuHolmes]

Sources?? You are speculating.

This entire conversation is speculation. When you have people on both sides providing evidence for and against, anything that we say is speculation.

[Anna Recksiek]

How fucking hard it is to understand, that WTC towers are only buildings, which are A. HIT BY AN AEROPLANE AS BIG AS BOEING 767 B. EXPERIENCED CATASTROPHIC FIRE? It shouldn't be as hard as it seem to be, so it can't mean anything else than the fact, that your ability to comprehend even the simplest things is altered by insanity. I mean how  fucking stupid you have to be if you think that those planes didn't mean anything regarding the collapse? I know you foil hats love videos, so how about this? In this video you see what happen when car hit the object 200 kilometers per hour:

Car weights something like 1.5 tons and it has speed of 200 km/h, and it is able to trash a similar car + move 4 tons of concrete barriers for meters in second. Weight of the 767 - 222 is 150 tons and it has speed of 8-900km/h. Regardless how fucking stupid you are, when that kind of mass hit anything at all, it have to mean something?

Secondly, there isn't any explosives on this planet, which explodes without any kind of signs of explosion. In the other video you see what a real explosion looks like. If you are able to point out anything which even slightly resembles to the thing what you will see in this video, from any of the 9/11 videos, then we could continue this discussion:

We both know that we didn't see anything like that at the 9/11 attack, and this is quite typical explosion of the 100-200 lb of charge. To break the structure steel of the WTC towers, you would need hundreds of similar charges. It is amazing that all that energy can collapse building, but it doesn't even break the fucking windows. When the ragheads blow up the van in the basement of the WTC, there were few dozen people who got the injuries from the flying glass, even if that explosion were deep underground. How many there were at the 9/11? Almost none, while there should be thousands.

You know a car is steel and a plane is aluminium, right?
A car is made to resist small crashes and collapse in big ones and a plane is made to be as light as possible because it has to fly. I'm not sure what you have to gain by arguing to support the official story when even the 911 commission, by their own admission feel the investigation was a joke.

[obsidian]

Obsidian,

Is there a single CT you do not believe in? If so, please can you tell us which one it is?

Elvis / Niburu to name but a few of many.

What about you? Any CT you believe in? Or are there no conspiracies in the world in your mind?