It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ground Zero Footage

page: 17
56
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot
This is a lot of bluster from a guy that can't provide any evidence.

I Find it sad that this is the sorry state of today's truthers. Back in the day, you could actually learn something discussing things with truthers.

Nowadays, we get this.

People that don't understand, or choose to ignore, that a statement of insulation missing on "numerous floors" doesn't trump a statement that the insulation was present in the '75 fire.

You have indeed chosen your handle well....



well lets see .

we have now established fire cant bring down the towers

therefore nists assertion that




(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.


(not jet fuel fires, BUT jet fuel ignited fires)

once they were ignited they were just offices fires ala 1975

fires which couldnt bring down the towers

making the os false
edit on pm920143011America/ChicagoSun, 28 Sep 2014 23:33:12 -0500_9u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

We still see that you have no evidence that trumps the direct statements proving the presence of fire protection on the steel in the areas affected in the '75 fire.

Everybody sees your fail.

Everybody sees that my statements still stand.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

But the structure did not collapse and there was no damage to the steel structure after the fire on the 11th floor. This means that particular floor was properly protected at the time. Is this clear yet? 1+1=2. Fire protection was adequate on that floor area at that time. No mention of lack of fireproofing at that time.

Your smugness is noted. But it does not counter facts. For some reason, your train of logic goes 1+1=11. It is suppose to be 1+1=2. I dont know how you keep make the wrong turn on the road of logic.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
[

therefore nists assertion that




(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.


(not jet fuel fires, BUT jet fuel ignited fires)

once they were ignited they were just offices fires ala 1975

fires which couldnt bring down the towers

making the os false



We all see your fail again.

My statements still hold true.

Steel structures can fail if:

1- the fires aren't fought
2- the steel lacks its passive protection

The towers lacked both.

1- the FF never got there, and the standpipes were cut by the plane impacts
2- the passive fire protection was knocked off by the plane impacts

More bluster from you, rather than evidence, proves that you are aware of your illogic.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot
a reply to: Another_Nut

We still see that you have no evidence that trumps the direct statements proving the presence of fire protection on the steel in the areas affected in the '75 fire.


just quote after quote from the inspector

u know the guy who said

..well all my quotes proving u wrong



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

established fire cannot bring down a building (I assume you meant a steel structure).


If I were you, I'd read fire safety manuals. Boy oh boy, I'd love to see you make your case to actual professionals that work on fire safety and keeping building safely protected.

If fire cannot affect steel structures, why are they so adamant to fireproof them?

(Id be scared to enter any building you'd be advising fire safety for)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut
[

therefore nists assertion that




(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.


(not jet fuel fires, BUT jet fuel ignited fires)

once they were ignited they were just offices fires ala 1975

fires which couldnt bring down the towers

making the os false



We all see your fail again.

My statements still hold true.

Steel structures can fail if:

1- the fires aren't fought
2- the steel lacks its passive protection

The towers lacked both.

1- the FF never got there, and the standpipes were cut by the plane impacts
2- the passive fire protection was knocked off by the plane impacts

More bluster from you, rather than evidence, proves that you are aware of your illogic.


did u just say that




Steel structures can fail if:

1- the fires aren't fought
2- the steel lacks its passive protection

The towers lacked both.


if the north tower lacked both then it should have failed in 75

lol

thanks



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

No, you are cherry picking and twisting his quotes into something completely different. There is a big difference. Selective memory and selectively picked quotes out of context are no match for facts.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Way to jump the chasm there from reality to "La la land".

I can see critical thinking and logic are not your strong points.

I can see your logic at work here:

Steel is stronger than ice. Ice melts and can be broken easily. Therefore, the Titanic did NOT sink from an iceberg.

Wow! It is the same in every way to a tee!
edit on 9/28/2014 by GenRadek because: spell



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek

a reply to :lexyghot

refusal to accept evidence

is not a lack of evidence

good luck guys

u will need it
edit on pm920143011America/ChicagoSun, 28 Sep 2014 23:40:48 -0500_9000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Sorry but your backward logic is what is most troubling. Your refusal to think critically is most troubling.

But I guess in your world, the Titanic didnt sink from ice hitting it. After all, steel is stronger than ice. This is your logic. That type of logic makes my head hurt.

