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: 19
56
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


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 think you are lying here and making this up.


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.


Fire codes are different for warehouses vs multi story office buildings.

However, if you need evidence that a single story, non fire protected warehouse building can collapse after a very short time of fire, I can provide links that prove it.





After you said this:




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. 


You better be prepared to show EVERY warehouse with iron structure fail in a fire because of no fluff sprayed on the trusses and columns. It never is, so I guess EVERY one of them collapsed that were involved in a fire.

Ya buddy, I'm lying. Fire fighters would rather run blind through a 3'×7' man door into a warehouse chemical fire than put it out through the roof.

Your not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?




posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


You better be prepared to show EVERY warehouse with iron structure fail in a fire because of no fluff sprayed on the trusses and columns. It never is, so I guess EVERY one of them collapsed that were involved in a fire.


So now every one must collapse? Why is that?

My statement is that it's a fact that steel structures can collapse from fire alone if there's no SFRM. I'm not saying that every one MUST collapse. However truthers have been saying all along, for years now, that fire can't affect steel. Ever. that's insane cuz you then need to explain just why SFRM exists. Just saying "for insurance reasons" doesn't cut it cuz it doesn't lay out those reasons. State the reasons or you debunk yourself.

It's a proven fact that warehouses have collapsed from fire. If even 1 collapses from fire, then that proves my statement correct that they can collapse from fire alone.



Ya buddy, I'm lying. Fire fighters would rather run blind through a 3'×7' man door into a warehouse chemical fire than put it out through the roof.


They certainly won't be going inside, cuz they are fearful of collapse. So perhaps I was hasty. I could see this happening if they were using a boom with a remote controlled fire nozzle on it.


But let's see your backup for this statement before you get an apology.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Lets look at the OBVIOUS well not to YOU it seems, a warehouse is used for storing goods so ACTIVE fire protection is better as PASSIVE will only protect the structure, active can protect the goods & the structure


Also intumescent paint can be applied you don't need a thick coating like the 9/11 trusses.

Intumescent Paint

If YOU don't know about the subject don't guess you only make yourself look rather silly!!!
edit on 30-9-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
No because u could still draw comparisons

even though u might not win the race

We wanna know why u didn't win the race

So we start looking at engines...Well u have a small one and the F1 didn't

How about weight?

See u can compare different things and gleam useful info

Unless u r an oser

And just not on 9/11

Eta the fire in 75 is apples to apples as to the nist reason the towers fell

Including fireproofing missing from truss ends where they attached to the perimeter wall

a reply to: wmd_2008



So we didn't win the race because of DIFFERENCES the IRONY of your reply is lost on YOU!


The 75 FIRE HAD NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT WHICH IS A DIFFERENCE!
The fire was fought by the FDNY a DIFFERENCE is it starting to sink in yet, probably NOT!



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Do you mean how does one explain the requirements of the Fire Code? Are you going where Kevin Ryan went early on?



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

No this is the true irony

And why the osers need to get their stories straight

Either




Text Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically


Or you need plane damage

Which is it?
edit on am1020143109America/ChicagoWed, 01 Oct 2014 09:39:06 -0500_10u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut




Text Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically


Or you need plane damage

Which is it?


The planes damaged the towers in 2 ways.

1- physical damage to the columns

2- removal of the SFRM

The column damage obviously wasn't enough to cause collapse on its own.

But the ensuing fires, because of the SFRM removal, heated the steel quickly enough to cause collapse, when coupled with the physical column damage.

After reading a few examinations, it is my understanding that the steel would not have heated up as fast with the SFRM in place. This would of given the FD enough time to climb the stairs, get some lines run, and start fighting the fires.

They might not of been able to get water up there though, cuz of the cut fire mains, so they might of ended up abandoning the building anyways.

Every one of our statements are in agreement. I feel sorry for you if you don't understand that.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Regarding the thread title, I am most curious as to who it was who first used the term "ground zero" in describing the scene at WTC.

All these years later, it seems like a Freudian Slip of some sort, as the case for nuclear assistance there is most convincing.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I would go a step back

Where did the term originate? The Manhattan project .coincidence?

But more than that it was the EXPERIMENT with the first nuclear bomb

Why is that important? Because I believe Dr wood .

