"Building What": Geraldo At Large

[Patriot911]

Anyone else notice truthtards tend to get threatening and violent when their pet theories are constantly and consistantly trashed by the truth? If they can't convince people, harassment is the next logical step for them I guess. Of course their threats and whining is rather pathetic and totally pointless.

Patriot911, you have yet to prove one fact. You are a distraction. You give commentary and disinformation, thats it.

More bullshit from you. Just because you're too big of a pussy to man up to the truth doesn't mean it's not the truth.

Please answer the following Patsy911:

Name 1 time a steel structure high rise building has collapsed due to an office fire in history.

Windsor tower.

If you find one, did it collapse completely?

Nope. Just ten stories of the steel part. The concrete part of the structure survived, but the building was a total loss.

How does a building freefall through the greatest resistance for 2.25 seconds?

"Greatest resistance"? My you have a highly inflated ego to strut around making such claims. Are you a structural engineer? No? Kindergarten drop out sounds about right.

The internal collapse that occured just prior to the external collapse damaged or destroyed many of the columns that would normally resist the collapse.

If NIST says the falling debris from the Towers "played no significant role in the cause of the collapse of WTC7" then how did it collapse?

From the fires generated by the debris. Duh! Are you REALLY this fucking retarded?

Can office fires melt and cut 8 floors of solid steel structures in 5 hours? If so, how?

Nope. But then again only you retarded fucks are claiming steel was melted.

Now if you want to talk about structures damaged to the point of failure, sure. That can happen in under an hour in the right circumstances. That is why they use fire retardant on the steel; to slow down the heating of the steel and prevent collapse. Most standards require between one and four hours of protection for the steel. Five hours is more than enough for heating steel to the point of failure. Past that, you get a cascading failure as other structures already stressed and heated to the point of failure cannot accomodate the additional strain.

How do pools of liquid molten steel "running down beams like a foundry" end up at the bottom of WTC7, and Tower 1 & 2?

Prove it was steel. You've quoted lots of people who would have no clue what the actual metal content was, but you haven't proven it was steel.

Pictures of the event show clearly solid steel glowing red hot.

As for remaining red hot for weeks, that is nothing more than fires burning in the debris pile fueled by oxygen from the subway tunnels.

Unless, of course, you can name ANY substance that can keep steel red hot for weeks at a time. What? You failed miserably at that before? Well, then I don't expect you to do any better this time.

All of which proves ANYTHING molten would not be due to explosives or thermite. Explosives don't cut with heat and thermite would have cooled LONG before it had a chance to pool or drip off anything.

What could reach temperatures of 2500F+ Degrees?

Nothing in the collapse which is why your claims are pure horse shit. I am sure you're going to try and pretend molten "steel" is proof of 2500F+ degrees, but first you have to prove it was steel. You've failed before at that and you will fail again.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Windsor tower.

Wrong.

"The [Madrid] Windsor Building was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 stories from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours [AFP]. The core of the building did not fail."

"The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 stories from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure."

Nope. Just ten stories of the steel part. The concrete part of the structure survived, but the building was a total loss.

So a building burns for 18-20 hours and has nowhere near a total collapse and you compare it to the WTC collapses for your answer? At least post relevant responses instead of this opinionated commentary.

"Greatest resistance"? My you have a highly inflated ego to strut around making such claims. Are you a structural engineer? No? Kindergarten drop out sounds about right.

This is your logical response to my question regarding Newtonian Physics and the freefall stated by NIST? You just got done saying:

Patriot911: "Anyone else notice truthtards tend to get threatening and violent when their pet theories are constantly and consistantly trashed by the truth? If they can't convince people, harassment is the next logical step for them I guess. Of course their threats and whining is rather pathetic and totally pointless."

It's quite a coincidence that you do not respond logically to any basic questions, only respond with opinions and commentary.

The internal collapse that occured just prior to the external collapse damaged or destroyed many of the columns that would normally resist the collapse.

