Gansta_Ninja

First of all let’s see what a collapse building looks like:




Now, let’s see what a controlled demolition looks like:


Lastly, see what happened to the WTC:

__________________

Gansta_Ninja

So what caused the Structural failure then? Are you suggesting that impact from the plane crash pulverized the entire steel structure from top to bottom?

I’m not the one making false assumptions and conclusions here. All my arguments are based to the report submitted by FEMA. It was there statement, where pointed out that it was the fire that caused the collapse. But I don’t buy their inconclusive story, for me it was just a cover-up story.

The steel that was used in the construction of the WTC were UL certified to withstand fire.

__________________

Gansta_Ninja

Even if there was a collapsed, like the one suggested by Mal. Still it would be impossible to totally pulverize the entire steel core. PBS made a documentary of WTC collapse, but failed to justify the collapse of the almost indestructible steel core.







See how massive the steel core was:



Pulverize in just a matter of minutes..

__________________

Gansta_Ninja

What happened at the WTC is not a laughing matter. This is the reason why I’m sharing this information. Only those who fear for the worst and ignorant of scientific principles can easily be manipulated. I suggest all of you to please study that data I presented and make further research of what really happened that day.

Okay, see the time frame:


So, what made the South Tower collapse first? Are you suggesting that the South Tower has more Papers, Tables and Carpets to burn?

I will present more evidence that the WTC is a well stage demolition. WHY? Who are the culprits? I will reveal next time. As of now I will end my statement with this question.

Why did the WTC 7 also collapsed?

__________________

mewmew

once again, selective and inconclusive.

__________________

zer0systm

Jet Fuel is EXTREMELY flamable, it is said that the hottest flame is a flame that with no colour, this flame is usually associated with jet fuel / nitrogen and other fuels of a similar nature.

You hit a steel plate with a sledge hammer it will dent and buckle, you probably know all this but let me refresh you on it.

all objects have a "memory" this memory varies in different materials, for example, if you grab a strip of rubber and bend it over, it will fling back to its original position (or near on) unassisted, if you grab a length of steel and bend it over the same as the rubber it will stay in the position you bended it to and therefore it's original memory is lost...



now putting both my examples from above into the realistic scenario of the towers:

The plane represents the "hammer" and the tower represents the "steel", the velocity the "hammer" is traveling at is enough to push the "steel" beyond it's original memory, and pushing it to the point of break, quite simply the size of the plane and the width and thickness of the support beams also play a factor in the towers demise.

Like I said if you hit a steel plate with a sledge hammer it will dent, but if you where to scale the plane and support beam down to that of the a sledge hammer and steel it would be easy to identify the plane as the "sledge hammer" once again and the tower as a length of 6mm rod, From personal experience I know that you can snap 6mm rod with strikes from a hammer, you may argue it takes several strike to break that rod but again we are talking about a plane traveling at the speed it was which would clearly generate force 100x + that of a person swinging a hammer. making easy work of a 14" thick beam.

<33333333333 Mal

__________________
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Miburo

Well played. I'm convinced. Nothing proves your stance like three totally different looking pictures of completely different buildings, after all. Very compelling. Good job.

I haven't claimed anything in this 'debate.' Because I think this whole thing is beyond retarded, even compared to the normal shit found in the conspiracy section. I'm counter-arguing your claims and that's all. I don't need to show anything about what happened. I just need to show that what you're saying is stupid. That's it.
Ha.
Wut. So wait. You're saying your argument is based on a report...that you're claiming to be fallacious. Okay.

Furthermore, you're claiming the report is faulty based on...pictures of a fire and the idea that for a building to collapse the steel has to melt. So...buildings only collapse from fires after all the steel has turned into molten puddles and shit, right? Wut. Couldn't it make sense that the fires just needed to be hot enough to expand steel, causing it to bend and sag?
That wouldn't mean they're fireproof, or that the buildings were indestructible.

So what's your argument here? OMG LYKE SEE HOW MASSIVE THAT SHIT IS? FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE LOLOL

I was laughing at you.

Like what has been stated a couple of times now by a couple of different people, it is entirely possible and makes a lot more sense to think that the two buildings received damage in different ways. So the first one to collapse suffered damage that would make it collapse first, despite being the second building hit. It's really, seriously, not a hard concept to grasp.

Example: I go to a wrestling tournament. Let's say there are two mats, mat 1 and mat 2. Mat 1 starts a match, and I start a match on mat 2 a minute later. I pin my guy. My match is over before the match on mat 1, despite mat 1 match starting before mine. OMG CONSPIRACY? No. Just different circumstances resulted in different results. Common fucking sense. Same exact thing here.

Mal

Miburo has, as usual, adeptly covered most of your points so I'll keep this short(ish):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja The steel that was used in the construction of the WTC were UL certified to withstand fire.

"Smoking" fires couldn't have reached those temperatures? Sure, why not? It doesn't really matter, though. You know why? Because you're dumb.

Seriously though, you are. I'm not even going to prove your dumb until you have a chance to actually prove your claim that "Buildings filled with carpet, paper, cloth and countless other materials can burn and produce no smoke."

Think about it. It's pretty stupid.


