Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And what does the impact have to do with the building falling,the official reason it fell was because of fire. now again when has a building fell because of fire?
Thats a great example on how their explanation is full of holes.In the martial law video,they show buildings that had been burning in some foreign country,cant remember which one exactly.But it had been burning for days and yet the building never fell from it.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How does that change the fact, they were both on fire?
Because it changes the basic reasons for the collapse, something so obvious I am amazed you need to have it pointed out to you.
Again- the WTC collapsed because of a fire following a jet strike. Not just a fire on its own. That is the difference.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Exactly that. The strength of the steel holding up the WTC has severely weakened by the widespread fire at many levels.Combined with the fact that a huge chunk of the upper sections had been torn away from the impact, this was enough to create a point where the collapse started.
Despite the fact it was designed to sway, and jet fuel can't melt steel.
Tell me why wasn't the steel of buildings which burned much longer than the wtc weakened?
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Thats a great example on how their explanation is full of holes.In the martial law video,they show buildings that had been burning in some foreign country,cant remember which one exactly.But it had been burning for days and yet the building never fell from it.
Had a plane hit it? Were great chunks of its superstructure missing because of the impact? Had the fire insulation on the girders been torn away by impact? Was burning jet fuel going down the shafts with such speed and ferocity that a lobby 80 floors below the impact point felt the fire?
Are you acquinted with basic logic?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
A link? I dont have one BUT, Look at the blitz, fire caused alot of bulidings to fall over, why? Because the roof supports caught fire, thats right wood, and then the the roof caved, so did the floors and it pulls down the house with it leaving maybe only half a wall left...
Were they steel buildings, because no steel building has ever fallen due to fire untill 911 magically.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Despite the fact it was designed to sway, and jet fuel can't melt steel.Tell me why wasn't the steel of buildings which burned much longer than the wtc weakened?
How many times do I have to say this about the steel?
The steel did not melt. The steel was weakened beyond its capacity to keep up the building. Steel loses half of its strength at temperatures much lower than that of the aviation fuel fire.
And they did not collapse because they were a. built differently and b. not weakened by a whacking great explosive object flying into them first.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
How many times do I have to say this about the steel?The steel did not melt. The steel was weakened beyond its capacity to keep up the building. Steel loses half of its strength at temperatues much lower than that of the aviation fuel fire.
And they did not collapse because they were a. built differently and b. not weakened by a whacking great explosive object flying into them first.
So my question again, so many steel buildings were set a flame and burned much longer than the wtc, so why didn't steel weaken then?
Because it knocked out the fire insulation and removed a huge part of the building where it hit! How can you NOT see that as making a difference?
The important difference is how the fire contributed. The section where the plane hit was going to collapse. Why? Because a damn jet plane hit it! But the fire had so weakened the steel structure that when that section collapsed, the lower sections could not take the stress of the collapse, so they went as well. And so on.
Hey, wait a sec!
So, the plane crashes and that, regardless of what you say, will weaken the supports, then the fire further weakens the improperly fire-proofed girders, then the supports are unable to support all the weight on top of it...so?
The girders give way, the top of the building crashes down on the levels on fire and the impact of a quater of a building then destroys everything below it, thats how you get that, perfect demolution type effect!
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Bevause it knocked out the fire insulation and removed a huge part of the building where it hit! How can you NOT see that as making a differnece?
And again when has fire ever weaken steel to the point of collapse?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The important difference is how the fire contributed. The section where the plane hit was going to collapse. Why? Because a damn jet plane hit it! But the fire had so weakened the steel structure that when that section collapsed, the lower sections could not take the stress of the collapse, so they went as well. And so on.
And the building was designed to sway,otherwise it would have toppled over. after the plain hits the building it's no longer a factor.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And again when has fire ever weaken steel to the point of collapse?And the building was designed to sway,otherwise it would have toppled over. after the plain hits the building it's no longer a factor.
Yes it IS a factor! What is wrong with you? The section where the plane hit collapsed! Because the damn plane hit it! It doesn;t matter about 'sway' or any other nonsense. That plane smashed out huge parts of the building. Those bits were going to collapse sooner or later.
And WHEN they collapsed, the floors underneath could not take the impact because the fires had wekaned their steel structure.
I've explained this, in full, twice now. For the love of all that is sensible, read me properly this time.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtarfear
are you stalking me?
Yes.
No, I occasionally venture into this cesspool of a thread to see what implausibilities and paranoia Deano has come up with recently. Apparently you've decided to be Deano for a day. It's really no substitute for the real thing.
Originally posted by UshgarakIndeed.
I've explained this, in full, twice now. For the love of all that is sensible, read me properly this time.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Hey, wait a sec!So, the plane crashes and that, regardless of what you say, will weaken the supports
The plane was designed to sway
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
, then the fire further weakens the improperly fire-proofed girders, then the supports are unable to support all the weight on top of it...so?
When has fire ever weakened a steel building causing it to collapse.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The girders give way, the top of the building crashes down on the levels on fire and the impact of a quater of a building then destroys everything below it, thats how you get that, perfect demolution type effect!
The girders give away why, because the steel magically weakens, despite the fact no fire has ever weakend a steel building to the point of collapse.