How did any type of collapse occur? How does an office fire cause 8 floors to collapse before/after/during/between/around anytime in our reality? They barely reach half the temperatures that steel is required of to melt.
So how is their an "internal collapse that occured prior to the external collapse?" by your claims?
How did it freefall once it fell? Where did the 8 floors go?

From the fires generated by the debris. Duh! Are you REALLY this fucking retarded?

How does a fire segregated to specific floors cause a building to collapse? Where in history has this happened? Show me one time a building has collapsed due to office fires please. Also point out to me how a buildling freefalls for 2.25 seconds through the path of greatest resistance. But this time please refrain from calling me "Fucking retarded" or accuse me of having "a highly inflated ego" and then assume I am a "Kindergarten drop out."

But then again only you retarded fucks are claiming steel was melted.

Besides the fact that you are once again acting like a hypocrite and posting fallacies, how else do 8 floors of concrete and structural steel remove it self? NOT by melting?
How else? By beams bending and sagging? Theres no external damage or movement from the building for 5 hours, so there's zero possibility that it was weakened sagging steel.

Past that, you get a cascading failure as other structures already stressed and heated to the point of failure cannot accomodate the additional strain.

How is this possible? The whole structure wasn't on fire. Where in history has a steel high rise collapsed because some floors failed and the bottom floors werent able to "accom[m]odate the additional strain." ? If this were to happen, there would be a "jolt" and deceleration within the collapse on video, which show NEITHER happening. So show me where your statement comes into play, I see only opinions and commentary, no evidence.

Prove it was steel. You've quoted lots of people who would have no clue what the actual metal content was, but you haven't proven it was steel.

This is the type of shit you pull. What other melted metal would it of been? What other object on earth melts and is liquified in the WTCs? Is there another material that it would of been running down beams like a foundry? Is there another metal that the firefighters and fire responders could have mistaken for steel? Prove it WASNT steel.

your claims are pure horse shit. I am sure you're going to try and pretend molten "steel" is proof of 2500F+ degrees, but first you have to prove it was steel. You've failed before at that and you will fail again.

You have yet to prove one point, or rebuttal one fact. You just commentate and post your opinions. Once again:

How does a object exert no force and collapse at complete freefall through the path of greatest resistance right under it. Office fires do not melt steel, and video evidence proves that the beams inside had not collapsed from bowing/sagging. So how did WTC7 collapse at freefall speeds for 2.25 seconds, according to Newtonian Physics, it is impossible, unless nothing is under it resisting.

 

[Patriot911]

Windsor tower.

Wrong.

"The [Madrid] Windsor Building was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 stories from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours [AFP]. The core of the building did not fail."

The core of the building was concrete. The steel framed part of the structure failed. Would you like a picture of where the ten stories collapsed?

"The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 stories from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure."

Yeah, and you fucktards are too damn stupid to understand the simple concept of different buildings constructed differently and under different circumstances don't have to behave exactly the same. Only a moron of EPIC proportions would believe everything has to happen the same even when you change major variables.

Nope. Just ten stories of the steel part. The concrete part of the structure survived, but the building was a total loss.

So a building burns for 18-20 hours and has nowhere near a total collapse and you compare it to the WTC collapses for your answer? At least post relevant responses instead of this opinionated commentary.[/quote]
The only part of the building that was a steel framed structure completely and totally collapsed. That isn't opinionated commentary. That is called the truth. I realize you don't want anyone to see you've been owned yet again, but tough shit.

This is your logical response to my question regarding Newtonian Physics and the freefall stated by NIST? You just got done saying:

Patriot911: "Anyone else notice truthtards tend to get threatening and violent when their pet theories are constantly and consistantly trashed by the truth? If they can't convince people, harassment is the next logical step for them I guess. Of course their threats and whining is rather pathetic and totally pointless."

Awww. Did I strike a nerve? See, the difference is truthtards like you tend to insult / threaten and run. I make fun of sick fucks like you and then rip your theories apart. I realize that must sting, but like I said above, tough shit. Suck it up, pussy!

It's quite a coincidence that you do not respond logically to any basic questions, only respond with opinions and commentary.

