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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Video easily debunked.
The steel on the of the world Trade Centre is not attached to his pinkie and an anvil it is one of many pieces of steel bolted to many other pieces of steel. Also his rod was hotter. Why not the same temp?
The fire had stopped burning for an hour. Did the rod dude wait for an hour?
If what he says is correct why did the building fall in freefall and not just collapse where the plane had gone in and weakened the steel. In other words the building should of toppled over.
This video guy has actually made the case stronger. This was and always will be a false flag operation.
Oh! Did I say that I am sick and tired of..................nobs and their rods. lol




posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus




What?!?!?! How did anyone know that WT7 was going to fall, let alone set up a "prior knowledge" collapse zone? Do you realize what you just typed? This is exactly what my last post was referring to. Absurd levels of willful ignorance or denial.


"Prior Knowledge" ?? Hardly.......

Professional Firefighters like the FDNY know what to look for in a building

Starting at 11 AM FDNY sent crews into WTC 7 to search the building for stragglers/injured and to assess the
building.

What they found was extensive structural damage caused by debris from WTC 1. Fires breaking out on multiple floors
and no water to fight the spreading fires.

FDNY incident commanders made decision to evacuate crews from the building

The Collapse Unit from Rescue 3 arrived early afternoon and a surveyor transit was setup to watch the building

By mid afternoon incident commanders realized WTC 7 was in danger from collapse do to the fires (there were visible
fires on at least 13 floors)

A three story bulge was growing on the SW corner of WTC 7 and the transit showed that building was moving out of plumb -
a sure sign the building was going to collapse

It was at this point Chief Nigro made decision to establish collapse zone aound WTC 7 and clear the area around it



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Absolute poppycock! Am I supposed to leave a second line?



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeceptioVisus
a reply to: firerescue



Absolute poppycock! Am I supposed to leave a second line?


poppycock Is now offensive, the Politically correct term is gobbledegook



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Absolute gobbledygook! Sorry to those I offended with my previously terrible etiquette.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus

firerescue is correct. Check it out.



Fire Chief's Assessments of WTC 7

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon.

www.debunking911.com...


Chief Daniel Nigro's Report

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)

sites.google.com...

edit on 16-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TracMila



The fire had stopped burning for an hour.


That is false! Where did you get that incorrect statement from?



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus



Demo crews really need to see how much steel and concrete reinforced deconstruction they can do with a couple of large hollow aluminum projectiles and some outwardly burning jet fuel. Likewise, if they would just study building 7 they would just need a couple of Bic lighters to bring down 47 stories of modern engineering. They are wasting a lot of money with explosives timers and det cord.


In many cases, fire works much better than explosives. Case in point, failure of a large bomb to bring down WTC 1 in 1993 that left its steel structure sitting within a huge bomb crater.

Another case in point, fire from a burning fuel truck that weakened the steel structure of an overpass near Oakland, CA., which caused the steel-supported overpass to collapse. Yet another case in point was the Windsor Building fire in Spain where the outer steel structure had completely collapsed due to fire, which left only the concrete structure standing and it was that concrete core that prevented a full collapse of the Windsor Building, and of course, the steel frame buildings in Thailand that collapsed because fire had weakened their steel structures.
edit on 16-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
No. Just stop. No fire had previously taken down a steel framed building yet what firerescue said is that the "firefighters knew what to look for and set up a "collapse area" and you agree with him. Try again. 2+2=4, NOT 5.

They apparently have no experience because the collapse area was just slightly larger than the building itself and didn't need much extra space.

There is audio of fire fighters calling for the logistics needed to put out the fire in 1 and 2 before they collapsed and yet they just gave up on a couple office fires???

Don't give me the "so much loss already, why risk it?.... I mean pull it?



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus



No. Just stop. No fire had previously taken down a steel framed building...


That is false. Where is you get that piece of disinformation?
Case in point.



Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast... Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

en.wikipedia.org...


For years, I have warned 9/11 conspiracy theorist that they were posting disinformation that has been planted in order to discredit the Truth Movment because those within the movement are not interested in doing homework to understand that they are being taken for a ride to the cleaners, and as a result, the campaign to discredit the movement has been working.
edit on 16-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus



There is audio of fire fighters calling for the logistics needed to put out the fire in 1 and 2 before they collapsed and yet they just gave up on a couple office fires???


Let's take a look here.



Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder.

If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse."

www.sciencedaily.com...


In other words, fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, and fire alone, for the internal collapse of WTC 5.



Don't give me the "so much loss already, why risk it?.... I mean pull it?


Just to let you know that the term; "pull it" does not apply to explosive demolition implosion of buildings and you can ask any demolition expert. Question is, who has been duping 9/11 conspiracy theorist that the term; "pull it" applied to the use of explosives in regard to the demolition of buildings?