Going back to Simon Who Does Not Have CP's earlier argument (just to beat it more to death): "There were no planes."
I just now realized the staggering stupidity of that claim, beyond "phony" eye witness accounts. Question: Why not actually have planes hit the towers?

War with Iraq was estimated at $60 billion in 2003. A Boeing 757-200 series airliner runs about $65 million. Surely 0.001% is a worthwhile investment to make your "conspiracy" as believable as possible.

Gansta_Ninja

And you’ll convince the world that there was no conspiracy with this single liner statement. Counter facts with facts, this is a debate and not just your typical fave anime chit-chat. Go play somewhere else boy!

You haven’t claimed anything? Don’t play stupid Mibs, you just claimed that there was no 911 CONSPIRACY. If you are counter-arguing my statements, you have already made a stand; making you on the Negative Side. You don’t need to show anything about what happened? You just can’t prove that I’m wrong. I presented multiple facts, applying the laws of physic to the collapse of WTC. I believe you are / were a debater like me, and you know to well that you must present exhibits of photos and experts opinions/ studies to prove your point.

Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) produced this report. An official report submitted to the President of the United States of America. If you’re saying that this so-called report is “Fallacious”, therefore we are on the same side then.

What happened to the steel core didn’t just bend or sag, but melted. The planes crashed on the higher floor, but why were the base steel core melted?

FYI, the steel beams and trusses were fire proofed with the CANCER CAUSING ASBESTOS!!

Were the open fires of WTC strong enough liquefy steel?




I suspect that THERMITE was used to weaken the entire steel support. Thermite is an incendiary use by the Military.



A compound of Iron and Aluminum, and when ignited it will generate an extreme heat of 4500 degrees Celsius in just a matter of seconds.



One end product of Thermite is molten metal.

__________________

Gansta_Ninja

Speaking of investments………..

First, let me introduce to this man.. Mr. Larry Silverstein:



See how he fought to double the insurance policy..



Lucky devil!



Just weeks after the 911 attack, he made the preparations to rebuild. GOD BLESS AMERICA!




Still none of you can answer me why the WTC Building 7 collapsed. In fact the building 7 was never struck by plane. The truth may shock you!

__________________

zer0systm

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor. The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

__________________
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Gansta_Ninja

First and foremost let my give you a bird’s eye view of the WTC 7:



Now, let me summarize your amazing story:

(1.) The WTC building 7 collapsed due to debris from WTC North Tower.

Since you didn’t produce any photo, let me provide you:



Compare this to what happened to WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5 and WTC 6.



The damage sustained by the buildings were infinitely far greater from WTC 7. But all the buildings withstood the crashing debris.

(2.) Fire fighters extinguished small pockets of fire.

Once again, please allow me to present the visual.



Yes there were some unidentified smoke… and some pockets of fire.



FYI, the WTC 7 is the first steel structure collapsed due to fire. AMAZING!!

On my next presentation, I will reveal why WTC Building 7 has to be removed. Its collapse baffled scientist and engineers all over the world.

__________________

mewmew

So where's the facts? you claim your refusal to believe in an official FEMA report to be fact, you must be joking.

Inconclusive pictures are not facts if not assessed by true experts in their field. Selective presentation of evidence is not fact, it is only a subjective angle in a story.

also NITC, with assistance from ASCE, SFPE, NFPA, AISC, CTBUH and SEAoNY along with other independent investigative firms, indidual experts in logistics/ explosives have thoroughly disproved the controlled explosives "theory" of the WTC buildings collapse. if you've read enough from your source, maybe you should try reading up on the studies of these institutions on the 9/11 collapse.

And please, stop treating your evidence as "legitimate" science which makes you look all the more stupid, as it clearly shows that your theory was presented at a reverse scientific method (hypothesis built around a conclusion).

EMRTC tested the thermite theory thoroughly by applying it on a smaller column than those found on the WTC. It didn't even melt the smaller column. Also, for the thermite to be efficient, the entire column, should be surrounded by thermite. that means parts of the columns exposed to the people should also be rigged with thermite, and parts that are outside the building of WTC 7 should be rigged too which means that if thermite was really in the WTC 7 and twin towers exterior, it would really look like a controlled fireworks display from a witnesses perspective, which as expected nobody saw such a thing.

according to Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?" His clearly wants to point out in this statement which is an excerpt from a study of individuality, that the more people involved in a secret, the greater the probability it will be told. Which means a conspiracy plot involving hundreds of thousands of people, wherein none of those people will utter a word about the ploy, is impossible unless they possess hive mentality which is uninfluenced by the environment (or all these hundreds of thousands of people are being mind-controlled, which is rather a joke.)

This conspiracy theory is plain stupid because it discredits all who died and all the witnesses to the horror of the tragedy by presenting an alternate single-minded view of reality from a person aloof from the experience.

__________________

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja And you’ll convince the world that there was no conspiracy with this single liner statement. Counter facts with facts, this is a debate and not just your typical fave anime chit-chat. Go play somewhere else boy!