Wrong yet again. YOU may not understand my response (big surprise there!) but that doesn't mean it isn't logical and based in facts.

How did any type of collapse occur? How does an office fire cause 8 floors to collapse before/after/during/between/around anytime in our reality? They barely reach half the temperatures that steel is required of to melt.

More bullshit claims from the king of bullshit. NOBODY HAS SAID THE STEEL HAD TO MELT! That is your claim and your claim only. Why? Because you know you've been owned, so you have to introduce a straw man of your own making; melted steel.

So how is their an "internal collapse that occured prior to the external collapse?" by your claims?

Read the NIST report. It is very clearly explained there. You might have to take it to someone with a higher than single digit IQ to explain it to you. All them drugs have burned out your brain.

How did it freefall once it fell? Where did the 8 floors go?

Read the report.

How does a fire segregated to specific floors cause a building to collapse? Where in history has this happened? Show me one time a building has collapsed due to office fires please.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Also point out to me how a buildling freefalls for 2.25 seconds through the path of greatest resistance. But this time please refrain from calling me "Fucking retarded" or accuse me of having "a highly inflated ego" and then assume I am a "Kindergarten drop out."

You ARE a fucking retard and you DO have a highly inflated ego. AND I already answered your question, so suck it up, pussy, and deal with the answer.

Besides the fact that you are once again acting like a hypocrite and posting fallacies, how else do 8 floors of concrete and structural steel remove it self? NOT by melting?

Through collapse. Duh! Pay attention, truthtard!

How else? By beams bending and sagging? Theres no external damage or movement from the building for 5 hours, so there's zero possibility that it was weakened sagging steel.

So speaks the "engineer" with the inflated ego. And what are you basing that on, truthtard? Your years of experience?

How is this possible? The whole structure wasn't on fire. Where in history has a steel high rise collapsed because some floors failed and the bottom floors werent able to "accom[m]odate the additional strain." ? If this were to happen, there would be a "jolt" and deceleration within the collapse on video, which show NEITHER happening. So show me where your statement comes into play, I see only opinions and commentary, no evidence.

Read the report, douchebag. All your questions are answered there.

Prove it was steel. You've quoted lots of people who would have no clue what the actual metal content was, but you haven't proven it was steel.

This is the type of shit you pull. What other melted metal would it of been? What other object on earth melts and is liquified in the WTCs? Is there another material that it would of been running down beams like a foundry? Is there another metal that the firefighters and fire responders could have mistaken for steel? Prove it WASNT steel.

What.... are you so fucking stupid you can't think of any metal besides steel? Aluminum, as one example, is used in lots of office materials and melts at temperatures seen on 9/11.
But I'm not the one who has made the claim they know specifically what metal it is. YOU have. So prove it was steel. You've made the claim. You're building your case on needing temperatures above 2500F. You first need to prove your base claims before you can build on them or the whole theory is nothing but bullshit.

your claims are pure horse shit. I am sure you're going to try and pretend molten "steel" is proof of 2500F+ degrees, but first you have to prove it was steel. You've failed before at that and you will fail again.

You have yet to prove one point, or rebuttal one fact. You just commentate and post your opinions. Once again:

More bullshit from you. I have. You just don't want to accept it. Not my problem.

How does a object exert no force and collapse at complete freefall through the path of greatest resistance right under it. Office fires do not melt steel, and video evidence proves that the beams inside had not collapsed from bowing/sagging. So how did WTC7 collapse at freefall speeds for 2.25 seconds, according to Newtonian Physics, it is impossible, unless nothing is under it resisting.

Read above. The answer doesn't change because you're too fucking stupid to understand the answer or too dishonest to acknowledge the truth.

 

[eots]

so it is parrots0/11 contention was wrong when In the opening statement of the final report they state ..they discovered a new phenomena of fire induced global collapse and it is the first known instance of a steel framed building has collapsed due to fire..wow if they cant even get that right how can we trust the investigation at all ?