Selectively ignoring facts is what you are doing. what you have done this whole time. You refuse to accept facts and evidence. You ignore the evidence that proves you are WRONG. If this is how you want to go on through life, well, good luck. You are seriously gonna need it.
edit on 9/28/2014 by GenRadek because: edit to add



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Another_Nut

Selectively ignoring facts is what you are doing. what you have done this whole time. You refuse to accept facts and evidence. You ignore the evidence that proves you are WRONG. If this is how you want to go on through life, well, good luck. You are seriously gonna need it.


funny,based on how u ignore the person who actually inspected the north tower for fireproofing

i was gonna say the same about u



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Another_Nut

established fire cannot bring down a building (I assume you meant a steel structure).


If I were you, I'd read fire safety manuals. Boy oh boy, I'd love to see you make your case to actual professionals that work on fire safety and keeping building safely protected.

If fire cannot affect steel structures, why are they so adamant to fireproof them?

(Id be scared to enter any building you'd be advising fire safety for)


I would be afraid to enter any building where some fluff sprayed on iron was the only thing keeping the structure from collapsing into a pile off rubble in the event of an office fire.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: Another_Nut

Sorry but your backward logic is what is most troubling. Your refusal to think critically is most troubling.

But I guess in your world, the Titanic didnt sink from ice hitting it. After all, steel is stronger than ice. This is your logic. That type of logic makes my head hurt.

Selectively ignoring facts is what you are doing. what you have done this whole time. You refuse to accept facts and evidence. You ignore the evidence that proves you are WRONG. If this is how you want to go on through life, well, good luck. You are seriously gonna need it.


Have you even READ the NIST report?? It is all theory and you claim to ignore it is to ignore EVIDENCE?? There were not even known floor plans for all but 1 floor affected in 2 WTC. They guessed the entire layout of the floor when simulating the fire. It is all MADE UP.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut
[

therefore nists assertion that




(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.


(not jet fuel fires, BUT jet fuel ignited fires)

once they were ignited they were just offices fires ala 1975

fires which couldnt bring down the towers

making the os false



We all see your fail again.

My statements still hold true.

Steel structures can fail if:

1- the fires aren't fought
2- the steel lacks its passive protection

The towers lacked both.

1- the FF never got there, and the standpipes were cut by the plane impacts
2- the passive fire protection was knocked off by the plane impacts

More bluster from you, rather than evidence, proves that you are aware of your illogic.


did u just say that




Steel structures can fail if:

1- the fires aren't fought
2- the steel lacks its passive protection

The towers lacked both.


if the north tower lacked both then it should have failed in 75

lol

thanks


Ok, I think I see the disconnect here.

What we are saying is that it doesn't matter if the passive fire protection is absent on a floor that also isn't on fire. So if the fire is on floor 11, then it doesn't matter that it was absent on floor, say 20, if there wasn't any fire on that floor. it only matters if it was absent on the floors that were on fire.

I really didn't think that this needed explaining, but once again, I've neglected to factor in who I'm talking to.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


I would be afraid to enter any building where some fluff sprayed on iron was the only thing keeping the structure from collapsing into a pile off rubble in the event of an office fire.


That's certainly your choice.

But all steel buildings more than a couple of stories (I don't know the building code) have some sort of passive fire protection. They usually also have sprinklers. And are also usually fought by the fire dept.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut
[

therefore nists assertion that




(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.


(not jet fuel fires, BUT jet fuel ignited fires)

once they were ignited they were just offices fires ala 1975

fires which couldnt bring down the towers

making the os false



We all see your fail again.

My statements still hold true.

Steel structures can fail if:

1- the fires aren't fought
2- the steel lacks its passive protection

The towers lacked both.

1- the FF never got there, and the standpipes were cut by the plane impacts
2- the passive fire protection was knocked off by the plane impacts

More bluster from you, rather than evidence, proves that you are aware of your illogic.


did u just say that




Steel structures can fail if:

1- the fires aren't fought
2- the steel lacks its passive protection

The towers lacked both.


if the north tower lacked both then it should have failed in 75

lol

thanks


Ok, I think I see the disconnect here.

