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.

 

"Paper Fires" Brought The Buildings Down !

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


If not for media complicity in the crime of cover-up, the official story would have died years ago. It cannot withstand scrutiny.


That explains to why there are a few OS believers who depend on their information from mainstream propaganda News.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
The buildings were overloaded with crap to save $$$. Probably should not have met inspections standards. So you got lots of burnable s*** and overloaded floors past their safe capacity. There was lots of other problems. Doesn't surprise me they came down due to fire and buckling. You can see the exterior columns buckling in the videos.

That right there is hte conspiracy: Inspection standards and building/fire codes were terrible, maybe (or probably) criminally negligent.
edit on 10-8-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite


That right there is hte conspiracy: Inspection standards and building codes were terrible, maybe criminally negligent.


Besides you "opinions" do you have proof of this?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: jonnywhite


That right there is hte conspiracy: Inspection standards and building codes were terrible, maybe criminally negligent.


Besides you "opinions" do you have proof of this?

Well I'm too lazy to go back and look it all up for you. Doesn't mean it's not true, right? /Sigh. After some research, I convinced myself that's why they came down. Building and fire codes which were terrible. Inpsections which didn't inspect. An industry which didn't want to fork over the money. Various people strong arming each other to cut down costs.

There very well might be a conspiracy. Those people who made those choices might still be around today and they're ashamed. They probably will live the rest of their life trying to make up for it.

EDIT: Ok I spent a few minutes trying to track down some things. Honestly, there's a lot I'm not including here. But here're a couple:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(the below youtube clip is a 4-part series)

www.fireengineering.com - WTC: LIGHTWEIGHT STEEL AND HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS...

en.wikipedia.org - Francis Brannigan....

I can't get the above link to show without creating an accoutn. I found a work around. Just google "WTC: LIGHTWEIGHT STEEL AND HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS 2002" and click the first link. It shows it for some reason.
edit on 10-8-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite


Well I'm too lazy to go back and look it all up for you. Doesn't mean it's not true, right? /Sigh


Then you don't have any proof. Let me remind you "opinions" are not facts.


After some research, I convinced myself that's why they came down.


You must have went to 911 OS believers websites to get your information. Because the other websites that don't support the 911 OS proves their arguments with scientific facts. Perhaps you over looked those websites.


Building and fire codes which were terrible.


That is your "opinion" please show some facts to back up your theories.


Inpsections which didn't inspect. An industry which didn't want to fork over the money. Various people strong arming each other to cut down costs.


You have proof of this besides your "opinions"?


There very well might be a conspiracy. Those people who made those choices might still be around today and they're ashamed. They probably will live the rest of their life trying to make up for it.


Who are these people? Or is this another one of your "opinions"

edit on 10-8-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite


Included are refernces to Meridan Plaza and First Interstate Bank fires along with how lightweight steel
construction of WTC played part in collapse

FIRE ENGINEERING - April 2002


STOP right there. It is a well known fact that the WTC steel "were not light weight steel". That is disinformation

Review of
'A New Standard For Deception:
The NIST WTC Report'
A Presentation by Kevin Ryan



Ryan also notes that National Geographic Today and the History Channel asserted fire temperatures of 2,900 and 2,700 F.

Since jet fuel fires burn at a maximum of around 1,500 F (unless in a special combustion chamber) and the melting point of steel is around 2,800 F, the claim that jet fuel fires melted structural steel is absurd. Although the official reports do not hold that the WTC fires melted steel, the origins of this idea is important, since it has been used as a straw-man attack by official story defenders such as Popular Mechanics.

Ryan notes that steel temperatures lag behind gas temperatures in both time and magnitude, and that none of the official reports have performed thermodynamic calculations about the probable steel temperatures. Ryan's own calculations show that steel temperatures in the impact zones probably did not exceed 600 F.

Where are the Real Experts?
Having demonstrated the blatant disregard for facts by supposed experts, Ryan asks, where are the real experts? There are no experts who can explain the events of 9/11/01, Ryan explains, because the attack involved such a long string of unique events. Since no tall steel building has ever collapsed from fire, or a combination of fire and other damage, there are clearly no experts who can explain how it happened three times in one day.

