TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 9/11 style fire in beijing, but building still standing.
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Fires alone do not and have never brought a building down in all of history.

for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov O rly? Naw, never.

When facts don't matter, anything can happen!

That building is still standing and burned much longer then WTC7 did by the looks of it. Show me one that collapsed like WTC7 already, it's only been like a few years I have been asking....

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No shit. A building hit that building.

LOL, of course it hit the only other building that was under the same insurance policy. The other buildings much closer then WTC7 where miraculously sparred.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut LOL, of course it hit the only other building that was under the same insurance policy. The other buildings much closer then WTC7 where miraculously sparred.

I know the facts don't matter to you, but the buildings "much closer" than WTC 7 were not spared. WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 were completely destroyed. Here let me throw this smiley in (you deserve it)...



Here, start reading...page 34...come back when you'v learned something...

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

Thanks for proving my point yet again. Bother to notice all the buildings which were destroyed all have something in common?

Insurance policy.


The Verizon building actually took two hits (WTC7 and North Tower) but did not collapse a la controlled demolition style did it? In fact no other building which all suffered more "impact debris" did not crumble down on 9/11 like any of the WTC's.

Yeah I am know, I am ignoring the facts.

Smiley for you,

quote:

Originally posted by culorut That building is still standing and burned much longer then WTC7 did by the looks of it. Show me one that collapsed like WTC7 already, it's only been like a few years I have been asking....

Yeah I am still waiting....

quote:

Here, start reading...page 34...come back when you'v learned something... http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCST...lic_comment.pdf

Yes I need a another bullshit report (9/11 omission report) that took 7 fuckin years to tell us when a simple video makes it very obvious what really transpired all along.

Since you like the NIST report so much here you go, read and learn.

NIST's Explanation of WTC 7's Collapse

http://www.wtc7.net/nistreport.html

NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed

http://www.prisonplanet.com/nist-wt...ely-flawed.html

NIST WTC 7 "Fire" Conclusion Blatantly Contradicts FEMA Report

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/nist...cts-fema-report

Ok one more just to seal the deal.


NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Thanks for proving my point yet again. Bother to notice all the buildings which were destroyed all have something in common? Insurance policy. The Verizon building actually took two hits (WTC7 and North Tower) but did not collapse a la controlled demolition style did it? In fact no other building which all suffered more "impact debris" did not crumble down on 9/11 like any of the WTC's. Yeah I am know, I am ignoring the facts. Smiley for you,

lol, so if a building had an insurance policy, they collapsed? LOL. Maybe if I have a life insurance policy, I should just die so my family collects on it..

And just because the Verizon building did not collapse does not equate to the WTC7 building shouldn't have either. False logic there. Plenty of building did collapse. The fact that some didn't does not equate as evidence that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, which you and your ilk still have yet to prove. So keep on trying, or just give up.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Since you like the NIST report so much here you go, read and learn. NIST's Explanation of WTC 7's Collapse http://www.wtc7.net/nistreport.html

This page provides no evidence whatsoever of a controlled demotion, or a refutation of the NIST's explanation.

quote:

NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

This page, instead of analyzing the NIST report from an objective point of view, begins with its conclusion already in mind. Hardly could be call a scientific document. No, actually, it's nothing of the sort, otherwise it might just find itself in a scientific journal, which we all know none of your truthers have even gotten close to the confines of real science to even be allowed such an honor. But I digress.

Let's just look at the intro...

NIST's investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize or explain the demolition-like features of the collapses -- such as their explosiveness, pulverization, verticality and nearly free-fall rapidity -- except for two sentences in a half-page section added to the Final Report to address criticisms of the Draft.

NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."

This is just blantant proof of the false logic and pseudo-science which truther operate on. First, the false dicotemy. "If I prove the NIST report is wrong, then I (conspiracy theorist) am right." No, you are not right, even if you proved the NIST report conclusively wrong, which no truther or scientists (more importantly) has done. We can compare creationists and evolution in this sense. Evolutionary scientists deduce their conclusions from scientific data, whereas, creationists deduce their conclusions from a book, and as a result, before even looking at the data, they already have their conclusion set before observation. Furthermore, creationist theory is unprovable. No one can prove god created the world. The same is true for you truthers. You already have your conclusion in mind before even looking at the data. Truthers depart from the scientific method so much so, yet claim to be scientific, just as creationists do. Truthers claims of 'controlled demolition' are unprovable. To this day, no truther has even come up with forensic evidence of the tonnes of explosives which would be needed to destroy the WTC.

