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.

 

Photo of Madrid skyscraper fire (still standing)

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Doing Nothing but arguing Semantics, billybob


and you would argue the semantics are irrelevent?



Originally posted by Seekerof
Your analogy/comparison to the WTC's makes no sense whatsoever and the two incidents, nor the buildings, are not identical and thus cannot be compared realistically, billbob.
But please.....spin as you will, k? You look cool as hell spinning.


seekerof


it's called satire, seekerof. it's a humourous way to make people think. all the world's a stage, don't you know.

here's me, cool as hell spinning, LOL




[edit on 15-2-2005 by billybob]




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Larry Silverstein, interviewed in

"America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

More fuel for the fire;

www.911-strike.com...

Check out the pic of the woman looking out of the hole created by the plane hitting the north tower, where is the fire????

www.oilempire.us...



[edit on 15/2/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
And if you'll do some looking around here, ANOK, you'll see it has been repeatedly discussed that "pull it" refers to removing firefighters/equipment from the area ... IOW, there's nothing more they can do.

But I guess hearing that from a firefighter isn't good enough, is it? Cuz a bunch of us asked different firefighters and got the same results.

This is just silly.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love


I'm not exactly sure how they should have fallen because I'm not a professional demolition engineer. What I do know is that people pay demolition companies a lot of money to demolish buildings the right way so as to minimize the effect on the surroundings. That looked professional to me, how 'bout you??

Peace


Have you ever seen a professional demolish a 110 story building? The effort & work required to bring a building a tenth that size is amazing and can take weeks. The Towers would have required huge teams drilling , weakening load-bearing structures, ripping down walls, setting charges and wiring. They pretty much strip the building insides out before they bring them down. Yet nobody thats works there saw or heard anything going on.

Besides the fact that every camera would had heard a chain reaction of explosions. Nothing quite sounds like a building getting demolished.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee
And if you'll do some looking around here, ANOK, you'll see it has been repeatedly discussed that "pull it" refers to removing firefighters/equipment from the area ... IOW, there's nothing more they can do.

But I guess hearing that from a firefighter isn't good enough, is it? Cuz a bunch of us asked different firefighters and got the same results.

This is just silly.


If that's the case then, what did bring building 7 down? It was not hit by a plane, it only had fires on a couple of floors.
Go back to the start of this thread, how come building 7 fell when the building in Madrid didn't?
The term "pull it" is well known to mean bring the building down. I don't care how you spin it. How can Pull IT mean bring out the firemen and equipment? Wouldn't he have said "Get out" or "clear the building" NO he said "PULL IT". Minutes later the building fell. When I went to school 2+2 made 4...
And you all choose to ignore the firemen who said they heard explosion.
And there is even video that shows bright flashes on each floor as the building collapses.
But of course to believe our wonderful government would do such a terrible thing is just silly? The claim that terrorists could have flown a comercial plane into a building in the first place is just silly IMHO.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Have you ever seen a professional demolish a 110 story building? The effort & work required to bring a building a tenth that size is amazing and can take weeks. The Towers would have required huge teams drilling , weakening load-bearing structures, ripping down walls, setting charges and wiring. They pretty much strip the building insides out before they bring them down. Yet nobody thats works there saw or heard anything going on.

Besides the fact that every camera would had heard a chain reaction of explosions. Nothing quite sounds like a building getting demolished.


What if the first WTC attack back in the '90's was really a smokescreen and the inspection crews that went in there afterwards were really setting up for 9/11. Nobody would have given them and the work they were doing a second look. What about window washers and elevator repairmen and maintenance crews? How do you think a covert operation of this magnitude actually happens? Just like you said, lots of time and lots of planning, and even then you're lucky if it goes off with just a few hitches, and believe me there was more than just a few. Heck, they even gave us Bin Laden's name right after the first one.

Peace



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
What firemen said they heard an explosion?

This has been covered soooooo many times already. In fact, there are 2 current threads on the Popular Mechanics article going on that talk about WTC7. There are about half a dozen threads prior to these that talk about WTC7. What more is there to understand?