 

[eots]

your bullshit debwunker video also states that damage from falling debris took ouT 25% of the supports of wtc 7....BUT NIST SAYS DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE....so are you debwunking NIST now ??

 

[Patriot911]

so it is parrots0/11 contention was wrong when In the opening statement of the final report they state ..they discovered a new phenomena of fire induced global collapse and it is the first known instance of a steel framed building has collapsed due to fire..wow if they cant even get that right how can we trust the investigation at all ?

The truthtard ability to be so completely and utterly dishonest is absolutely ASTOUNDING!!!!!! Did the NIST say this was the first known instance of a steel framed building collapsing due to fire? Nope. eots, in his complete and utter dishonesty, leaves out key words. Why? Because he is a fucking liar.

What the NIST REALLY said:

"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires".

It is amazing ANYONE would believe anything you say, eots.

 

[Patriot911]

your bullshit debwunker video also states that damage from falling debris took ouT 25% of the supports of wtc 7....BUT NIST SAYS DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE....so are you debwunking NIST now ??

Nope. Both are true. Yes, I realize that fact probably hurts your widdle truthtard brain, but the damage to the south face of the building had little to do with the collapse that initiated in the northwest area of the building. Was the south face damaged? Yes. Was there structural damage? Yes. Did WTC 7 collapse due to fire? Yes. None of these are mutually exclusive no matter how much that hurts your widdle truthtard brain.

 

[Patriot911]

You speak with only opinion and commentary, spread misinformation and distraction, and have a complete lack of moral and pride.

BuildingWhat? - A TV Ad Campaign to Raise Awareness of Building 7 - What is Building 7 ?
AE911Truth.org

Nice response, truthtard! Just more evidence you can't debate and have to have conspiratard sites tell you what to think. It must truly suck to be a slave to conspiratard sites.

 

[eots]

so it is parrots0/11 contention was wrong when In the opening statement of the final report they state ..they discovered a new phenomena of fire induced global collapse and it is the first known instance of a steel framed building has collapsed due to fire..wow if they cant even get that right how can we trust the investigation at all ?

The truthtard ability to be so completely and utterly dishonest is absolutely ASTOUNDING!!!!!! Did the NIST say this was the first known instance of a steel framed building collapsing due to fire? Nope. eots, in his complete and utter dishonesty, leaves out key words. Why? Because he is a fucking liar.

What the NIST REALLY said:

"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires".

It is amazing ANYONE would believe anything you say, eots.

well actually pinhead thats not what they said...but regardless was the Windsor not a TALL building...lol ( they actually said over 15 stories )

 

[Patriot911]

well actually pinhead thats not what they said...but regardless was the Windsor not a TALL building...lol

OMG you truthtards are seriously dumb fucks! That was a DIRECT QUOTE from the executive summary! CLICK HERE YA DUMB FUCK! I know how you have a hard time identifying links. Page 37. First paragraph. Last sentence.

As for the Windsor tower, it did not suffer a total collapse except for the steel framed section of the building. You still lose!

 

[saiweril]

OMG you truthtards are seriously dumb fucks!

Um, I don't think you should ever insult and call people dumb again, Patriot911.

 

[eots]

your bullshit debwunker video also states that damage from falling debris took ouT 25% of the supports of wtc 7....BUT NIST SAYS DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE....so are you debwunking NIST now ??

Nope. Both are true. Yes, I realize that fact probably hurts your widdle truthtard brain, but the damage to the south face of the building had little to do with the collapse that initiated in the northwest area of the building. Was the south face damaged? Yes. Was there structural damage? Yes. Did WTC 7 collapse due to fire? Yes. None of these are mutually exclusive no matter how much that hurts your widdle truthtard brain.

the claim was that this building had damage to 25% of the supports and this played a significant role in the collapse this in complete contradiction to the NIST report

 

[Patriot911]

your bullshit debwunker video also states that damage from falling debris took ouT 25% of the supports of wtc 7....BUT NIST SAYS DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE....so are you debwunking NIST now ??

