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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 57
135
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Explain to us why you seem to ignore the microsctructural hardness evaluation completely.


It is very simple. The reason why no microsctructural hardness evaluation was required is because it is very simple; photos of some of the WTC steel indicates the structural steel underwent an annealing process due to fire.

Why conduct a hardness test when images of the steel already show visual signs that they were weakened by temperatures generated by the fires?




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander



Perhaps most of your posts are being overlooked or ignored because one cannot tell whether you are presenting a "hoaxed" version as you've already admitted to, or a genuine version.


The person who hoaxed the WTC 7 video explains it in more detail.




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

The damage observed cannot possibly have been caused by simple office fires as NIST has stated in error. No way.

Theory? The NIST theory cannot be validated, sorry.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




The damage observed cannot possibly have been caused by simple office fires as NIST has stated in error. No way.

Do you have the technical qualifications to prove your belief?
Just because it seems like it could not have happened the way it's stated doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

Think back to the death of Dale Earnhardt.
The impact wasn't as hard as others we have seen.
But it was at just the wrong angle. Maybe he had his head turned too.
Things just added up wrong that day.

WTC was the same.
Fire without impact the building would have held.
Impact without fire the building would have held.
But both together was too much.

The conspiracy side has never been able to get their minds around that.
Well no one would have believed the Titanic and her sister ship Lusitania would sink in a matter of minutes either.
People believe that Social Security will take care of them in retirement.
People believe in a god.
It just goes to show that what you believe is not necessarily true.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



But ... ähm... you know... NIST conducted said hardness evaluation. And now guess what they didn't find? Yeah, right. That's why nobody in their right mind would suggest this report has something to do with evidence based science.

Said evidence gets ignored instead. We talked about spheres and you came up with some lazy explanations like fly-ash, ignoring the fact that the RJ LeeGroup stated quite the opposite. Remember those "Background Buildings"? Waving the Red Flag of authority works both ways, but that's just me being in my head.



Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: 'Is this real? Or is this just a ride?' And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and they say 'Hey! Don't worry, don't be afraid -- ever -- because... this is just a ride.' And we kill those people.

Bill Hicks


Aliens with lasers then, agreed. Let's just praise Niscience and obey a nice day!



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



t ... ähm... you know... NIST conducted said hardness evaluation. And now guess what they didn't find? Yeah, right. That's why nobody in their right mind would suggest this report has something to do with evidence based science.


This photo sums it up as to why no hardness test was required on this steel beam, which obviously was weakened by fire.

Fire Weakened Steel

Which explains this fire chief's assessment.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail.

vincentdunn.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: skyeagle409

We talked about spheres



We also talked about spheres. Did you check out the information I gave you ? Obviously not.

Every item mentioned in this paper:

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

is a product of this machine.



That is a portland cement kiln.

Fireproofing is a mixture of portland cement and slag wool.

The dust from the collapse is mostly fireproofing.

Do you get the connection or do I need to explain It again ?

14 years and the "Scientist for 911 truth" still cant figure out where the iron spheres came from.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I had a rabbit once.
He went down the hole.
I really don't wanna go after him..........



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DogMeat


I had a rabbit once.
He went down the hole.
I really don't wanna go after him......


That's because there's something else down there!
Ohhh Nooooooo!



I know it's scary.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

So... you think the "Background Buildings" from said study are something special as well?
What are you talking about? All the dust comes mostly from fireproofing?

Are you kidding?

You get the connection, do you?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   


This photo sums it up as to why no hardness test was required on this steel beam, which obviously was weakened by fire.

Fire Weakened Steel


Calling my aunt my unkle doesn't grow her a beard.

And no. Pictures can't explain the lack of evidence for this sloppy theory. Also we have other statements from the NYFD, which one do you prefer?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: waypastvne

So... you think the "Background Buildings" from said study are something special as well?
What are you talking about? All the dust comes mostly from fireproofing?