Two 110 story buildings collapsed in the same block after passenger jets smashed into them.
110 stories!
I'm no structural engineer, but I know that 2 massive buildings of that size burning and collapsing will have a significant effect on the landscape around them.

2+2 does = 4.
You're just working on a different concept of math despite what numerous mathematicians say.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee


Yet professional building engineers have said that the structure fell as it was designed to in a catastrophe on this scale.
The towers were built to collapse rather than topple.
They're the ones who'd know, seeing as a professional demolition engineer would know how a demo'd building would fall, eh?


Great point that would have been very smart to design the building in that way. You wouldn't want it to just fall over on its side like a redwood that was cutdown.

Really I dont know of a single professional building engineer that goes with this whole the building was demolished with explosives stuff. I wonder why that is?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee
What firemen said they heard an explosion?

This has been covered soooooo many times already. In fact, there are 2 current threads on the Popular Mechanics article going on that talk about WTC7. There are about half a dozen threads prior to these that talk about WTC7. What more is there to understand?

Two 110 story buildings collapsed in the same block after passenger jets smashed into them.
110 stories!
I'm no structural engineer, but I know that 2 massive buildings of that size burning and collapsing will have a significant effect on the landscape around them.

2+2 does = 4.
You're just working on a different concept of math despite what numerous mathematicians say.


There's a thread somewhere here at ATS with a link to a video that shows firemen who barely made it out returning to their firehouse. One of the firemen was commenting on how he heard a "pop-pop-pop" like small explosions before he escaped from the building.

Peace



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee
What firemen said they heard an explosion?

This has been covered soooooo many times already. In fact, there are 2 current threads on the Popular Mechanics article going on that talk about WTC7. There are about half a dozen threads prior to these that talk about WTC7. What more is there to understand?

Two 110 story buildings collapsed in the same block after passenger jets smashed into them.
110 stories!
I'm no structural engineer, but I know that 2 massive buildings of that size burning and collapsing will have a significant effect on the landscape around them.

2+2 does = 4.
You're just working on a different concept of math despite what numerous mathematicians say.


Watch the documentary "9-11 In Plane Site".
You can find it on the web if you know (or care) where to look


And again building 7 was not hit by an aircraft yet it collapsed also, explain that. And sry but I think my concept of maths is fine.
And as far as popular mechanics goes, question everything you read. The agenda goes deep, very deep. Including control of everything you see and read in any popular media.

"All information about the real world is carefully controlled"



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
There's a thread somewhere here at ATS with a link to a video that shows firemen who barely made it out returning to their firehouse. One of the firemen was commenting on how he heard a "pop-pop-pop" like small explosions before he escaped from the building.

:


And what do you think it would sound like as the column connections start to break away? What do you think it would sound like when you have a building slamming down floor by floor?


I’ve witnessed a number of building implosions. On one job five separate buildings were brought down in succession, one then the next. (way cool!!) They stretched for over a quarter mile. I was at one end, about 200 yards from the first two buildings. It didn’t sound like pop-pop-pop-pop

It was more like BANG-BANG-BANG. You could feel the shockwaves hitting your chest cavity.

Even the ones over a quarter a mile away were clear and distinct.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resiliance of the World Trade Center towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".


freepress2005.blogspot.com... ilding-stands-world.html



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Hmmmm, were the WTC buildings made of inferior steel or something?
Were the commercial aircraft used carrying a fuel that burned at a higher temp than normal? You guys have gotta admit something doesn't add up here (whatever your concept of maths is).

Even adding the fuel temp (under perfect conditions) of 257c to the 1300c from Howard it is still not hot enough to cause the buildings to collapse.

And it has been mentioned that the building wouldn't fall over like a tree, that's true BUT the reason it takes weeks to set up a controlled "pull" is so it falls straight down right? I think we all agree on that....Soooo if buildings naturally fall straight down then why go to all that trouble?
Have you ever seen a building after an earthquake or a bomb? The building keels over from it's weight and does not fall straight down.

911research.wtc7.net...

(Edit: Spelin)

[edit on 15/2/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee
And if you'll do some looking around here, ANOK, you'll see it has been repeatedly discussed that "pull it" refers to removing firefighters/equipment from the area ... IOW, there's nothing more they can do.