Nope. Both are true. Yes, I realize that fact probably hurts your widdle truthtard brain, but the damage to the south face of the building had little to do with the collapse that initiated in the northwest area of the building. Was the south face damaged? Yes. Was there structural damage? Yes. Did WTC 7 collapse due to fire? Yes. None of these are mutually exclusive no matter how much that hurts your widdle truthtard brain.

the claim was that this building had damage to 25% of the supports and this played a significant role in the collapse this in complete contradiction to the NIST report

Not my claim. I posted the video to show examples of steel framed buildings that collapsed due to fire. Try to keep up. You're embarassing yourself!

 

[Patriot911]

OMG you truthtards are seriously dumb fucks!

Um, I don't think you should ever insult and call people dumb again, Patriot911.

Who gives a shit what a liar like you thinks?

 

[eots]

Nope. Both are true. Yes, I realize that fact probably hurts your widdle truthtard brain, but the damage to the south face of the building had little to do with the collapse that initiated in the northwest area of the building. Was the south face damaged? Yes. Was there structural damage? Yes. Did WTC 7 collapse due to fire? Yes. None of these are mutually exclusive no matter how much that hurts your widdle truthtard brain.

the claim was that this building had damage to 25% of the supports and this played a significant role in the collapse this in complete contradiction to the NIST report

Not my claim. I posted the video to show examples of steel framed buildings that collapsed due to fire. Try to keep up. You're embarassing yourself!

you did no such thing

 

[saiweril]

OMG you truthtards are seriously dumb fucks!

Um, I don't think you should ever insult and call people dumb again, Patriot911.

Who gives a shit what a liar like you thinks?

Aww, what's that matter Patriot911? A wittle mad that you got majorly bitch-slapped today?!

 

[Patriot911]

Um, I don't think you should ever insult and call people dumb again, Patriot911.

Who gives a shit what a liar like you thinks?

Aww, what's that matter Patriot911? A wittle mad that you got majorly bitch-slapped today?!

Making a mistake and admitting to it is not a "major bitch-slap". Once again, I don't give a shit what a liar like you thinks.

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpJdpoQJ1wA[/ame]

 

[georgephillip]

I am someone who is fighting for the truth. This isn't a partisan issue. You and your "ilk" are out to lie your asses off to push your agendas of hate by lying about the deaths of three thousand Americans. That, to me and many others, is VERY wrong. Therefore I have nothing but extreme contempt for you and your "ilk".

The very fact you can't respond to what I write should be a HUGE clue of who is right and who is lying.

Why should I or anyone else automatically assume everything you post is accurate?

Are you infallible?

If you think parasites like Larry Silverstein don't earn their billions by using other people's money and blood, your agenda is not about truth.

It is about slavery.

Yeah, it's all about da' Jooooooooooos, eh, ya' lil' dirtbag?

Look, maybe if you had tried to make something of your life, instead of wallowing in your own self pity, you may have become as successful as Siverstein..........Just think, you wouldn't be rotting away in that ghetto known as the Pico/Union District waiting for your clock to be finally punched after living your self imposed miserable existence. You have no one to blame but yourself for your lot in life.

Still waiting for your BIG break, Malibuuuuuuuu?

Tell me how eight stories of WTC7 fell at free fall speeds for 2.25 seconds WITHOUT explosives?

 

[georgephillip]

your bullshit debwunker video also states that damage from falling debris took ouT 25% of the supports of wtc 7....BUT NIST SAYS DAMAGE PLAYED NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE....so are you debwunking NIST now ??

Nope. Both are true. Yes, I realize that fact probably hurts your widdle truthtard brain, but the damage to the south face of the building had little to do with the collapse that initiated in the northwest area of the building. Was the south face damaged? Yes. Was there structural damage? Yes. Did WTC 7 collapse due to fire? Yes. None of these are mutually exclusive no matter how much that hurts your widdle truthtard brain.

What makes you think the collapse "initiated in the northwest area of the building" since the roof remained level across the entire width of the building?

More from Mr Chandler:

"Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner.

"The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr Chandler's summation:

"“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.

"All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

BuildingWhat?