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.

 

WTC Challenge

page: 32
4
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Yawn, - - yeah, but sadly no structural engineers.

BTW I wouldn’t tout Derrick Grimmer too much if I were you. He ran for president in 1996 under the ”Grassroots” party. Their principle campaign platform is the legalization of marijuana. - -

Why don’t you e-mail the members and ask them if they intend to comment on the NIST report.


Lol, but there are plenty of other engineers! There are also plenty of scientists of various sorts there for you, Howard, including at least one physicist I can remember off the top of my head. You said scientists and engineers, and that list alone contains BOTH. Quite trying to change what you said, because it's on record a few posts up.


I wouldn't mind is marijuana was legalized. Your discrediting tactics, Howard, are slipping a bit. Start another thread somewhere if you want to discuss this more, but realize that a lot of the tests showing its "dangers" were extremely unscientific, ie, pumping an animal with a lethal amount of cannibinoids and then monitoring the effects of the ones that didn't die. Nowhere near realistic. Marijuana is much healthier than either cigarettes or alcohol. But I digress..

Also, they wouldn't really need to comment on the NIST report, since it's been shot down enough here.

Are you not going to comment on the posts regarding how biased it is in starting with a conclusion and building facts around that conclusion? Or is that not biased in your skewed view?




posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

What would the altitude have to do with anything? The fires were only a few hundred feet above sea level.


Temperature decreases with altitude, air pressure decreases with altitude, and wind increases, among other things. The towers were both over 1,300 feet above sea level. The NIST report failed to take these things into consideration, as well as where the fire that was theoretically damaging the core columns would've received its oxygen supply.


Btw, they tests were deficient in one regard, the failed to account for the additional fuel load from the aircraft cabin components.


Which would've done what, prolong the jet fuel fires for a few more seconds? So what? lol


Well since the thermocouple measures the temperature in degrees, its accuracy would be a plus or minus value of that measurement.


Well if that's the case, don't you think it's a little unprofessional to switch from measuring accuracy in degrees Celsius to measuring accuracy in percentages, even in the very same sentence?


I think the report was just sloppily done, based mostly on what they failed to take into account. They must just be absent-minded, I'm sure.


And they still started with a conclusion, and fixed the evidence around that conclusion. That fact alone tells you exactly how concerned they were with finding the causes of the collapses.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not true. A number of steel buildings have been destroyed in fire. The McCormick place fire in Chicago in 67 is a classic example of a building with no fireproofing that collapsed in a fire.


Bit of a stretch to compare the McCormick fire with the WTC...

It wasn't a high rise building and the only thing that collapsed was the roof, no pancake collapse like the WTC....

Try again howwie...




posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
It looks like an old warehouse. o.O

But yeah, I was going to post some info on the building earlier but had comp problems. What the guy meant was that no steel skyscraper has ever come down from fire. That statement is correct as is.

More info on the McCormick Place Fire:


A number of factors contributed to the catastrophe. Most of these would have been sufficient by themselves to cause great destruction. The 1,250 exhibits were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic. The temporary wiring used to rig exhibits was often not up to the building code. 92% of the building, including the exhibition hall, did not have sprinklers. The water supply failed almost immediately upon the firefighters' arrival. McCormick Place's private hydrants were closed and never reopened after construction on the Stevenson Expressway, and the private pumping system was defective and inadequate. The fire spread was very rapid due to the lack of compartmentalization, the large amount of fuel, and lack of means of suppression. The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire due to the same factors.


www.chipublib.org...



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
You are deliberately missing my point. McCormick place was a unprotected steel structure.

The fact is, an unprotected steel building will not survive a typical structure fire no matter if it is a single story or a multi story building. That is why they protect the steel structures with various types of fireproofing.

In the early part of this century fire protection usually consisted of either encasing the beams and columns in concrete, clay tile or pyrobar enclosures. These fireproofing systems were bulky and heavy, but they were robust.

After WWII, new techniques were developed which involved spraying a slurry of vermiculite, or asbestos mixed with a binder or adhesive onto the steel. This has the advantages of being lightweight, and inexpensive.

Unfortunately, this type of fireproofing is not very robust. It is extremely friable and because it is wet when applied, it is prone to cause surface corrosion on the steel which can then cause the fireproofing to fall off. It is also difficult to make this stuff stick consistently to smaller pieces of steel, like truss chords and diagonals.

In addition, this type of fireproofing is generally only rated for an hour or two. That is, it will only protect the steel for so long before failure eventually occurs.

No other steel buildings have collapsed in a fire, because no other steel buildings have sustained the kind of structural damage and that the WTC buildings did prior to the fire.

In addition, the construction of the buildings was unique. Please show me another building constructed like that the WTC buildings that was involved in a similar impact and fire.


The point is, there were structural vulnerabilities in the WTC tower design.

While elegant, and efficient, the design and materials used were just not capable of withstanding both the aircraft impact and the subsequent fire.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yawn, - - yeah, but sadly no structural engineers.

BTW I wouldn’t tout Derrick Grimmer too much if I were you. He ran for president in 1996 under the ”Grassroots” party. Their principle campaign platform is the legalization of marijuana. - -

Why don’t you e-mail the members and ask them if they intend to comment on the NIST report.


Lol, but there are plenty of other engineers! There are also plenty of scientists of various sorts there for you, Howard, including at least one physicist I can remember off the top of my head.


Yeah, A chiropractor and a "cellphone engineer"
Hold on, my local "sanitiation engineer" has a special place for that group.



As for the physicist, where is his C.V.? What has he published? a book of poems?


You said scientists and engineers, and that list alone contains BOTH. Quite trying to change what you said, because it's on record a few posts up.


