Rosie O'Donnell, fire does melt steel

blueflame1 wrote:

Propping up? When? Well after the fire it was propped up. That doesn't mean it would have collapsed if not propped up.

That's true. However, it was propped up because of the fear that it might collapse, right? After all, steel beams and girders sagged and twisted, some as much as three feet, merely from a fire fuelled by office materials...

blueflame1 wrote:

Why didn't it fall in it's own footprint immediately after 18 hours of some of the most intense fire in American history.

I think you won't be able to show that this was the most intense fire in American history. Let me make some objections that have been made regarding the WTC towers:

the steel beams were fire-proofed (unlike in the WTC, where the fire-proofing likely came off when hit by a plane)
there wasn't enough air there to fuel the fire (unlike in the WTC towers, which had holes as huge as four to five floors)
there were only burning office materials to fuel the fire (no jet fuel, for example)

See how easy this is? All these arguments have been made regarding the WTC towers. Now, either they are valid or not. In both cases. Right?

blueflame1 wrote:

You need something less lame and more pertaining to WTC than that worthless argument. It's terribly wrong to discount the suspicions of over 70 million Americans who call for new investigations. That number grows with every 911 truth town hall meeting.

Oh, sure. But let me remind you that four years ago, polls repeatedly rendered the result that more than 70 percent of Americans believed that Saddam had had WMD. That's, like, more than 200 million Americans.

So, if numbers of people believing in something alone validate the theory, than the conspiracy has a long way to go to reach even the credibility of Saddam's WMD.

blueflame1 wrote:

In addition it is an international concern and internationally the call is huge.

No, it isn't. Really. People here are merely watching in amazement how Americans fall for one conspiracy theory after the other. First Saddam's alleged WMD, now the government's purported attack on the WTC. Crazy.

blueflame1 wrote:

Incredibly many Americans would accept international investigations.
"45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success"

Oh, I'm not against more investigations. Depending on how you would ask the question, I might fall into the percentage of people arguing for more research. That doesn't mean that I believe in the conspiracy. But I think we can learn a lot about how to prevent this kind of catastrophe in the future.

0 Replies

old europe, to bad you wanna pursue this meaningless comparison. And I think you're really reaching to discredit me using the dumbest stuff imaginable. Like the propping up so far after the fire. Like big deal. That has nothing to do with WTC even remotely. If the buildings had collapsed that might be different but they didn't and according to FEMA's report from that time the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage. "A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC." That is from an earlier post of mine on this thread which you failed to read or read wrong or something. Then you say "I think you won't be able to show that this was the most intense fire in American history". What I said was " some of the most intense fire in American history." The word "some" carefully edited from your quote. Clever editing? Not enough. I got that from the same article you missed, " It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century". So that's what Philidelphia officials, eyewitnesses at the time had to say. "the most significant fire in this century". My statement, " some of the most intense fire in American history" was intentionally understated from the statement of the Philidelphia officials. You're stretched to the limit on this.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

old europe, to bad you wanna pursue this meaningless comparison.

blueflame, I don't understand. Why is it a "meaningless comparison"? I mean, when the 9/11 Truthers use exactly the same comparison, it's all "evidence of the government lying to us" and "obvious facts that the theory they are forwarding is extremely unlikely".

So what is it? Important evidence? Or a meaningless comparison? Hm?

blueflame1 wrote:

And I think you're really reaching to discredit me using the dumbest stuff imaginable.

I'm not trying to discredit you. You are obviously interested in researching this stuff - which is a good thing. All I'm asking you to do is to look at all the facts.

After all, that's what you are preaching, too. Right? That we shouldn't accept some facts, and ignore the others that don't chime?

Well, all I'm asking you to do is the same thing.

Oh yeah, and I don't want to discredit you, I want to discuss this with you. That's the whole point of posting here, isn't it? That's why I'm asking you about your opinion. I mean, if you have good points that you, personally, think are convincing, go ahead and explain them. I'll do the same thing. That's how it works. Like that, I don't have to accept something simply because the 9/11 Truthers say so, and you don't have to accept something simply because the government says so. Fair, innit?

blueflame1 wrote:

Like the propping up so far after the fire. Like big deal. That has nothing to do with WTC even remotely.

Really? I mean, I don't know. But you could argue that the people who did the propping up were afraid enough of a collapse to do so...