And if she is right then it would be perfect to designate the first experimental use of unknown tech as

ground zero

and as homage to the first ground zero in the Manhattan project to actually use Manhattan as your testing ground

a reply to: Salander


edit on am1020143110America/ChicagoFri, 03 Oct 2014 10:46:37 -0500_10u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Lets look at the OBVIOUS well not to YOU it seems, a warehouse is used for storing goods so ACTIVE fire protection is better as PASSIVE will only protect the structure, active can protect the goods & the structure


Also intumescent paint can be applied you don't need a thick coating like the 9/11 trusses.

Intumescent Paint

If YOU don't know about the subject don't guess you only make yourself look rather silly!!!


That's funny since you spec'd a product that is NOT used on trusses and columns except in the rarest conditions. If you knew ANYTHING about construction you would know that.

The manufacturers of the product would LIKE it to be used but so far their market share is squat and regardless it would not be used on the roof trusses because those are NEVER fire proofed. But you would know that since you are so damn smart.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

That is interesting input, and I had not thought of it, even though I read Martin Cruz Smith's fine book "Stallion Gate" many years ago.

I think there is some element of "rubbing our nose in it" with the terminology.

And you're right, to one degree or another it was an experiment.

As for Judy Wood, I am sympathetic to her position and questions, but am unable to imagine how DEW would be deployed, just because I know little about it.

Seems to me the case for tactical nuclear devices is pretty solid.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander


Watch her lecture on breakthrough energy It on tube

If u haven't seen it , it will be an eye opener

The deployment of such a platform is unimportant as we may never know

The wound is smoking though

And personally I think they used many things on 911

Or at least made it look that way

Throw in a little dirty bomb , a few places with thermite , and some planes

And u have the perfect cover for black ops weapons that no one will look for because of the false leads of conventional weapons provide

even if such conventional weapons can't describe fully what happened, people will argue for whatever fits their world view

Therefore assuring Noone ever looks at the totality and say "wtf"


edit on am1020143110America/ChicagoSat, 04 Oct 2014 10:49:14 -0500_10u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Lets look at the OBVIOUS well not to YOU it seems, a warehouse is used for storing goods so ACTIVE fire protection is better as PASSIVE will only protect the structure, active can protect the goods & the structure


Also intumescent paint can be applied you don't need a thick coating like the 9/11 trusses.

Intumescent Paint

If YOU don't know about the subject don't guess you only make yourself look rather silly!!!


That's funny since you spec'd a product that is NOT used on trusses and columns except in the rarest conditions. If you knew ANYTHING about construction you would know that.

The manufacturers of the product would LIKE it to be used but so far their market share is squat and regardless it would not be used on the roof trusses because those are NEVER fire proofed. But you would know that since you are so damn smart.


REALLY then read this PDF that's linked below that's why others tell YOU what to do on site, please leave technical issues to others!!

Oh and the person that gave you a star


Fireproofing Steel

Just one of the products in the above.


A/D Firefilm® III is a decorative, fiber free, thin film intumescent coating designed for the fire protection of steelwork for up to a 3 hour fire rating,




Oh look letter D roof trusses what were you saying again.

You seem to forget people from all over the world are on here building codes can vary a lot!




edit on 4-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Lets look at the OBVIOUS well not to YOU it seems, a warehouse is used for storing goods so ACTIVE fire protection is better as PASSIVE will only protect the structure, active can protect the goods & the structure


Also intumescent paint can be applied you don't need a thick coating like the 9/11 trusses.

Intumescent Paint

If YOU don't know about the subject don't guess you only make yourself look rather silly!!!


That's funny since you spec'd a product that is NOT used on trusses and columns except in the rarest conditions. If you knew ANYTHING about construction you would know that.

The manufacturers of the product would LIKE it to be used but so far their market share is squat and regardless it would not be used on the roof trusses because those are NEVER fire proofed. But you would know that since you are so damn smart.


REALLY then read this PDF that's linked below that's why others tell YOU what to do on site, please leave technical issues to others!!

Oh and the person that gave you a star


Fireproofing Steel

Just one of the products in the above.


A/D Firefilm® III is a decorative, fiber free, thin film intumescent coating designed for the fire protection of steelwork for up to a 3 hour fire rating,




Oh look letter D roof trusses what were you saying again.

You seem to forget people from all over the world are on here building codes can vary a lot!





You can obfuscate all you like. You don't know jack about construction. That product is a gimmick, there are many like it. Does't get used that is why you keep posting advertisements rather than examples of it actually beimg used. Go back to your office.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Lets look at the OBVIOUS well not to YOU it seems, a warehouse is used for storing goods so ACTIVE fire protection is better as PASSIVE will only protect the structure, active can protect the goods & the structure


Also intumescent paint can be applied you don't need a thick coating like the 9/11 trusses.

