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

Never forget a building hit that building.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Never forget a building hit that building.

Yes because debris from another building causes other buildings to blow up.


Still trying to convince yourself?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Yes because debris from another building causes other buildings to blow up.

WTC7 building blew up? Wow, what else is new? Space aliens have landed?

quote:

Still trying to convince yourself?

I'm convinced you don't know what the fuck your talking about..

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Yes because debris from another building causes other buildings to blow up.

it didn't blow up dumbass. i'm so glad i washed my hands of you and the rest of the dumbfuck truther morons a while ago

We should just close these stupid 9/11 threads on sight; they always degenerate into this non-sense.

Everyone getting mad because the Beijing building did not crumble?

quote:

WTC7 building blew up? Wow, what else is new? Space aliens have landed?

Yes it did actually, fires do not cause buildings to come down in that fashion and neither does debris.

Space aliens? Nope just some cutting charges needed.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Everyone getting mad because the Beijing building did not crumble?

No, we just enjoy making fun of you.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Yes it did actually, fires do not cause buildings to come down in that fashion and neither does debris. Space aliens? Nope just some cutting charges needed.

I think Lebez already proved your ignorant statement "Fires alone do not and have never brought a building down in all of history." completely wrong. Additionally, WTC7 had a mere two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and truss, and a three-hour rating for columns. The fires burned far longer than that, and could certainly have contributed, along with several other factors which you complerely ignore, of bringing down the building.

And yes, massive debris from 100 story buildings crashing into a building can bring that building down. Hint, WTC 3, 4, 5, 6. Every one of your sentences seems either blatantly false, a half truth, or fallacious...

You believe a building collapsed straight down for the first time in history in that fashion and make fun of others when the only way to justify it is some trash paper from NIST?

Where is the building that slammed into WTC7 to cause it to fall then? Just talk if you cannot back it up champ. The very report you posted from NIST does not mention that this caused the collapse, they blame it on over exaggerated office fires and thermal expansion.


How come no other buildings have come down due to office fires and thermal expansion in the same fashion as WTC7, should be easy to answer as there have been many buildings on fire much stronger than WTC7 but not one of you has been able to yet....

And don't give me BS about the buildings are built differently, WTC7 housed some serious tenants (CIA, Secret Service, IRS, etc) and was a bunker in case of emergency. It was built much better.

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

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You believe a building collapsed straight down for the first time in history in that fashion and make fun of others when the only way to justify it is some trash paper from NIST?

Yea, it did collapse straight down. Are you telling me it didn't ? The NIST report is the most conclusive, scientific, report regarding this issue. You and your ilk's pathetic attempts to discredit it are laughable. Your alternative, controlled demolition, is fallacious, presents a false dichotomy, and has no physical evidence with which to present. We generally call such views "fairy tales"...

quote:

Where is the building that slammed into WTC7 to cause it to fall then? Just talk if you cannot back it up champ. The very report you posted from NIST does not mention that this caused the collapse, they blame it on over exaggerated office fires and thermal expansion.

Um, it's called the twin towers. What caused the fires and structural damage? I'll give you a hint. Two 100 story skyscrapers fell in the very near vicinity..

quote:

How come no other buildings have come down due to office fires and thermal expansion in the same fashion as WTC7, should be easy to answer as there have been many buildings on fire much stronger than WTC7 but not one of you has been able to yet....

I don't know. Why does that matter? Your argument is fallacious. Because some buildings didn't collapse, this must mean WTC7 shouldn't have either? LOL. No, wrong.

quote:

And don't give me BS about the buildings are built differently, WTC7 housed some serious tenants (CIA, Secret Service, IRS, etc) and was a bunker in case of emergency. It was built much better. http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

So basically, you'r saying WTC7 was an unsinkable ship? They also said that about the Titanic, and guess what, it sank. Just because a building is well designed does not mean it can't collapse...

Office fires and debris? LOL, yeah right.

Reminds me of something....flashes, timing, it's bang on.

reminds of something again.....

Why are the above companies wasting all these man hours installing cutting charges when all they have to do is light a match to cause "thermal expansion" according to NIST?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Office fires and debris? LOL, yeah right.

That's it. "Yea right." LOL. And a pointless video! Wow, it proves EVERYTHING now!

Here's some news. Your videos prove nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Why are the above companies wasting all these man hours installing cutting charges when all they have to do is light a match to cause "thermal expansion" according to NIST?

You tell me. You'r the one who thinks whatever (you still haven't named them) set the tonnes of explosives needed (still no evidence of such) could do it without anyone noticing.

ANd once again. Reading comprehension. It wasn't just fire that caused the collapse. It was several other factors combined, which you conviently ignore.

Yeah, bang on again...Stick to NIST's fairy tale if you want.


WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video

quote:

Originally posted by culorut

Who did that? Cause that's retarded.

It's stupid to compare any two structures that aren't architecturally similar. It's also stupid to say "no building has ever in the history of the world fallen due to fire."

Actually it's scary just how exact the video shows two buildings being demolished in the same way.

quote:

It's stupid to compare any two structures that aren't architecturally similar. It's also stupid to say "no building has ever in the history of the world fallen due to fire."

No it's stupid to say that other buildings have fallen due to fire, find one already or stop talking nonsense. It has never happened in history, never. (only on 9/11 according to NIST)

If you find at least one other building that has collapsed in the same manner like WTC7 did due to a fire post it here and I will give you a thousand dollars no questions asked.


Cannot be that hard can it?

Photos really do say a million words. Everything untouched but the insurance policy, how convenient.

Culorut, double/triple post just once again, and this thread will be automatically closed. Tabbed browsing does wonders.

Also, unless someone manages to explain (coherently) what the hell an ordinary fire has to do with a building that collapsed after an air plane flew into it, this thread shall also be closed tomorrow morning.

Next thing you know, someone's going to ask why Australia hasn't collapsed yet! Maybe a plane even crashed in the outback, further proving their point!

quote:

Also, unless someone manages to explain (coherently) what the hell an ordinary fire has to do with a building that collapsed after an air plane flew into it, this thread shall also be closed tomorrow morning.

I hate to break it to you Lira but no plane flew into World Trade Center Building 7, office fires are the official explanation apparently according to NIST.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/.../wtc082108.html

Go ahead and close the thread if you want now thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton ANd once again. Reading comprehension. It wasn't just fire that caused the collapse. It was several other factors combined, which you conviently ignore.

Reading comprehension? you just posted up the NIST paper like it is you're bible.

Care to explain if you actually did read it?

quote:

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

quote:

Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Yeah, bang on again...Stick to NIST's fairy tale if you want.

Riiiight...run out of ridiculous responses...no actually, that one topped them all off...

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