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.

 

Melting steel?

page: 21
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

That won't work and you have failed to post evidence of explosives. Heresay and your debunked videos are not evidence of explosives.




posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus



Your going to tell me debri flew over WTC 6 and the street with only the force of gravity?!?!?! do ya realize how absurd that sounds? Can't wait for a response..... looking at you sky.


Have you ever played pool? What happens when the cue ball strikes the "8" ball?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

I have to disagree because in the final seconds of the collapse, WTC 7 is seen tilting toward the south, and the south wall is where that huge impact hole was located.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

I have to disagree because in the final seconds of the collapse, WTC 7 is seen tilting toward the south, and the south wall is where that huge impact hole was located.


Here is the man you disagree with, now post your credentials that are equal or grater than his, otherwise stfu..



Dr. John L. Gross

Dr. John L. Gross is a research structural engineer in the National Fire Research Laboratory (NFRL) of the Fire Research Division (FRD) of the Engineering Laboratory (EL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Dr. Gross attended Cornell University and received Bachelor of Science and Master of Engineering (Civil) degrees in 1969 and 1970, respectively. Upon receiving his Master's Degree, Dr. Gross joined Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, where he worked on various projects including the analysis and design of an ocean-going LNG containment system, the design of an offshore oil storage facility, and the design of a nuclear containment vessel.

In 1975, Dr. Gross returned to Cornell University as a doctoral candidate. He received a Ph.D. in Structural Engineering, with a minor in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, in May 1980. His research involved the development of an analytical method for evaluating a building's resistance to progressive collapse.

www.nist.gov...



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb


The firefighters at the scene who saw that huge hole on the south wall of WTC 7 disagree, so once again, you have no case for explosives.
edit on 20-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb


The firefighters at the scene who saw that huge hole on the south wall of WTC 7 disagree, so once again, you have no case for explosives.


Sure I do, its all there in the video, the audio and the dozen or more FDNY who witnessed the explosions. Science is the proof, which is more likely from what was observed, the answer is clear..





posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb
Great video. The people who say that is not controlled demo are trying to convince people that 2+2=5. Truth is mathematical. It never changes.

The truth is that 3 steel framed buildings were demolished with incendiaries and explosives. This statement is analogous to 2+2=4.

The video mentions damage to WTC7 from the towers collapse. How did gravity propel massive sections of steel horizontally over a massive building and across the street? This is not a short distance, I repeat this is not a short distance. If something slid off building 6 it would have landed in the street do to weight and gravity. Debris couldn't have reached building 7 without explosives.

For the OS believers, please tell me how buildings 4 and 6 could endure the force of 80-100 stories of steel and concrete falling directly on them yet building 7, across the street, fell without resistance, from a couple office fires, 7 hours later? Please respond with logic and not more hearsay accounts about a friend, who knew a firefighter, that once went to a seminar that said these buildings fell do to fire or any garbage like that.




edit on 20-12-2015 by DeceptioVisus because: grammar



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

There are no sounds of demolition explosions in that video. That video has been debunked as well because there are no demolition explosions heard.

At time line 1:10, it is claimed that most of the fires were extinguished, which is a blatant lie because firefighters had noted that they had no way of fighting the fires raging within WTC 7.



Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it.

WTC 7 Fires

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)


"We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department


But, your video falsely claimed at time line 1:10 the fires in WTC 7 were almost extinguished. I would also like to point out that from time line 1:19 to 1:25, there is no sound of explosions as WTC 7 collapsed and that is another prime example that debunks your video. Just to let you know that your video has been used to discredit the truth movement.

As you continue to post debunked videos, I will continue to let you know that you have blundered once again.



.
edit on 20-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus

Actually not because his video does not depict explosions.



The video mentions damage to WTC7 from the towers collapse. How did gravity propel massive sections of steel horizontally over a massive building and across the street?


Simple! Play a game of pool and see what happens when one ball strikes another. Now, explain to us why a huge bomb failed to throw these steel columns anywhere and notice that the steel columns of WTC 1are sitting within a huge bomb crater.

Photo: Steel Columns of WTC 1 Sitting Within Huge Bomb Crater



edit on 20-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb


The firefighters at the scene who saw that huge hole on the south wall of WTC 7 disagree, so once again, you have no case for explosives.


Sure I do, its all there in the video, the audio and the dozen or more FDNY who witnessed the explosions. Science is the proof, which is more likely from what was observed, the answer is clear..



Funny thing is that your video has audio of the explosions for all the buildings except WTC7.
So where are the explosions?
Or did condemned prisoners saw through the steel supports?
Is that why it took them all day to do it?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
This reply is meant mostly for wildb and skyeagle409.

Has anyone ever thought that it might not have been the jet fuel that over heated the iron or steel beams?
But maybe it residue hydraulic fluids and other oils plus the on board oxygen tanks might have super heated the fire after the initial blast from the jet fuel that cause the beams to weaken?

Hell even the plane was made out of aluminum and even magnesium which could have ignited and burned at high temperatures as well?

That alone could be the molten metals pouring out of the building before collapse and what what in the basement after pooling?

Would this solve both of you guys arguments?

edit on 12 20 2015 by Phibes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus




Your going to tell me debri flew over WTC 6 and the street with only the force of gravity?!?!?! do ya realize how absurd that sounds? Can't wait for a response..... looking at you sky.


How tall do you think WTC 6 was??

WTC 1 (North Tower) - 110 stories (1362 ft)

WTC 7 - 47 stories (610 ft)

WTC 6 - 8 Stories

WTC 6

en.wikipedia.org...:Six_WTC_SW_Corner.jpg

Now explain why the debris falling from WTC 1 could not reach WTC 7 .....


edit on 20-12-2015 by firerescue because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phibes



Has anyone ever thought that it might not have been the jet fuel that over heated the iron or steel beams?