Ryan shows that the design engineers had contemplated jetliner crashes and the fires that would result. Lead engineer John Skilling said in 1993, five years before his death:

13:50
"our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there."
--City in the Sky
These statements are not disclosed by a number of post-9/11 documentaries that feature Leslie Robertson, (a junior partner to Skilling at the time the Towers were designed) implying that considering the effects of fires were someone else's job.


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ

A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

by Jim Hoffman



On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them. NIST should be commended for at least addressing a number of the serious questions that have been raised with regard to its investigation. However, NIST's new FAQ avoids answering the central charges of its most visible critique, Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century:

That NIST fails to support its key assertion that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse".
That NIST uses the diversionary tactic of describing some events -- such as the airliner crashes -- in great detail, while almost completely avoiding the core question of what brought the Towers down.
That NIST's report is internally inconsistent, supposing that steel columns were heated to temperatures hundreds of degrees in excess of the maximum temperatures indicated by its steel samples.
That NIST fails to substantiate its implied claim that its computer models predicted "collapse initiation".
That NIST fails to even address most of the features of the Towers' destruction that are apparently unique to controlled demolitions.


911research.wtc7.net...

If you are going to support the NIST Report, that is now a proven fact that it was base off of "pseudo science." The fact is you don't have any science to back up your conspiracy theory.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

en.wikipedia.org - Francis Brannigan....

The fact is Wikipedia.org is not a reliable source. Anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia to fit the narrative they want.

I call it Wakopedia.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: jonnywhite

en.wikipedia.org - Francis Brannigan....

The fact is Wikipedia.org is not a reliable source. Anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia to fit the narrative they want.

I call it Wakopedia.


Actually, that's not true at all. Try editing something untrue or nonsensical and see how long it lasts.

Wikipedia has shown to be as accurate as Britannica.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958
Only the two cores which had the elevators and stairwell were traditional heavy steel construction. The trusses which made up the floor plans were light-weight and resulted in considerable savings. Their whole aim is to reduce any heavy materials and only use minimal amoutns of steel to increase the building's load bearing capacity. A lot of the bearing weight in the WTC towers was on the exterior columns. If you exmaine the videoes, some show buckling on the exterior before they collapsed.

9/11 shows us the "savings" might not be after all. Some strong arming is going on. And then there's the fireproofing. The spray-on fireproofing is another example of cost saving measures--rather than using heavier materials. This happened sometime after WWII.

These points and others are why you can't compare the plane crash into the empire state building with WTC. It was a completely different design. Those were heavy constructions with lots of concrete facing different challenges than modern skyscrapers. So don't say "Hey a plane crashed into the empire state building and it didn't fall down!!!!"

And as pointed in the link I gave, the WTC followed some of its own rules. Rules were bent. There's a lot of $$$$ riding on it.

And I recall reading references to overloaded floors in the WTC towers. I could be wrong, but I won't track them down now.

And much of the evidence we could have used was destroyed in the months or years after 9/11. I have to wonder if anybody really examined the ruins to see what exactly happened? Or was everything rushed?

I don't think the government orchestrated a conspiracy to take down the towers and WTC7. But I'm open to a conspiracy involving different authorities and building/fire codes and $$$. They didn't plan 9/11, but they did damage control. In my book, that's a conspiracy because they're not being honest. There're other buildings using similar techniques, it's very serious. Like I say, they'll live with shame the rest of their life.

EDIT: So that's my opinion. Because of cost saving measures the WTC towers were mostly air, not solid. That's why they fell in on themselves. I know this is a spectacular oversimplification of it, but I my patience is gone.
edit on 10-8-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958. Because as has also been posted on ATS, many, many times, the fireproofing on the Towers was brittle and virtually non-existant is some areas. Then, there were a couple of high speed airliners slamming into the building that took out even more of the fireproofing, leaving unprotected steel exposed to the fires.

As for denying facts....that is part and parcel of the 9/11 "truth" movement.


edit on 10-8-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Mr. "Informer"...
Several of your posts refer to facts, such as it being "a well known fact that WTC didn't use lightweight steel" or "the NIST report is proven to be based off pseudo science", then you move on to discredit Wikipedia as a resource.

While I do agree, to a point, that Wikipedia can be biased or incomplete, I'd like to hear your proof of the other two above "facts". I mean real proof. Not some YouTube video from some flunkie.

If you don't have this I think it's safe to say that the only "fact" is that you're full of...