Another tidbit of false logic..."Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition."

The existence of unanswered questions of the report does not invalidate the report.

Now, just from reading the introduction, actually no, the title itself "NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century" ... I know this document is nothing but the unscientific diatribe of a 9/11 truther who doesn't know what he's talking about. Let's move on shall we?

quote:

NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed http://www.prisonplanet.com/nist-wt...ely-flawed.html

Ahhh, Alex Jones...One of the most radical paranoid crackpots of the dying 9/11 truth movement. Great source champ...

Can I please get something not from a wacko 9/11 truther? You know, like a scientific peer-reviewed paper?

quote:

NIST WTC 7 "Fire" Conclusion Blatantly Contradicts FEMA Report http://www.nowpublic.com/world/nist...cts-fema-report

The FEMA report came out less than 8 months after 9/11! Do you honestly think they had enough time to fully investigate the structural failures in that time? Let me guess...You do...

The NIST report had several years to compile data and actually methodically use the scientific method to deduce their conclusions. SCIENCE. Key word...

You seem to be trying to hard convincing yourself I feel.

Thermal expansion? Sure.

Since you brought up Alex Jones, well I think he is bang on this time round. No I do not agree on the approach he takes on most matters but you cannot hide from his latest piece on this subject.


Beijing Skyscraper Fire: The Silence Is Deafening


Debunkers’ only response is to claim that no comparison to WTC 7 can be made, yet they feverishly compared completely dissimilar bridge collapses to twin towers in 2007.


Three days after a towering inferno engulfed a 500 foot skyscraper in Beijing, debunkers have failed to come up with any answers as to why the building remained standing in comparison with WTC 7, which suffered a uniform 7 second implosion as a result of limited fires spread across just 8 floors on 9/11.

Beijing’s Mandarin Oriental hotel defied all known physics on Monday when it was consumed by fires but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer even limited fire damage implode in on their own footprint within seconds.

All joking aside, any credibility that remained behind NIST’s “thermal expansion” theory, which was apparently only evident on one day in history and not in the case of hundreds of other high rise buildings that have caught fire and remained standing, metaphorically went up in the flames that consumed - but did not collapse - one of Beijing’s most prominent buildings.

The silence of debunkers with regard to the hotel fire is both deafening and highly hypocritical. Proponents of the government’s version of events are usually feverish to seize upon anything, no matter how inane and off tangent, in order to try and prop up the official fairy tale.


The best retort we have seen since the fire is the claim that buildings are constructed differently and therefore no comparison can possibly be made between the Mandarin Oriental hotel and Building 7.

Really? That argument didn’t stop debunkers from comparing the collapse of two bridges to the collapse of the twin towers following freeway collapses in San Francisco and Minnesota in 2007.

The frenzy was particularly evident at Fark.com following the San Francisco bridge collapse, with posters reveling in the notion that the freeway accident had made “WTC conspiracy theories collapse as quickly as that highway did.”

In that instance, the freeway section was made of highly flammable asphalt and took the brunt of a gigantic gasoline explosion with open air fires shooting 200 feet in the air. In comparison, the twin towers were impacted by aluminum planes filled with significantly less flammable kerosene and suffered limited fires that were oxygen-starved and almost out before the collapses occurred.

“You can’t even begin to compare 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, approximately 2 foot by 5 foot rectangle 5 inch thick boxes to quarter inch and 3 quarter inch dowels that connect the steel to the support members,” a steel welding expert told us.

“The logical deduction is that the rebar steel was exposed horizontally, that whole bridge surface and it was exposed intention, not like the fires that were lapping up fire-proofed 5 inch thick plate columns in the World Trade Center - these little bars had no heat sink and after two hours with all that weight on them they fell.”

But logic didn’t stop the debunkers from comparing the collapse of a weakened and cracked freeway with the uniform implosion of skyscrapers that were designed to absorb multiple airliner impacts without collapsing. Neither did it stop them from using the absurd comparison to try and explain away the collapse of WTC 7 - which wasn’t even hit by a plane.

So when debunkers attempt to evade difficult questions about the Beijing skyscraper fire by claiming that no comparison can even be made to WTC 7, it’s pertinent to remind them that they considered it perfectly legitimate to compare towering skyscrapers with run-down creaking bridges in order to push their agenda.