The jet fuel got the ball rolling, but it should be noted that there were many flammable items within the WTC buildings.



But maybe it residue hydraulic fluids and other oils plus the on board oxygen tanks might have super heated the fire after the initial blast from the jet fuel that cause the beams to weaken?


Oxygen generators from the aircraft can generate high temperatures. I might add that oxygen generators were responsible for the crash of a ValuJet airliner in Florida.


Hell even the plane was made out of aluminum and even magnesium which could have ignited and burned at high temperatures as well?


Because of such high temp fire danger is why magnesium wheels are no longer used by airliners.


Would this solve both of you guys arguments?


A typical house fire will generate a temperature high enough to weaken steel. If you leave a railroad track over a fire for an hour, you can actually bend that railroad track by hand. In addition, I have annealed (soft condition) steel at only 1000 degrees F. where it can be easily formed into a complex shape.

.
edit on 20-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409Thanks for the reply. I just wanted to post some ideas that might help with the arguements? Your reply was enlightening, again thanks.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
So a pool ball analogy that doesn't apply. Pool balls specifically designed to ricochet while rolling on a table has as much to do with the destruction of 3 buildings as what I ate for breakfast did.

Then the "height of WTC6 excuse." REALLY??? What does height have to do with the impossibility of gravity alone moving that kind of debris all the way across the street and hitting a building causing "structural damage". There had to be some kind of force moving the debris away instead of falling straight down. There is no way around it.

There are so many excuses, fabrications, and blatant lies, but so little substance, in every response defending the official story.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phibes

Thank you. Steel at typical office fires takes on a property of soft plastic and becomes unsuitable to carry strutural loads, which is why steel columns in many buildings are encased in concrete. In the case of the Windsor building fire in Spain, the building burned for many hours and yet remained standing. The reason why the Windsor building remained standing is because its concrete core had prevented a full collapse whereas its outer steel frame collapsed into a heap of distorted and twisted metal. Had the core of the building been constructed of steel, the Windsor building would have suffered a full collapse.

Let's take a look what a fuel fire had done to the steel structure of an overpass between Oakland and San Francisco, CA, where the fire had weakened the steel structure causing the collapse of the overpass.

Overpass Near San Francisco Collapses After Fire

.


edit on 20-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus




There had to be some kind of force moving the debris away instead of falling straight down.

Look at the shape of those steel pieces sticking out of the building a page or two back.
There can still generate aerodynamic lift given the speed they fell at.
Moving 600 feet horizontally is not unreasonable given they started at more than twice that height.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Use this video.

Freeze frame at 9.5 seconds.
Just as that one piece of steel hits the right edge of the video.
Use a ruler to scale the width of WTC.
I measure the steel to be 2.34 times the distance away from WTC and still moving.
2.34 x 207 = 484 feet and increasing.
Many other pieces reach the edge and go beyond.
I see aero dynamic movement not explosive movement.

If it were explosive you would expect to regular groupings of steel being blown out.
Instead you have random/chaos movement of steel surfing the air to a distance.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus



So a pool ball analogy that doesn't apply. Pool balls specifically designed to ricochet while rolling on a table has as much to do with the destruction of 3 buildings as what I ate for breakfast did.


The steel beams ricochet from other debris. Let's take a look here and explain why explosives failed to fling beams away from this hangar that was bombed.

Bombed Hangar Remained Standing

I might add that light-weight panels from the facade of the WTC Towers were flung that had nothing to do with explosives.


edit on 20-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
You guys are almost funny. Gravity doesn't fling things. It drops or pulls straight down to Earth. Neither of your responses have any value in logic or reality. Building 6 was huge. So is the street between WTC6 and WTC7.
(Gravity = the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth). So what was pushing all that debris outward when gravity pulls it straight down. We are talking about a collapse, right? (collapse = (of a structure) fall down or in; give way), nowhere does this say "out", only down, in, or give way. So how does a "gravitational collapse" propel debris OUTwards to such a magnitude that was witnessed not once, but twice, on 9/11.

Some people just accept the OS against all physical, anecdotal, and observational evidence. Of course we know some people are just posting with an agenda of disinfo.

Os defenders, please prove you know more about structural engineering than these people who believe demo was the cause of building 7 collapse. I would also like your reasoning that these professionals would have for lying and putting their careers on the line? All 2000+ of them?

"Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience"
"Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience"
"Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry"
"Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings"
"Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis"
"Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience in building design"
"David Anthony Dorau, practicing structural engineer with 18 years’ experience in the inspection and design of buildings"

Everyone of these people are on record stating they believe WTC7 was due to some kind of demo, not fires or structural damage. An example, since debunkers probably won't even read about these people, from Kamal S. Obeid, "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

Then look over this list of 2000+prominent and professional architects and engineers.

www.ae911truth.org...

Please educate yourselves before trying to change the meaning of words. But.. but.. what about pool balls? WHAT?!?!

I will be waiting for the answers and potentially, if possible, a list of architects and engineers who support the OS independently from working directly for the government. Example, NIST personnel are excluded for the simple fact they have already been caught lying on numerous occasions, from molten steel to the wired $100,000 to Atta. Same goes with Popular Science and their pathetic and completely debunked pancake theory. Both of whom have never released models on how they came to their conclusions.

I will be waiting patiently for a serious and objective response to this post. Not something like, "they're all just liars." That holds no weight due to the fact that what these architects and engineers are saying happened completely corroborates with what can be observed happening and what eyewitnesses said happened.



edit on 21-12-2015 by DeceptioVisus because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join