And all of that merely because of a fire that was fuelled by office material. And that had not a lot of air coming in from the outside.

So you could ask: would the WTC have collapsed had somebody been able to do the same propping up that had been done at the Meridian? Or vice versa: would the Meridian have collapsed if it hadn't been propped up?

blueflame1 wrote:

If the buildings had collapsed that might be different but they didn't and according to FEMA's report from that time the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

Right, right. I absolutely agree. The beams and girders sagged and twisted, but continued to support their load.

But maybe only because they were all, 100 percent, still in place? I mean, I don't know. Honestly. But what if one percent of the supporting beams had been missing? What about two percent? What about ten percent? Or imagine, if 20 percent of the supporting beams had been missing - do you think it would have collapsed?

blueflame1 wrote:

Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.

Why not? According to the NIST study, the sagging and twisting of steel beams seems to be the key point of why the WTC towers collapsed. The 9/11 Truthers have denied that an office fire, fuelled merely by paper and desks n stuff would be hot enough to ever make fire-proofed steel beams twist and sag.

There was no jet fuel present in the Meridian One. There were no huge holes to supply the fire with lots of fresh air. There were no supporting beams missing.

blueflame1 wrote:

What I said was " some of the most intense fire in American history." The word "some" carefully edited from your quote. Clever editing? Not enough.

Okay. Sorry. I didn't even notice I had done that.

But really, let me ask you: In your opinion, which fire do you think would burn hotter:

a) A fire fuelled by office material, such as paper, desks, maybe clothes... A fire contained within the building, without lots of fresh air coming in...

or

b) A fire fuelled by office material, such as paper, desks, maybe clothes and dozens of tons of kerosene.... A fire in a building that has four story holes in it, which would allow a huge amount of fresh to come in and fan the fire...

What is your opinion?

blueflame1 wrote:

It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century". So that's what Philidelphia officials, eyewitnesses at the time had to say. "the most significant fire in this century". My statement, " some of the most intense fire in American history" was intentionally understated from the statement of the Philidelphia officials. You're stretched to the limit on this.

Why? Do you think that "most significant" is the same as "most intense"? I don't think so.

Let me give you an example.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand could be described as one of the "most significant" assassinations of the 20th century. It was what triggered World War I.
At the same time, calling his assassination the "most intense" would be complete nonsense. Franz Ferdinand was shot in the jugular and, admittedly, took a few minutes to die. But that's nothing close to thousands, maybe even millions of assassinations during the 20th century that were way more "intense".

In short: "most significant" Not Equal

"most intense". I think that's something we can both agree upon.

0 Replies

old europe, it is meaningless in comparison to WTC. If you could only find another such well steeled skyscraper that collapsed as the WTC did 3 times that might be meaningful. There are none in the history of the world. As long as you wanna mix water with oil try this one. "The Madrid Skyscraper Fire" link

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

old europe, it is meaningless in comparison to WTC. If you could only find another such well steeled skyscraper that collapsed as the WTC did 3 times that might be meaningful. There are none in the history of the world. As long as you wanna mix water with oil try this one. "The Madrid Skyscraper Fire" link

blueflame,

this is exactly what I meant earlier. You don't even try to make an argument. All you do is repeat the stuff that has been said by somebody else. You are a follower. You merely repeat.

Why do you not want to discuss the Meridian? Why do you not want to voice your thoughts about it?

That's what you accuse others of, isn't it? That they buy into something that has been forwarded by an entity (the government) without thinking. That they don't look at all the facts - even the ones that don't chime with the theory. That they can't explain the inconsistencies and instead simply ignore them.

You behave more like those you accuse of swallowing propaganda than a lot of other people who at least try to think for themselves, make an argument and voice an opinion of their own.

So, if you really believe in what the 9/11 Truthers say, then why are you so unwilling to discuss the inconsistencies in their theory? Does being a critic mean you can only criticise one theory (the official one) and you have to accept everything without questioning it? Is that what it's about?

Or are you allowed to look at both sides, and question all the arguments that are being made?

0 Replies

old europe, why dont you wanna talk of the Madrid fire? Why do you pretend I haven't discussed the Meridian fire? You got caught editing my words and that tells me everything I need to know about how you "talk". And when caught you slosh it off like it's nothing. It's something I'll tell you. It aint honest but it is cheap, "blueflame1 wrote:
What I said was " some of the most intense fire in American history." The word "some" carefully edited from your quote. Clever editing? Not enough.