Intumescent Paint

If YOU don't know about the subject don't guess you only make yourself look rather silly!!!


That's funny since you spec'd a product that is NOT used on trusses and columns except in the rarest conditions. If you knew ANYTHING about construction you would know that.

The manufacturers of the product would LIKE it to be used but so far their market share is squat and regardless it would not be used on the roof trusses because those are NEVER fire proofed. But you would know that since you are so damn smart.


REALLY then read this PDF that's linked below that's why others tell YOU what to do on site, please leave technical issues to others!!

Oh and the person that gave you a star


Fireproofing Steel

Just one of the products in the above.


A/D Firefilm® III is a decorative, fiber free, thin film intumescent coating designed for the fire protection of steelwork for up to a 3 hour fire rating,




Oh look letter D roof trusses what were you saying again.

You seem to forget people from all over the world are on here building codes can vary a lot!





You can obfuscate all you like. You don't know jack about construction. That product is a gimmick, there are many like it. Does't get used that is why you keep posting advertisements rather than examples of it actually beimg used. Go back to your office.



It wasn't an advert it was a product document the kind of thing people read before getting you to do the work!

I just love showing YOU haven't got a clue how many pictures do you want.

Intumescent Paint
Intumescent Paint
Intumescent Paint
Intumescent Paint
Intumescent Paint



Doesn't get used

edit on 5-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Lets look at the OBVIOUS well not to YOU it seems, a warehouse is used for storing goods so ACTIVE fire protection is better as PASSIVE will only protect the structure, active can protect the goods & the structure


Also intumescent paint can be applied you don't need a thick coating like the 9/11 trusses.

Intumescent Paint

If YOU don't know about the subject don't guess you only make yourself look rather silly!!!


That's funny since you spec'd a product that is NOT used on trusses and columns except in the rarest conditions. If you knew ANYTHING about construction you would know that.

The manufacturers of the product would LIKE it to be used but so far their market share is squat and regardless it would not be used on the roof trusses because those are NEVER fire proofed. But you would know that since you are so damn smart.


REALLY then read this PDF that's linked below that's why others tell YOU what to do on site, please leave technical issues to others!!

Oh and the person that gave you a star


Fireproofing Steel

Just one of the products in the above.


A/D Firefilm® III is a decorative, fiber free, thin film intumescent coating designed for the fire protection of steelwork for up to a 3 hour fire rating,




Oh look letter D roof trusses what were you saying again.

You seem to forget people from all over the world are on here building codes can vary a lot!





You can obfuscate all you like. You don't know jack about construction. That product is a gimmick, there are many like it. Does't get used that is why you keep posting advertisements rather than examples of it actually beimg used. Go back to your office.



It wasn't an advert it was a product document the kind of thing people read before getting you to do the work!

I just love showing YOU haven't got a clue how many pictures do you want.

Intumescent Paint
Intumescent Paint
Intumescent Paint
Intumescent Paint
Intumescent Paint



Doesn't get used


Do an of those pics show use in a typical specification?

Are you telling me that those pics show that through all these years, crews were coming on site without my knowledge to fire-protect the roof trusses? Are you telling me that wherever there is no blaze shield applied under structure where the above space is unoccupied, it is actually protected with.... 3 hr. intumescent paint?

This has been an epiphanic experience. Thank you once again for your wisdom.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Maybe you are that out of touch YOU didn't know that that type of paint has and is being used , as you can see from the pictures it can be applied in the fabrication shop.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Osers are now so desperate as to refute your own expertise in any givin field

u don't even understand yiur own reality

It would be funny if it weren't so sad



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Osers are now so desperate as to refute your own expertise in any givin field

u don't even understand yiur own reality

It would be funny if it weren't so sad


I almost felt bad for WMD with that last post. My argument actually has a huge whole in it and wasn't even meant to prove anything about the collapse, it was only to point out how little the OSers know about construction. A part of me wants to scream the fact that WMD is missing but watching him talk circles around himself is too entertaining.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Funny cause from what I have seen, the "Truth" movement has ZERO clue when it comes to construction and prove it time and again, just like you. It is strange how you and so many in the "Truth" movement superimpose your lack of knowledge onto others in an effort to divert attention from your lacking skills. It doesnt work.




top topics



 
56
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join