LOLOLOLOLOL. He thinks he's people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja You haven’t claimed anything? Don’t play stupid Mibs, you just claimed that there was no 911 CONSPIRACY. If you are counter-arguing my statements, you have already made a stand; making you on the Negative Side. You don’t need to show anything about what happened? You just can’t prove that I’m wrong. I presented multiple facts, applying the laws of physic to the collapse of WTC. I believe you are / were a debater like me, and you know to well that you must present exhibits of photos and experts opinions/ studies to prove your point.

Disagreeing with you is not "claiming" anything except that you're wrong. We don't need to show anything about what happened. Why can you simpletons not understand this? You are the ones claiming the official report is wrong. So far as we're concerned, the official report has been proven right, so the burden of proving it wrong is on you.
And no, we're not "debaters like you". We're better. We actually understand logic, argument and the burden of proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja What happened to the steel core didn’t just bend or sag, but melted. The planes crashed on the higher floor, but why were the base steel core melted?

You insist we provide "exhibits of photos and experts opinions/ studies to prove your point" then just flat out claim the cores melted? Where is your evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja FYI, the steel beams and trusses were fire proofed with the CANCER CAUSING ASBESTOS!!

FYI, "CANCER CAUSING ASBESTOS" is fire proof, not plane proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja Were the open fires of WTC strong enough liquefy steel?

Good work. You have proven that columns were cut during clean-up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja blah blah blah THERMITE blah blah UNRELATED OR ARBITRARY PICTURES blah blah

Yeah, that was all dumb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja Speaking of investments……….. First, let me introduce to this man.. Mr. Larry Silverstein: http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1...csnap34680.png See how he fought to double the insurance policy. http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4889/vlcsnap33042.png Lucky devil! http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7269/vlcsnap33467.png

What an unreasonable bastard! Damn him for expecting his insurance company to fulfill their contract!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja Just weeks after the 911 attack, he made the preparations to rebuild. GOD BLESS AMERICA! http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/922/vlcsnap36728.png

Would it have been better if he waited for a few more weeks? A month? A year? What difference would it have made? It's better that a new construction was planned as soon as possible to give people hope and comfort at that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja Still none of you can answer me why the WTC Building 7 collapsed. In fact the building 7 was never struck by plane. The truth may shock you!

OH SHI-! He caught us again guys! He knows that the only possible way a building can collapse is if you hit it with a plane!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja First and foremost let my give you a bird’s eye view of the WTC 7: http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7...csnap66821.png Now, let me summarize your amazing story: (1.) The WTC building 7 collapsed due to debris from WTC North Tower. Since you didn’t produce any photo, let me provide you: http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4...csnap67793.png

That sure is a massive cloud of debris engulfing WTC 7.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja Compare this to what happened to WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5 and WTC 6. http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/6...csnap67981.png The damage sustained by the buildings were infinitely far greater from WTC 7. But all the buildings withstood the crashing debris.

I'm really getting tired of you making the same dumb mistakes over and over again. Different buildings, different damage, different circumstances. Let's try another analogy:

There is a group of people standing around enjoying themselves at a party. All of a sudden OH SHIT A GRENADE!
The grenade explodes and the 4 people standing close to it are horribly maimed but survive. A fifth person standing 10 feet from the group is hit with a single piece of shrapnel which pierces their skull and kills them instantly.

Different people, different injuries, different circumstances. Get it yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja (2.) Fire fighters extinguished small pockets of fire. Once again, please allow me to present the visual. http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6659/vlcsnap67556.png Yes there were some unidentified smoke… and some pockets of fire. http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/8...csnap67695.png FYI, the WTC 7 is the first steel structure collapsed due to fire. AMAZING!!

Stop strawmanning it up. "small pockets of fire"? What about the "massive fire burn[ing] into the afternoon"? Zer0 clearly said it collapsed due to the combined damage of debris of WTC 1/2 and the massive fires throughout the building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja On my next presentation, I will reveal why WTC Building 7 has to be removed. Its collapse baffled scientist and engineers all over the world.

Because anything that baffles people is completely impossible. Like gravity, right? No one can explain for certain what it is, so it has to be impossible.

Miburo

Oh, man. Well fucking done, Zero, Mew (from MANila. That's awesome.), and Mal. I'm rocking a massive hardon after seeing that thorough logical ass-beating you all just dished out. Only reason I'm posting is to compliment you heroes and to respond to the little bit directed at me even though Mal already covered it petty damn well.

Actually, the only thing I've claimed is that you haven't proven your stance. Which is that there was some lolconspiracy. And I've supplied evidence of that in the form of pointing out the obvious flaws in your arguments. I'm just being a rational skeptic in regards to your claims. Which is the logical stance to take until you've supplied actual proof to support them. I wouldn't take the stance of "NO CONSPIRACY" because I actually know how logic works. There is no need to disprove the unproven. That'd be like setting out to untie a show that hasn't been laced. Simple, basic logic. Like Mal said, we aren't debaters like you. We actually know how to debate.

Also, I'd tell you to stop playing stupid. But I don't think you're playing.
I never said it was fallacious. You did. And you never supplied any proof to support that claim, FYILOLOLOL.
I lol'd unbelievably hard at you posting a picture of steel cut by cleanup crews.