Are you kidding?

You get the connection, do you?


I have looked, every item in that paper is a product of this machine:




Now it's your turn to look. These are the questions you should be asking.

What is fire proofing made of ?

How much of the steel was covered with fire proofing before collapse ?

How much of the steel was covered with fire proofing after the collapse ?

If I do a google search with "portland cement kiln" + " any item mentioned in that paper" will I get a positive hit ?



Are you afraid the answers ?




edit on 15-8-2015 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

Well... and how are we going to continue this discussion now? I can answer my own questions as well if you would like to ride that horse now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could you explain the meaning of the term "Background Buildings", please? Or did you just not really bother to read my posts? I can't see why I should answer your questions if you didn't even try to answer mine.

Obey a nice day and never be afraid. It's just a ride!
edit on 15-8-2015 by PublicOpinion because: horses on shoes



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion


Could you explain the meaning of the term "Background Buildings", please?


Buildings not in the foreground.

Now what ?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

Wrong, draw that line again! And I'm not talking about image structures here, we are talking components. How do you explain the difference in size and concentration of said spheres? There was no portland cement in those Background Buildings?

Mind the gap in your picture!


edit on 15-8-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: waypastvne

Wrong, draw that line again! And I'm not talking about image structures here, we are talking components. How do you explain the difference in size and concentration of said spheres? There was no portland cement in those Background Buildings?

Mind the gap in your picture!



Can you post a intelligible question or get someone to translate this for me. Size and concentration of spheres between where and where.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

Already did so, just hit the second link. Your demeanor is kinda strange, afraid or something? You don't need to be, it's just a ride!




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



2.5 Summary
The differences within the WTC Dust and typical background dusts include the fineness and evidence of heat, the size and concentration of the chrysotile, and the length and concentration of the mineral wool and other Damage Assessment WTC Dust Signature Study: Composition and Morphology 130 Liberty Street Property December 2003 Confidential 20 fibers, as well as the frequency of occurrence of spherical particles produced by fire and heat, char and soot, and other building products. (page 19/20)

4.0 Statistical Analysis
[...]
Class A particles are common WTC Dust Markers and Class C particles are common Background Building dust particles. The statistical analysis indicates that the dust in the below ceiling space in the gash is different from that observed in Background Buildings. The material collected in the gash is consistent with building materials derived from the destruction of the WTC; the carbon-rich particulate is abundant in typical office buildings. The data clearly shows statistically significant differences with the mean values in the two classes of particles, hence the WTC Dust can be distinguished from Background Building dust. (page 23)

911research.wtc7.net...


First let me hi light some words for you.


"the size and concentration of the chrysotile, and the length and concentration of the mineral wool "

They are talking about fire proofing. This is the asbestos and slag wool that is mixed with portland cement to make fire proofing.


Next:

"The material collected in the gash is consistent with building materials derived from the destruction of the WTC"

That sentence seems pretty clear to me. Do you understand it ?




In essence what they a saying in that report is that they found Fire proofing dust inside the gash in this building:


hist.cersp.com...

Seeing as how the outside of the building is all covered in fire proofing dust and it has a big hole in it. I'd say the chances of finding some fireproofing dust on the inside would be pretty good.


The reason why the dust from the collapse is easy to distinguish from ordinary office dust is because: Ordinary office dust doesn't contain a sh**load of fireproofing dust.

Yes the explanation is that simple.

[/rational explanation]

edit on 15-8-2015 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne




In essence what they a saying in that report is that they found Fire proofing dust inside the gash in this building:


Invalid assertion, look at the table on page 24 and read again. Put up or shut up.



is all covered in fire proofing dust


Kinda funny how you reduce all those different particles (as well as your portland cement) to fireproofing-dust. Somebody with a hammer will see nails everywhere, even if mineral wool makes up only appr. a third of all Class A spheres in this case. Agreed to disagree then.




top topics



 
135
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join