The state-controlled communist media in China have all but censored coverage of the Beijing skyscraper fire to avoid public embarrassment, but the silence has been just as deafening in the U.S., where corporate media networks have largely ignored the story, ostensibly to prevent people make the obvious comparison to World Trade Center 7.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/beijing...-deafening.html

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Show me one that collapsed like WTC7 already, it's only been like a few years I have been asking....

*cough*

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton lol, so if a building had an insurance policy, they collapsed? LOL. Maybe if I have a life insurance policy, I should just die so my family collects on it.. And just because the Verizon building did not collapse does not equate to the WTC7 building shouldn't have either. False logic there. Plenty of building did collapse. The fact that some didn't does not equate as evidence that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, which you and your ilk still have yet to prove. So keep on trying, or just give up.

The buildings that had the same insurance policy collapsed. Learn how to read before posting.

The Verizon building took two hits from debris but did not crumble down like the controlled demolition of WTC7. In fact no other buildings did. More force or in this case double the impact at minimum should have easily caused a building that was just as close to crumble down but it did not, it stood there just like this building in Beijing.

The only way buildings come down like this is if you believe in fairy tale story's like the 9/11 omission report and latest fiasco from NIST's final report on WTC7.

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The buildings that had the same insurance policy collapsed. Learn how to read before posting. The Verizon building took two hits from debris but did not crumble down like the controlled demolition of WTC7. In fact no other buildings did. More force or in this case double the impact at minimum should have easily caused a building that was just as close to crumble down but it did not, it stood there just like this building in Beijing. The only way buildings come down like this is if you believe in fairy tale story's like the 9/11 omission report and latest fiasco from NIST's final report on WTC7. LOL

I DID READ YOUR PATHETIC INSURANCE ARGUMENT......really, is that it? Collapsed buildings with the same insurance policy means a conspiracy must have taken place!? Utterly ridiculous argument.

As I stated before, your false logic, that because Verizon building did not collapse means the WTC7 building shouldn't have collapsed either is FALLACIOUS. Got it? It proves absolutely nothing. And you still, STILL, haven't proved WTC7 was controlled demolition, yet, you trump it up as if it were fact, when facts are supposed to...you know...have EVIDENCE. Who, what, when, where, why, and how? You know the 5 W's + H? Who set the explosives? What explosives were used? How were they used? How much was used? Who lead the operation? Why did they do it? How did they do it? When did they rig the explosives? How did they hide the thousands of tonnes needed to demolish the building from day-to-day occupants of the building? Most importantly, forensic evidence. Bomb residues, bomb fragments, wiring, etc. etc. You'v got nothing. NOTHING.

Your sources suck by the way...

Krypton, I'm with you. culorut... it's been over 7 years. Time to move on. This whole argument is showing way too much of the following-

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

(credit to PKC for finding that list)

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Fires alone do not and have never brought a building down in all of history.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut *cough*

In allllllllllllllll of history!

Also,

quote:

This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing... What you see above is the concrete reinforced core. What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. As with the towers, it weakened and collapsed early in the fire.

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

lol i cant believe this is still being discussed......

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Krypton, I'm with you. culorut... it's been over 7 years. Time to move on. This whole argument is showing way too much of the following- 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists A useful guide by Donna Ferentes 2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length. 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. 7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot. 8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist. (credit to PKC for finding that list)

The exact same list can be used for those who believe the official story. Straw man argument at best.


The fact of matter is a huge percentage of people do not believe the official story.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov

What the fuk are you on? If you cannot see the difference between a building still standing and a building being imploded then it is your problem.

They look nothing alike, one is still standing and the other is being demolished. So far you posted a couple of pictures of buildings that took more punishment but where not brought down at free fall speed because of fires.

quote:

Debunkers’ only response is to claim that no comparison to WTC 7 can be made, yet they feverishly compared completely dissimilar bridge collapses to twin towers in 2007.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The exact same list can be used for those who believe the official story. Straw man argument at best. The fact of matter is a huge percentage of people do not believe the official story.

LOL, you are one to talk. Straw man fallacy boo hoo! You just made an Appeal to Numbers fallacy. Just because a number of people believe something does not mean it's true. But I don't expect a truther capable of logic since their conspiracies require none...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.