Okay. Sorry. I didn't even notice I had done that." I noticed right off. Now the Madrid fire? The Venezualen fire? "9/11 Comparison Fires". where's the inferno

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

old europe, why dont you wanna talk of the Madrid fire?

Oh, we can talk about all the other fires. I just want you to answer four questions with a simple "yes" or "no", and I will drop the Meridian fire.

do you think that office materials alone can fuel a fire hot enough that steel beams will loose their structural integrity - yes or no?
do you think that even fire-proofed steel beams will loose their structural integrity when merely exposed to burning office materials - yes or no?
do you think that there's enough air in an average office tower building to keep a fire burning hot enough to endanger the structural integrity of the whole building - yes or no?
do you think that a high-rise building could loose its structural integrity to the point where it is in danger of collapsing, even when not a single support beam has been knocked out previously - yes or no?

Then you pick the next topic. How about it?

0 Replies

old europe, what the Madrid fire, Venezuelan Fire and Meridian fire show is that if a fire burns long enough and hot enough it can twist and warp steel. But not enough to cause those buildings to collapse. Them were some real fires there. No collapse.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

I just want you to answer four questions with a simple "yes" or "no", and I will drop the Meridian fire.

do you think that office materials alone can fuel a fire hot enough that steel beams will loose their structural integrity - yes or no?

do you think that even fire-proofed steel beams will loose their structural integrity when merely exposed to burning office materials - yes or no?

do you think that there's enough air in an average office tower building to keep a fire burning hot enough to endanger the structural integrity of the whole building - yes or no?

do you think that a high-rise building could loose its structural integrity to the point where it is in danger of collapsing, even when not a single support beam has been knocked out previously - yes or no?

Then we can discuss the Madrid or the Venezuelan fire. How about it?

0 Replies

The difference is very obvious. In the case of the WTC, not only did the impact of the airplanes do serious structural damage, but the fuel caused fires far hotter than fires which occur when the contents of a high-rise structure burn. Even in extraordinary circumstances, ordinary fires will not necessarily undermine the structural integrity of a building. On July 18, 1945, a Mitchell B25 bomber flew into the Empire State building. It damaged some of the support beams on the 78th and 79th floors, and 14 people were killed (three aircrew and 11 people in the building), and 26 were injured. The aircraft spilled gasoline which lead to a fire doing an estimated half-million dollars of damage to the interior of the building (this included damage to neighboring buildings, including a sculpture studio, in which a great deal of the damages were alleged to have been incurred--the United States Army Air Force settle for just over a quarter of a million dollars in damage). However, the high-octane aviation gasoline did not produce a fire which raged out of control, and the aircraft had struck a corner of the building as the pilot seems to have attempted to bank away (unsuccessfully). Four New York Fire Department companies responded, and got the fire under control.

The difference in the size and weight of the airliners as compared to the B25 is enormous. A fully-fueled B25 weighs on the order of ten tons. A Boeing 767-200, empty (but fueled), weighs more than 85 tons, and it's maximum take-off weight is more than 150 tons. With the passenger loads, luggage and fuel, the two Beoings which hit the world trade center each easily weighed 100 tons, more than ten times as much as the B25--there is simply no comparison for the structural damage done by the impact alone. Each of these aircraft had a fuel capacity of almost 24,000 U.S. standard gallons of highly flamable jet fuel, which burns rapidly and very hot--to put that into perspective, fully-fueled, each aircraft is carrying more than 70 tons of fuel. By comparison, a B25 carried 670 U. S. Standard gallons of high-octane gasoline--in combat, it carried auxiliary wing tanks holding an additional 300 gallons, but the plane which flew into the Empire State Building was not carrying wing tanks. So the WTC towers were each doused with more than 30 times as much fuel as was poured into the Empire State Building in 1945.

That anyone cannot see just how crucially important the fires in the WTC were is astounding to me. Of the more than 16,000 people who were in the towers below the impact points, nearly all of them escaped. That is an enormous tribute to the structural integrity of a building which sustained such damage, and in view of the survival of the North Tower in the 1993 bombing attempt. Basically, almost all of the September 11th conspircay theorizing i have seen is based upon the irrational hatred which so many people have for the Shrub and his administration.