But I guess hearing that from a firefighter isn't good enough, is it? Cuz a bunch of us asked different firefighters and got the same results.

This is just silly.


i see, banshee, that you have failed to recognise the other side of the story, and that is that 'pull it' is ALSO demolition slang for , 'set off the detonations'. you also fail to mention that the person who said it, silverstein, is NOT a fireman. so, why is silverstein directing the firefight?
he's not. he's directing the demolition.
this IS just silly! HAHA!



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
An interesting perspective........



The World Trade Center towers used neither a steel skeleton nor reinforced concrete. They were designed as square tubes made of heavy, hollow welded sections, braced against buckling by the building floors. Massive foundations descended to bedrock, since the towers had to be safe against winds and other lateral forces tending to overturn them. All this was taken into consideration in the design and construction, which seems to have been first-rate. An attempt to damage the buildings by a bomb at the base had negligible effect. The strong base and foundation would repel any such assault with ease, as it indeed did. The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.

... The slumped floors pushed the steel modules outwards, separating them from the floor beams. The next floor then collapsed on the one below, pushing out the steel walls, and this continued, in the same way that a house of cards collapses. The debris of concrete facing and steel modules fell in shower while the main structure collapsed at almost the same rate. In 15 seconds or so, 110 stories were reduced to a pile 9 stories high, mainly of steel wall modules and whatever was around them. The south tower collapsed 47 minutes after impact, the north tower 1 hour 44 minutes after impact. The elapsed times show that the impacts were not the proximate cause of collapse; the strong building easily withstood them. When even one corner of a floor was weakened and fell, the collapse would soon propagate around the circumference, and the building would be lost.

It is clear that buildings built in this manner have a catastrophic mode of failure ("house of cards") that should rule out their future construction. It is triggered when there is a partial collapse at any level that breaks the continuity of the tube, which then rolls up quickly, from top to bottom. The collapse has a means of propagation that soon involves the whole structure, bypassing its major strengths and impossible to interrupt. There is no need for an airliner; a simple explosion would do the job.



...The connections of the floor trusses with the external wall were indeed not very substantial--two 5/8" bolts each, so the floors and the wall could easily be separated, as I assumed above. ...


The Collapse of Buildings


It is an interesting observation on how easily the floors could have seperated and dropped. That the heat caused enough slumping in the floors possibly for them to push themselves out of position from the floor beams....dropping themselves to the next floor.



[edit on 15-2-2005 by smirkley]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
If you look at that one picture of the figure by the hole in the side of the building that the conspiracists like to post, you can see that a number of the column trees separated at the bolt up conection point.

Furthermore, it is quite evident that the impact not only severed the exterior columns, but that it also wiped out major sections of at least two floor slabs.

Remember, the floor slabs were integral to the strucutre, they kept the exterior walls from bowing inward or outward.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
But Howard I thought you said it was the fire that caused the collapse...
Which is it, severed columns or fire?
And 2 damaged floor slabs bought down 3 buildings?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
It was the combination of both. The fire on its own probably would not have brought the building down. The impact didn't do it immediately either.

The impact did change the way the building loads were distributed. When the fire weakened the columns, they were already stressed with additional loads.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
OK so the building(s) were damaged on the side they were impacted by the aircraft right?

So how come the floors all fell evenly straight down? Wouldn't the building have collapsed to-wards the damaged weakened side?
That's what normally happens. That's why they spend weeks setting up explosives, to bring the building down evenly.
Imagine a pack of cards stacked up, you pull one from the edge it will collapse in that direction, not straight down, right?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
That is exactly what happened. Well at least in the case of the south tower. The top of that building tilted to the side as the collapse started.

For the north tower, the collapse started in the core area as the hat trusses that supported the antennas on the roof gave way.

In any event, once the collapse started, gravity and inertia took over and everything came straight down by the shortest route possible.

The house of cards is a poor analogy since cards have a much higher stiffness to weight ratio than steel beams do. It is remarkable that we can build with steel at all considering how flexible it is. We engineer stiffness into steel beams by the shape of the beam and the cross sections, but in reality, they are quite flexible.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join