American Fears Misplaced Post 9/11

[BT]

Um no.  He doesn't.

Um yes he did. He was conversing with fire command. They didn't think they could contain the fire so they would pull from the building.

Or are my ears now liars too?

You can believe what you want.

Never in the history of the WORLD has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.  On 9.11, THREE did.  Go figure.  What are the odds?

So. Steel melts. Or are you saying jet fuel doesn't burn hot?

[Universe Prince]

Never in the history of the WORLD has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.

As I recall, before September 11, 2001, no skyscraper in the history of the world was the impact point for the crash of a Boeing 767 or equivalent aircraft traveling somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 miles per hour. Could be that had something to do with it.

[Universe Prince]

I forgot to mention also that, as best I can determine, September 11, 2001, is the first time in history that any 110 story building with basically a steel tube structure, and with its fire insulation knocked off by the impact of a large passenger jet airplane, suffered 1800+ degree heat. Seems to me that could also have been a contributing factor.

[Amianthus]

Never in the history of the WORLD has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.  On 9.11, THREE did.  Go figure.  What are the odds?

Pretty good.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

(More info about steel frame buildings collapsing due to fire at the link - there were several others before 9/11.)

[Brassmask]

Um no.  He doesn't.

Um yes he did. He was conversing with fire command. They didn't think they could contain the fire so they would pull from the building.

Or are my ears now liars too?

You can believe what you want.

Never in the history of the WORLD has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.  On 9.11, THREE did.  Go figure.  What are the odds?

So. Steel melts. Or are you saying jet fuel doesn't burn hot?

You just can't help yourself, can you?  Once again, you add words to his statements.  He never ONCE said "pull FROM the building". He said they made the decision to PULL THE BUILDING.  That firefighters were out is simply lucky happenstance.

Jet fuel burns hot.  For about 10 seconds.  Then it's gone.  It's not like it's wood, taking long periods of time to burn through.  The jet fuel was gone in ten seconds or less.  And you just keep forgetting or ignoring that steel won't melt till about 2700 degrees and even then it takes a period of time.  Jet fuel (even mixed with office equipment) NEVER burns that hot, let alone for the amount of time it would take for the steel to melt.

And it would NEVER EVER NEVER produce molten steel like kind we see dripping out of a window or the kind that was found under the WTC DAYS after 9.11.


This isn't just some "I hate Bush" crackpot theory.  The facts stand and prove SOMEONE demolished that building.

[BT]

Once again, you add words to his statements.  He never ONCE said "pull FROM the building".

It is all about context. He was discussing fire command. Are you saying the firemen demolished the building?

[Brassmask]

No, I'm saying they were lucky to escape with their lives as opposed to those firemen in WTC 1 and 2 who weren't remotely as lucky to escape being murdered in cold blood.

He was allegedly talking to fire command but that doesn't destroy his plausible denial.  He said they made the decision to "pull the building" but he didn't indicate who "they" were.  No matter how much you would like to imagine it is there, he never utters the word "from" in that statement.

[BT]

He was allegedly talking to fire command but that doesn't destroy his plausible denial.

What plausible denial? You offer him as proof that 7 was a controlled demolition.The statement he makes that you offer as proof is ambiguous at best and contextually says nothing of blowing the building.

Let me know when you have a real smoking gun.

[Brassmask]

Anyone who watches any video of Building 7 sees it as nothing more than a controlled demolition.  What comes out of peoples' mouth and keyboards after watching it is where the disconnect comes in.

Smoking gun provided, the rest is up to you.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6QV6LK8j1Q

[Brassmask]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6QV6LK8j1Q

6 seconds free fall.  No different than something being dropped from the top of that same building.  Does that make any sense to you?

[BT]

He says they decided to pull it in recounting conversations with the FDNY. What is sinister about that?

[Brassmask]

He says they decided to pull it in recounting conversations with the FDNY. What is sinister about that?

It fell in a controlled demolition.  That makes his comments sinister because he said they made the decision to pull it.

[Amianthus]

6 seconds free fall.  No different than something being dropped from the top of that same building.  Does that make any sense to you?

It doesn't make sense. A controlled demolition for a building that size takes longer than 6 seconds.

[BT]

It fell in a controlled demolition.  That makes his comments sinister because he said they made the decision to pull it.

If the fire dept made the decision to demolish the building, do you think they did that with malice aforethought?

[Universe Prince]

Jet fuel burns hot.  For about 10 seconds.  Then it's gone.  It's not like it's wood, taking long periods of time to burn through.  The jet fuel was gone in ten seconds or less.

You got a source for that 10 seconds or less? What I can find says the amount of jet fuel that was there burned for about 10 minutes, more than long enough to set fire to everything else flammable.

And you just keep forgetting or ignoring that steel won't melt till about 2700 degrees and even then it takes a period of time.  Jet fuel (even mixed with office equipment) NEVER burns that hot, let alone for the amount of time it would take for the steel to melt.

And it would NEVER EVER NEVER produce molten steel like kind we see dripping out of a window or the kind that was found under the WTC DAYS after 9.11.

What molten steel? You keep forgetting that no one is claiming the steel melted, except you controlled demolition folks. Steel begins to soften around 1100 degrees, and jet fuel absolutely does burn that hot. The flammable office materials like desks and chairs and whatever else, apparently was enough to get the fire up to 1800+ degrees. Which is more than hot enough to warp the steel. And that warping damaged the structural integrity of the building, hence the collapse.

This isn't just some "I hate Bush" crackpot theory.  The facts stand and prove SOMEONE demolished that building.

No, the facts prove that your controlled demolition theory is completely incorrect.