.
edit on 16-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Steel beams can collapse under little more than their own weight in a structure fire. Even structure fires that don't involve large amounts of high btu value liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

State Journal Register


The Bressmer Co. Building fire 1948.

You do realize you didn't even READ YOUR OWN LINK right? That picture is of the 6th floor of the STILL STANDING BUILDING.

Some people truly amaze me.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Just to let you know that they are not experts at identifying molten metal.

It was apparent they misidentified pools of molten aluminum as steel because there was nothing at ground zero capable of producing pools of molten steel. However, recorded temperatures were far above the melting point of aluminum, for which there were tons used in the construction of the WTC Towers and of course, the two B-767's were constructed of aluminum as well.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus



It's so obvious. You people who defend the official narrative have your head's in the sand.


Considering that after 14 years, no evidence of an inside job has surfaced, it shouldn't be of no surprise. After all, the international community has blamed Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attack, and later, Osama bin Laden admitted that he was responsible and al-Qaeda identified and released the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers, the same 9/11 hijackers listed on the passenger manifest of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175, not to mention the same hijackers on the passenger manifest of those aircraft who just happen to take flying lessons with no real interest on how to land an aircraft.




I remember the day of 9/11. I didn't watch much TV then and I answered the door, a friend came in and said do you know we've been attacked? I turned on the "bunny ear" television and got a grainy image on my local channel 11. I was absolutely shocked like everyone else. But what didn't add up was when I left for a minute and came back the media was saying both towers fell but weren't showing footage. I was getting ready to witness two buildings broke off at the top and smoking, I thought. The whole buildings disappeared though. There is no way the small sections on top destroyed the other 80 floors. Pancake/weakened truss theory people can get lost. What happened to the concrete core?


There was no concrete core in the construction of the WTC buildings


edit on 17-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Actually he makes an argument for the building toppling over where the fires burned, bending over, not telescoping into itself, also I would like to know how long did that piece of steel sit in the forge to get that soft.
Remember that lady standing in the wreckage if it was that hot where the building was hit she would be dead not from the airplane strike but from the heat alone. The fuel burned off in the explosion anyways.

So how hot are office fires with regular typical building stuff again ?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Are those concrete pillars that I see standing among the twisted steel beams?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33



Actually he makes an argument for the building toppling over where the fires burned, bending over, not telescoping into itself, also I would like to know how long did that piece of steel sit in the forge to get that soft.


It depends on the temperature of a fire and on the thickness of the steel piece. You can leave a railroad track on a wood fire and bend that track by hand after an hour.

Bending Railroad Tracks by Hand


Remember that lady standing in the wreckage if it was that hot where the building was hit she would be dead not from the airplane strike but from the heat alone. The fuel burned off in the explosion anyways.


But, it was the burning fuel had set flammable items within those buildings on fire.


So how hot are office fires with regular typical building stuff again ?


The recorded temperatures were as high as 1800 degrees F., which is far above the level needed to weaken steel.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99

Are those concrete pillars that I see standing among the twisted steel beams?

On the 6th floor, yes. That building is still standing even though the person posted that pic from the link on purpose to make you think it was a collapsed building.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Plate steel.

Comparing that piece of plate to a huge column, which is like two channels and way larger than that 2-3 inches wide

I really don't see any correlation between a skinny piece of plate and a huge column.

This should be in the Hoax bin.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   
YOUR ALL A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!!
INVALIDSTED YARRR!!!
GET A JOB!!!!
YARRR!!!
Look at ME THROW SOME METEL PIECES AROUND ON THE FLOOR!!
YARRRR!!!
YOUR ALL A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!!!
WHAT YOU LAUGHING AT IDIOT!!!
IS IT HOW I WALK OVER HERE LIKE I DONE CRAPPED MY BIBS??'!!
GET A JOB!!

Haha gotta love that guy.
As if everyone watching the video he made doesn't have a job.
Yes hillbilly joe we all must be just like you and get s job for you to demonstrate bending a heated bar of steel.
Always love the "get a job" people. Those hard working brow beating holier then thou know it all assholes that are just "sick and tired of all you yahoos" or whatever he said in the video. This after all is my general impression of how I am just supposed to listen to him. INVALIDATE and control.

That said I can see how it's POSSIBLE...
It gets pretty hot inside a burning building.
Most likely something like an oven.
You add some weight on top of an old support beam not that age matters too much...
Even heat a short section and potentially it could simply compress enough to bend slightly violating structural integrity....then snap like a twig with the unheated parts being solid. Add momentum and weight coming down...
Still that is going to plummet an entire burning sky scraper?

Oh I don't know. It's possible. I won't discredit entirely.
Now GO GET A JOB YARRR!!! YOU LOSERS!!!!
I WORK REAL HARD AND PAY FOR ALL YOU LOSERS!!!
YARRR!!!







top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join