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: tinymind
Paper, plus, computers,printers,fax machine ,desks,chairs etc,etc and the plane itself..Old buildings, constructed in the 1960/70's.New approach to Skyscraper building,modular construction,lightweight,to keep the costs down and built at speed.Skyscrapers move, then there's Gravity, you take a matal rod, put it in a Blacksmiths forge for a while, you'll bend it quite easily..These building fell because the were old and of lightweight construction and CRAP. I personally don't think they were designed to withstand Aircraft impact.Can guarantee that future Skyscraper builds will be built very differently.We will never meet but I wish you well.. When God created our World, his biggest mistake was putting us on it..



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: waitingforgod

Wasnt so much that the buildings (WTC) were Crap - it was that in order to build not 1, but 2
of the tallest skyscrapers on earth (at that time) had to resort to some new building materials
and techniques.

To eliminate as much concrete as possible (concrete is heavy and expensive, the extra weight causes a structural
penalties) designed the buildings to use steel . The steel was engineered to handle the structural loads with
the minimum size - ie using bar web truss to support the floor deck instead of using steel I beams

While truss was adequate for normal conditions it failed when exposed to extreme - in a truss because the
members are smaller than the single beam would heat up faster and begin to fail

Also the fireproofing - previous fireproofing meant coating each steel piece in thick layer of masonry or
concrete - to save weight used a spray on mixture of asbestos (later mineral fibers) and cement

Applied in thin layer - at first only 1/2 in thick. Later increased to 1 1/2 inches . Also fireproofing
had problem adhering to steel . The aircraft knocked most of the fire proofing off the steel in the
impact exposing the steel to the fires. As it heated began to twist and deform until no longer could carry
loads . At what point structure in area failed and collapse followed.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18


If you don't have this I think it's safe to say that the only "fact" is that you're full of...


www.ae911truth.org...

Try and do some real research and stay away from disinformation websites.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Just to let oyu know that AE911 Truth is as credible as a $9 bill.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Just to let oyu know that AE911 Truth is as credible as a $9 bill.


That is a fallacy.

Try posting some "real science" to back up your ridiculous conspiracy theories.

A&E proves their argument with credible science!
edit on 25-8-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: skyeagle409


Just to let oyu know that AE911 Truth is as credible as a $9 bill.


That is a fallacy.


No, it is a fact - just have a look at their front page, they have the debunked lies like


Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams, Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.


That is not a fact, but a lie.


Try posting some "real science" to back up your ridiculous conspiracy theories.


The truthers are the ones making up the silly conspiracy theories!
edit on 25-8-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Try posting some "real science" to back up your ridiculous conspiracy theories.


I have and the experts will back me up. Check it out



Brent Blanchard: Top Demolition Expert

The Interview:

Undicisettembre: Talking about the three collapses that occurred on 9/11, are conspiracy theories that claim they were controlled demolitions even vaguely reliable?

Brent Blanchard: No. There's no evidence. We see the same material being presented year after year, over and over. We are not judge and jury but we do work in the industry and we see it all the time. We do see telltale signs of what to look for, we did work on the cleanup, I was personally on the 9/11 site later in the fall because we were documenting the clean-up effort by multiple demolition crews.

My engineering company is not tied to any political organization, we are not even tied to those demolition teams. We are just a contractor, and that was one of our jobs. We have a trained eye and none of us saw any indication of wiring, or cuts, or pre burning or any of the things we see hundreds of times a year on explosive demolition sites.

Given the amount of time we worked there, if we had seen some of it we would have taken note of it. We would have seen if something didn't look right. Not only my team, but all demolition teams….not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition.

This all came from conspiracy theorists who are not expert in controlled demolitions at all.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...



Even demolition experts on site did not hear nor see, demo explosions nor found any demo explosives at ground zero. You claim that explosives were used and yet, you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim, and this after more than 14 years.
edit on 25-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce



The truthers are the ones making up the silly conspiracy theories!


You've got that right. Just recently, I made a reference to a hoaxed WTC 7 video as my proof that truthers were posting hoaxed videos on a regular basis, and lo and behold, just days later, two truthers used that same hoaxed video as their evidence that WTC 7 was demolished by demo explosives. Simply amazing!!

I guess the best way to discredit the truthers is to let them do it themselves, because they did a fantastic job doing so when they posted that hoaxed video in their argument with me.




top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join