• What Happened to WTC Building 7 on 9/11?
    1,009 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029161]NIST QUOTE[/QUOTE] That is a misquote, the building could have stood if the damage from the rubble wasn't there, or the fire didn't start. The fire was the primary cause because it weakened the already stressed beams to breaking point [editline]11:24AM[/editline] The heavy bros Teehee and Cccritical debunking conspiracies since 2010. [img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=223057&dateline=1281915524[/img]:respek:[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=229559&dateline=1273473004[/img]
[URL="http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm"]If you think I'm quoting them out of context read it and weep for yourself.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Hostel;25028997]To people such as critical, the statement above is only challenging NIST's conclusion. Most people do realize that in a proper official report, the building was brought down by fires as well structural damage. It's hard to debate stuff like this. You have two sides who really care about their opinion, and it hurts them in the process because they end up accidentally contradicting themselves or presenting evidence (not fact, evidence) that sounds right to themselves because of their opinion, but there is a huge gaping hole on the other side of the argument they don't see.[/QUOTE] to people such as me does it matter if there's a first for everything this is the first time you've addressed or named me, [b]ILLUMINATI[/b] you can't say you're not illuminati because you mentioned me, that is SOLID evidence
Lag double post snip
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;25029272]Lag double post snip[/QUOTE] at this point you guys are just kicking at a dead horse
[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25029317]at this point you guys are just kicking at a dead horse[/QUOTE] stop replying if you're neutral like you say stop replying if you're contributing absolutely nothing stop replying if you've already been banned in this very thread for being a dumb shit [editline]08:27PM[/editline] stop replying
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029267][URL="http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm"]If you think I'm quoting them out of context read it and weep for yourself.[/URL][/QUOTE] And this proves what?
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;25029272]Lag double post snip[/QUOTE] :riker::hf::madmax:
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029267][URL="http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm"]If you think I'm quoting them out of context read it and weep for yourself.[/URL][/QUOTE] Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse. The next paragraph in the same section clearly says that the beams couldn't handle the stress of the lateral load, as they weren't designed for it. I haven't read the NIST report, but somewhere it must surely say something about the damage caused by rubble.
[B]Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?[/B] The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system. They literally themselves acknowledge that it [I][B]was the first known building collapse due to fires alone. [/B][/I]All you facepunchers who continue to try and debunk this point, please, please tell me why the NIST say the same exact thing?
[QUOTE=cccritical;25029343]stop replying if you're neutral like you say stop replying if you're contributing absolutely nothing stop replying if you've already been banned in this very thread for being a dumb shit [editline]08:27PM[/editline] stop replying[/QUOTE] 1st you can be neutral and still give points 2nd i think you guys are kinda contributing nothing at this point because you already proved op wrong and third stop being so stiff
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;25029392]Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse. The next paragraph in the same section clearly says that the beams couldn't handle the stress of the lateral load, as they weren't designed for it. I haven't read the NIST report, but somewhere it must surely say something about the damage caused by rubble.[/QUOTE] You just keep looking for that. What makes this report complete bull is that none of what they said in the report (e.g.: the steel being weakened to the point of collapse) has ever happened before, they even acknowledge that. But the report was put out there and now we're all left scratching our heads thinking: "Well, what the fuck?" :psyduck:
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029393][B]was the first known building collapse due to fires alone. [/B][/QUOTE] That's it? Whoopdefuckingdoo Was your first fap government run? You are a fucking moron if you think that this proves anything what so ever. The first shuttle design blew up, it must have been the government because it never happened before.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029393][B]Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?[/B] The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system. They literally themselves acknowledge that it [I][B]was the first known building collapse due to fires alone. [/B][/I]All you facepunchers who continue to try and debunk this point, please, please tell me why the NIST say the same exact thing?[/QUOTE] NIST says it's collapsed due to fires alone because it's collapsed due to fires alone [editline]08:33PM[/editline] pretty sure
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029393][B]Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?[/B] The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system. They literally themselves acknowledge that it [I][B]was the first known building collapse due to fires alone. [/B][/I]All you facepunchers who continue to try and debunk this point, please, please tell me why the NIST say the same exact thing?[/QUOTE] Are you going to keep bringing this up. You don't take the entire thing, only the parts that matter to you. Just like all theorists relating to this, you pull half truths
well at least we can be sure shukaido isn't a government worker this is definitely not the first time he's talked out of his ass
-Material deemed inappropriate by the NIST has been removed-
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;25029507]Shukaido, can you come up with a single coherent idea which makes any logical sense?[/QUOTE] but then it would be a government conspiracy
So I bring up a completely legitmate point, which as of yet hasn't been rebutted by anyone substantially. I mean, unless facepunch truly think ad hominem responses count.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029523]So I bring up a completely legitmate point, which as of yet hasn't been rebutted by anyone substantially. I mean, unless facepunch truly think ad hominem responses count.[/QUOTE] what was the point again? every time something happens for the first time it's because the government willed it? hahahaha
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029433]You just keep looking for that. What makes this report complete bull is that none of what they said in the report (e.g.: the steel being weakened to the point of collapse) has ever happened before, they even acknowledge that. But the report was put out there and now we're all left scratching our heads thinking: "Well, what the fuck?" :psyduck:[/QUOTE] How many other building had a large chunk of a 110 story building hit them, have that sort of construction, and burned past when the fire protection was guaranteed too?
by the way I could bring up a few times you've been rebutted off a cliff and resorted to "well you're an 09er so your opinion doesn't count" or another ad hominem attack in this thread
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029523]So I bring up a completely legitmate point, which as of yet hasn't been rebutted by anyone substantially. I mean, unless facepunch truly think ad hominem responses count.[/QUOTE] You are a troll, that or your brain capacity is less than Wendy Wright.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029523]So I bring up a completely legitmate point, which as of yet hasn't been rebutted by anyone substantially. I mean, unless facepunch truly think ad hominem responses count.[/QUOTE] You mean apart from the fact you are beating a dead horse, you got caught misquoting, and you put your fingers in your ears and lalalalalala. You are a hypocrite fanatic who will always believe TEH GUVAMNT DEED ET I HAZ TEH HALF TRUTHS THERE WAS FRAUD CASES IN IT TROLOLOLOL
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;25029573]You are a troll, that or your brain capacity is less than Wendy Wright.[/QUOTE] no don't say that it completely breaks all of the factual evidence we've presented him if you insult him in any way it's confirmation that he's right and the government's behind everything :tinfoil:
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;25029555]How many other building had a large chunk of a 110 story building hit them, have that sort of construction, and burned past when the fire protection was guaranteed too?[/QUOTE] Source? All I've seen in the NIST report is that there was severe fire damage on multiple floors that lead to a collapse. There are multiple thousands of engineers and architects who say that couldn't happen without something helping the building go down. They probably know a lot more about structural building integrity than most of facepunch.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029619]Source? All I've seen in the NIST report is that there was severe fire damage on multiple floors that lead to a collapse. There are multiple thousands of engineers and architects who say that couldn't happen without [b]something helping the building go down.[/b] They probably know a lot more about structural building integrity than most of facepunch.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/WTC7_damage.jpg[/img] sorry, can't hear you over the sound of your own denial
I searched ad hominem and realise what I just posted fits, but the point still stand. You won't ever change your mind no matter how hard we trash your argument with reliable sources and proper quoting of sources.
We all know you can't argue with conspiracy theorists, its an inherited problem with them.
that's because there are almost infinite amounts of truther websites with conflicting "evidence" shukaido can rely on if we keep this up, eventually he will have to fall back on scientology and cavemen doing it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.