It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Where Did the Towers Go?

page: 14
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in


posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:18 PM
Good to see you here sir.
I just hope this version brings more to the table then the same ole same ole

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:27 PM
I hope you were referencing my post...

I quote my earlier posts a lot (?) because in many cases I am the only voice out there not mumbling the same-old-same-old

if you didn't mean the spin/content of my post --- then we will just have to" let-it-be"

more ingredients for the cauldron of ATS stew is all it amounts to friend

reply to: DogMeat

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 01:57 AM
a reply to: Sremmos80

I have been away for a few days will reply to your post later today.

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 02:12 AM

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: wmd_2008

Is there any context to those pictures of steel? Lol, what's your deal? This is like the 4th time in this thread where you either post a quote or picture with no context. There's a story behind those beams you posted and I'd like to read it

I thought a picture was worth a 1000 words.

The top picture is the result of a building fire in which 2 steel beams buckled by the fire are supported on the charred remains of a wooden beam.

The bottom shows a Glulam Timber beam and a steel beam after a fire test.

You see timber protects itself with the charred outer layer it's like a natural intumescent coating.

The whole point was to show that YOU and others make assumptions on here about how construction materials work because you believe any BS internet 9/11 sites claim , the funny thing is half the people that post on those sites the most technical question they would ask anyone during the day is "do you want fries with that" or "who has the stapler".

Some info.

Glulam Beams

From above.

Wood has a greater tensile strength relative to steel – two times on a strength-to-weight basis – and has a greater compressive resistance strength than concrete


From above

An intumescent is a substance that swells as a result of heat exposure, thus increasing in volume and decreasing in density. Intumescents are typically used in passive fire protection and, in the U.S., require listing and approval use and compliance in their installed configurations in order to comply with the law

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:08 AM
a reply to: wmd_2008

Oh come on - that's hardly a context for the pictures. Anywho - NIST couldn't recreate their hypothesis in the physical realm so they took it to the simulated world and still failed. So your pictures, which still have no "real" context, aren't helping this conversation. But you're diligent, I'll give you that..

posted on May, 8 2014 @ 01:41 AM
a reply to: Sremmos80

I find it hard to believe the construction community and all those architects and engineers didn't think about fire when they built the buildings..
Or how fire reacts to the buildings when it does occur.

They didn't do calculations to the same level as seismic or wind loads simple assumptions were made to how it would effect the steel and just because YOU don't beleive something doesn't mean it's not true.

Seems like this is focused on 911, so in that regard can we use it to any other building? Thought no other building ever can compare to any of the towers on 911?

Why do you think that was done you really do need everything explained in great detail, when that happened they were the largest buildings of there type to have a high level fire and because of the result building codes were changed and a more detailed approach to thremal loadings due to fire has been taken.

So this report takes what NIST had to say as gospel is seems and what they had to say was bunk science lol
No wonder you are all about this.

Sorry, seems like another company paid to further push the story nist wants out there.

This one quote shows that either you didn't read the report or it simply went over your head.

For example

After a major program of research and development in the UK by Edinburgh University, Sheffield University, BRE, CORUS, Imperial College, Arup Fire, FEDRA, et al, designers have the ability to analyse real structural response to fire.

We used computer modelling to predict the whole frame load carrying mechanisms in fire. These were catenary action in the beams and tensile membrane action in the slab supported by cooler edge beams and columns.

This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amountof fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse.

You should have another read through it.

Ya so stop posting these crazy list with crazy guidelines as to what can be compared to the wtc towers

Of course you have to compare the structures and what happened to them,give a reason why you wouldn't.

If you lived in an area prone to earthquakes and you were given a choice to work/stay in buildings designed to resist them or buildings that wouldn't what would you choose.

The fires they show are buildings of different construction, they had no structural damage due to aircraft impact and if you actually made the effort to find the reports on the buildings/fires you would see the difference.

Thanks for the 2 most posted photos ever for wtc 7, well SW corner damage link is dead but I know what you are getting at.

As for the one with smoke, that is not just wtc7.. You do know wtc 5 is right below that right and it was burning and smoking as well right?
Yes some of it is coming from 7, just not all of that smoke. Makes the picture look worse then it really was.

So BUILDING 5 was right below it REALLY

Where there is smoke .....

Care to explain how fire from building 5 would travel horizontally along the street then vertically up the face of ONLY WTC 7, building 6 was the closest what happened to it.

Again the FIRES were reported by the NYFD so again are you calling those guy's LIARS

edit on 8-5-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2014 @ 01:58 AM
a reply to: wmd_2008

t is our view that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s (NIST) report into the events of 9-11 is a critically
important document for tall building design worldwide.

Huh, weird how they say it is critically important ...
You go on yo quote where they find the fire protection different they what NIST thought, doesn't change the fact they are taking NIST report into wtc 7 as a critically important document, which is filled with BS.

Again I understand that all the towers on that list were not the same, but they were similar. Yes towers 1 and 2 had a 0000.1% event happen to them, WTC 7 did not have that. And that is why the list is dedicated to 7, not 1 and 2

I will put my foot in my mouth and admit i made a mistake and meant to put wtc 6 was adding to the smoke of 7.
I notice you avoided my other questions tho....
When was that picture you posted taken, and how long was that smoke like that for? Care to find me another picture of that amount of smoke hours later??

AGAIN, I know the NYFD reported fires, I am not saying there was not fires.
What I am saying is who saw these uncontroalbe fires that burned for 6 hours?
Cause it sure as heck wasn't the fires that were coming out the windows....
Firefighters were not in the building so they could not have seen them.
What is the proof that fires burnt for 6 hours uncontrollably?

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 01:43 AM
a reply to: Sremmos80

Will be back on later a little clue for you watch the videos!

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:34 AM

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Bedlam

No you're not picking up mass either as the floors fall. What weight was added to the building for this mass gain you speak of?

As each floor lets go under the impact and falls, its mass is added to the weight that's coming down. No weight need be added 'to the building'. One floor falling becomes two, then three until you have a huge amount of mass crashing down. The tiny bit that's lost as ejecta is trivial.

Yeah, the problem with that is that all of those falling floors (mass) has been reduced to a fine dust.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:29 PM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID
I will be following the thread as well.

What seems more amazing to me is not so much
what has already been exposed and researched but
how it is so many people seem not to care!

Rebel 5

edit on 14-5-2014 by rebelv because: syntax

top topics

<< 11  12  13   >>

log in