0 Replies

Them South Tower fires called for two little hoses and were contained according to firemen caught on tape by the NYFD. But hey who cares what the firemen on the scene said in real time? The government's theory was said to be of low probability by FEMA. But hey who cares if 2 government agencies disagree? I'll give the government's case high points for humor though. They're a barrel of laughs. "Crash-Proof Passport"
Hijacker's Passport and a Landing Gear Fragment Alone Survive Fiery Crash

This illustration from Chapter 1 of FEMA's report shows what few pieces of aircraft debris passed entirely through the Towers. A charred fragment of landing gear on the intersection of West and Rector streets was the only piece they traced to Flight 11.
According to ABC News and the Associated Press, the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami was found a few blocks from the WTC. 1 2 The Guardian was skeptical: "the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged [tests] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism." 3 Note the passport did not belong to Atta, as is commonly claimed.

Satam Al Suqami was supposedly on Flight 11, the plane that hit the North Tower. In that collision, the building's core absorbed almost the entire airplane, which hit the northeast wall nearly dead center. yukyukyuk I wont ask for explanations from the believers of the government's theories just take it as a Divine sign.

0 Replies

The fact that a passport survived unscathed does not surprise me at all.
I have found childrens books,letters and even a marriage license in the debris of house fires,and all of the paper in those objects was completely unscathed.

Bf,if you knew half as much about the nature of fire as you like to think you do,then you would know that having a passport survive is not unusual at all.

0 Replies

mysteryman, like I said yukyukyuk. 2 pieces of wreckage were found. One a more pristine than a magic bullet passport. I pass it off as a sign maybe of a coming rapture. How bout this though? Any questions for the government? "Claim Officials Obstructed Justice and Destroyed Vital Evidence in WTC Investigation"
Why did FEMA quickly ship steel out before prying eyes could look in? Independent 911 investigators claim structural steel was hurriedly shipped overseas and sold for recycling in order to cover-up hard evidence of government involvement in a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. But the 911 Commission turned a deaf ear to this theory, essentially "rubber stamping" the official story that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers.
1 Dec 2004

By Greg Szymanski

The government remains steadfast in its claim burning jet fuel caused the Twin Towers to collapse like a "house of cards" even though mounting evidence makes it clear that position makes little sense.

Critics, angered by the improbable theory, claim the official story is flimsy, unsupported by the facts and as far-fetched as a forest fire in the middle of the Mojave Desert.

Instead of burning jet fuel, independent investigators said the towers fell in a matter of seconds - within its own footprints - by a well planned, controlled demolition.

However, the 911 Commission's sees it differently, essentially "rubber stamping " the official story. Angry critics want the Commission to reopen hearings, but silently claim it will do little good.

But if you really want to raise eyebrows, mention the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and it's like throwing a can of gasoline on the flames to put out the fire.

Instead of coming to the rescue, critics suggest FEMA acted like it owned Ground Zero, controlling the clean-up, concealing the debris and quickly shipping the structural steel overseas for recycling before it could have been used as evidence.

To add more fuel to the fire, a recent federal lawsuit has put FEMA's actions under scrutiny by alleging obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence related to a mass murder investigation.

The question must then be asked:

If officials were really serious about getting at the truth behind the collapse, why did they control, conceal and hide critical evidence in such a methodical fashion?

The following is a compilation of facts from various experts who try to explain how the towers fell:
link

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

But the 911 Commission turned a deaf ear to this theory, essentially "rubber stamping" the official story that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers.
1 Dec 2004

Old crap that is pretty easily disputed with the NIST report that was release in 2006.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

I guess this answers the question of whether you would accept new reports or not when compared to old complaints.