What we are saying is that it doesn't matter if the passive fire protection is absent on a floor that also isn't on fire. So if the fire is on floor 11, then it doesn't matter that it was absent on floor, say 20, if there wasn't any fire on that floor. it only matters if it was absent on the floors that were on fire.

I really didn't think that this needed explaining, but once again, I've neglected to factor in who I'm talking to.


We all see the disconnect

If the fireproofing was absent in numerous places on say floor 1 through say 38th floor

Then a fire on say floors 9 through 11 would have collapsed the towers

eta especially when those numerous places include where nist said collapse was initated like...


This frequently results in thin or absent fireproofing on surfaces hidden from the floor by the bottom of steel members (photo 2)

or here


These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets

or, most importantly here


Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall.

that would be the exact place where nist asserts the collapses were initiated
from NIST:


This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.


o and that he disagrees with FEMAS assertions o the fireproofing of the
towers, like here


Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers


so got any evidence what the inspector says was false?

or ANY evidence to back up ANY of your claims?


edit on am920143011America/ChicagoMon, 29 Sep 2014 11:29:52 -0500_9000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


I would be afraid to enter any building where some fluff sprayed on iron was the only thing keeping the structure from collapsing into a pile off rubble in the event of an office fire.


That's certainly your choice.

But all steel buildings more than a couple of stories (I don't know the building code) have some sort of passive fire protection. They usually also have sprinklers. And are also usually fought by the fire dept.



Number of stories is irrelevant. It could be a 2 story or 100 stories. If there was another occupied space above is the only purpose. In other words, insurance purposes.

Fire rated materials are about as reliable as an energy star on your appliance. You pay for the sticker, nobody inspects if it is really doing it's job. The difference between a 20min fire rated door and a 2 hour is nothing more than a sticker and $300 more. It is a cash-grab.

Shortly after 9/11, inspectors required the 'Blaze shield' spray to be applied thicker. We all got q kick out of it, like it was really going to male a difference. It sucked for me because I have to scrape that stuff off to fasten my wall tracks and to hang ceiling hangers.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


I would be afraid to enter any building where some fluff sprayed on iron was the only thing keeping the structure from collapsing into a pile off rubble in the event of an office fire.


That's certainly your choice.

But all steel buildings more than a couple of stories (I don't know the building code) have some sort of passive fire protection. They usually also have sprinklers. And are also usually fought by the fire dept.



Number of stories is irrelevant. It could be a 2 story or 100 stories. If there was another occupied space above is the only purpose. In other words, insurance purposes.



Um, no.

Passive fire protection isn't applied for insurance purposes. It's applied cuz it's well known, except in truther circles apparently, that steel fails pretty quickly in a fire.

it's there to prevent a quick collapse from the fires and allows the occupants to get out and the FD to get in and start fighting the fires.

It's really just that simple.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


I would be afraid to enter any building where some fluff sprayed on iron was the only thing keeping the structure from collapsing into a pile off rubble in the event of an office fire.


That's certainly your choice.

But all steel buildings more than a couple of stories (I don't know the building code) have some sort of passive fire protection. They usually also have sprinklers. And are also usually fought by the fire dept.



Number of stories is irrelevant. It could be a 2 story or 100 stories. If there was another occupied space above is the only purpose. In other words, insurance purposes.



Um, no.

Passive fire protection isn't applied for insurance purposes. It's applied cuz it's well known, except in truther circles apparently, that steel fails pretty quickly in a fire.

it's there to prevent a quick collapse from the fires and allows the occupants to get out and the FD to get in and start fighting the fires.

It's really just that simple.


Steel fails quickly does it? Yeah, I don't know any truthers only people in construction.

What is "quickly"? An hour? 2 hours? A day?

In a steel frame warehouse construction the under side of the roof and trusses are not sprayed. Fire fighters want the fire to burn through the roof so the fire fighters can put it out from the top down. I don't think it is their intentions to collapse the roof trusses in a fire and there is no attempted to fire protect the roof trusses.
edit on 29-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)








It seems like an exercise in futility to spend all thay money building a warehouse space and then NOT fire protect the trusses when it is so "well known" that steel fails in a fire.


edit on 29-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
56
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join