0 Replies

parados, FEMA concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." That's what tens of millions of Americans agree with, "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." Like Matlock used to say he only has to prove reasonable doubt. Even FEMA has reasonable doubt and calls for further investigations. Zogby says over 70 million Americans have reasonable doubt about the government's 911 theories. So does the government itself through FEMA. Those who oppose new investigations ignore a mountain of legit unanswered questions for some reason or other which escapes me completely. Certainly there is reasonable doubt to the government's theories. 70 million Americans have reasonable doubt not because they hate Bushie or are anti-American but because of the shoddiness of the NIST investigation combines with questions and evidence raised by highly qualified, highly educated and widely respected scientists.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

parados, FEMA concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." That's what tens of millions of Americans agree with, "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." Like Matlock used to say he only has to prove reasonable doubt. Even FEMA has reasonable doubt and calls for further investigations. Zogby says over 70 million Americans have reasonable doubt about the government's 911 theories. So does the government itself through FEMA. Those who oppose new investigations ignore a mountain of legit unanswered questions for some reason or other which escapes me completely. Certainly there is reasonable doubt to the government's theories. 70 million Americans have reasonable doubt not because they hate Bushie or are anti-American but because of the shoddiness of the NIST investigation combines with questions and evidence raised by highly qualified, highly educated and widely respected scientists.

And the NIST prelimary report says FEMA didn't have all the information. The primary piece being the amount of structural damage to the front of WTC7. You keep bringing up FEMA while ignoring the research and statements since then.

0 Replies

It's hard to imagine that there is actually 16 pages of cogent debate on this topic. I got through the first three on a Blackberry and gave up.

If I'm restating someone's opinion, I apologize:

While I have never been inclined to believe in vast governmental conspiracies, there is one reason I am certain that this one is nonsense. The government can not keep anything secret. It may try, but it, clearly, cannot. To imagine that this could have been pulled off without someone involved spilling the beans to the NY Times is just not possible.

Rosie is clearly not a happy person.Somehow, in this Jerry Springer world of ours she has been able to translate her self-absorbed hang-ups into millions.

Does anyone (of intelligence) really care what Rosie thinks?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It's hard to imagine that there is actually 16 pages of cogent debate on this topic. I got through the first three on a Blackberry and gave up.

If I'm restating someone's opinion, I apologize:

While I have never been inclined to believe in vast governmental conspiracies, there is one reason I am certain that this one is nonsense. The government can not keep anything secret. It may try, but it, clearly, cannot. To imagine that this could have been pulled off without someone involved spilling the beans to the NY Times is just not possible.

Rosie is clearly not a happy person.Somehow, in this Jerry Springer world of ours she has been able to translate her self-absorbed hang-ups into millions.

Does anyone (of intelligence) really care what Rosie thinks?

Not I!

The only conspiracy theory with any validity to it is the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose); as it requires the absolute least amount of actual actions taken on behalf of the government, i.e., nothing at all. There's nothing to hide, no secrets, because they simply chose not to respond to a possible threat.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Finn, lots people agree with Rosie that the government's theory raises questions that need answering. New investigations is a mainstream desire.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Finn, lots people agree with Rosie that the government's theory raises questions that need answering. New investigations is a mainstream desire.

blue

Lots of people believe that Uri Gellar could bend spoons with his mind.

Lots of people believe in angels intervening in human affairs.

Lots of people believe that TV psychics can talk to the dead.

Lots of people believe the Holocaust never really happened.

Lots of people believe Christopher Columbus was the first outsider to visit the New World.

Lots of people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the sole assassin of JFK.

Lots of people believe that a group known as The Illuminati control world politics.

Lots of people believe that it's foolish to swim in the ocean because of the possibility of shark attacks.

Lots of people believe they will win a Lottery.

Lots of people believe very silly things. When it becomes a fact that such silly beliefs have become "mainstream," it will not invest credence in the silly things, but despair in our regard for rational thought.

One the one hand there is the perfectly believable explanation that a gang of Muslim extremists carried out a plot that became 9-11. On the other hand there is the perfectly far-fetched belief that the American government engineered this tragedy.

Why do you find the latter so convincing?

No matter how many times scientists prove that the so-called "magic bullet" of the JFK assassination was entirely possible, the conspiracy theorists cling to it as proof of their zany notions.

In a perverse sense, I would love to believe that our government was capable of executing the highly complex plot you suggest AND keeping it secret. If they were that good, we would unquestionably rule the world.

I come back to the central question of this thread: Why do you and others find it more credible that our own government would engineer a horrific tragedy like than 9/11, than the most obvious and universally accepted explanation?

Do you feel some sort of superiority for having pierced the veil of governmental conspiracy?

What drives these crazy notions?

0 Replies

Rosie O'Donnell, fire does melt steel

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know