The people who conducted the research and wrote the NIST reports are structural engineers and material scientists. I think it only fair that any criticism of their work be from a peer in other words a scientist or engineer trained in the same discipline.

On the other hand, if any of your "SIPNE" group is planning to comment on the NIST report, then by all means lets see it.


I wouldn't mind is marijuana was legalized. Your discrediting tactics, Howard, are slipping a bit.


pothead



Seriously. The judgment of a person who runs for president as a Grassroots party candidate is a little suspect IMHO. To each his own, i suppose, but I reserve judgment on his opinion as a result.



Also, they wouldn't really need to comment on the NIST report, since it's been shot down enough here.


how? I have not seen one single argument based on a technical evaluation of the data and a report. Instead all you can do is impune the work because NIST is a federally funded agency.
In other words an ad hominum attack.

It seems to me that this is the perfect opportunity for SPINE to show us thier backbone. If you want to tout them as scientists and engineers, fine. If they fail to comment or critique the NIST reports, then as far I am concerned, they are SPINE-less.



Are you not going to comment on the posts regarding how biased it is in starting with a conclusion and building facts around that conclusion? Or is that not biased in your skewed view?


You are confusing the final report with the technical process used to get to that point. The initial goal of the project was to determine the technical causes of the collapse. The final report presents tose facts determined by the investigation. Since there was no evidence of explosives or other causes for the collapse, it was not necessary to waste time pursuing that.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
No Evidence of explosions? LOL. You can see the squibs going off Howard, Lateral Ejection, pulverization, these aren't evidence? Ah but a man like you needs concrete evidence, well too bad they hauled off that off and sold it as scrap under the most intense waste disposal security in history. That alone is Tampering with a Crime Scene and Destruction of Evidence, let alone the Firefighters and witness reports of explosions PRIOR to the collapse. Why weren't the Firefighters allowed to testify to the Comission? Because they contradicted the story that was already written before that Comission was even formed. Get real howard, they hauled the evidence off, the only pieces of the WTC that were examined were hand picked by dubious individuals who had no way of knowing or much less confirming where the actual pieces that were examined came from. Molten steel is a signature of a thermite reaction. I'm sorry but you're no evidence arguement is exactly one of the main reasons we are having this debate.

And yes I saw the brave bomb sniffing dog article you quoted, in fact I read that just a few weeks after I read the press releases which informed us that the dogs were removed from the building. Reactionary propoganda to the real story that leaked, that is all that was. Fact remains that the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled off the job the weekend before 9-11.
How often do you think Condiliar Rice calls her friends and warns them not to fly to NY? The one time she does call SF Mayor Willie Brown and tell him not to fly, what do you know there's a terrorist event... How often does an Airport Employee run around cutting up video survelince tapes with a pair of scissors and deposit them deliberately into seperate trash cans?
No steel framed high Rise has ever collapsed due to Fires, certainly not footprint collapses with neatly cut sections of steel beams, yet on 9-11 it happened three times in one day for the first time in history, I'm no mathematician, but I'd say the odds of that are pretty damned slim.
FEMA was ordered into NY 9-10, for no apparent reason... Yeah.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Yeah, A chiropractor and a "cellphone engineer" Hold on, my local "sanitiation engineer" has a special place for that group.

As for the physicist, where is his C.V.? What has he published? a book of poems?


Ah, Howard.


That list consisted of a retired US Air Force colonel, a physicist, a professional commercial airline pilot, an aerospace engineer, a mathematician, a chemist/lawyer, a computer scientist, a forensic pathologist, a kinesiologist, a former Chief Economist for the US Department of Labor, a government-employed statistician, a biologist, an engineer and manufacturer, a US military intelligence specialist, and a a US naval intelligence specialist, among a few others.

The point was, you said/suggested no one in their right mind would risk their respectable, professional careers and reputations to support these ideas, that you try to put forward as crazy and insane and off-the-wall and etc. etc.

The above list shows a number of people who have done just that.


The people who conducted the research and wrote the NIST reports are structural engineers and material scientists.


...and government employees that answer to authority.



I think it only fair that any criticism of their work be from a peer in other words a scientist or engineer trained in the same discipline.

On the other hand, if any of your "SIPNE" group is planning to comment on the NIST report, then by all means lets see it.


Until there is any proof of the fires reaching high enough temperatures and damaging enough columns to bring both the whole damned buildings down, the NIST report is just a theory. In fact, that a concrete slab fell and made both buildings destroy themselves top to bottom is just a theory, and a rather weak one at that. There is no evidence of it. Further, these NIST reports aren't even final yet are they? The captions at the tops of the pages say "for public comment." I wasn't aware that public comment had much of an effect on objective science.

And besides, it's biased. They start with a conclusion at NIST. They fix all of their evidence around that conclusion, which was the buildings came down like the government initially said. It doesn't need 'commenting on' outside of those issues. Whoever wrote the thing needs a slap in the face, as does anyone who thinks it's the holy grail of 9/11 physics. It's not.


pothead


Actually, never done it before in my life. The only illegal substance I've ingested was a little whiskey for a sore throat that my grandma gave me, and that was just once. Smoking is unhealthy, and pot has a lot of agents known to cause cancer. I'm just saying it's stupid to make marijuana illegal while legalizing nicotine/tobaccco and alcohol, which both claim an amazingly high number of lifes. Do you have to be a pothead to hold that opinion? Or do you not know how to think for yourself regarding anything?



Seriously. The judgment of a person who runs for president as a Grassroots party candidate is a little suspect IMHO. To each his own, i suppose, but I reserve judgment on his opinion as a result.


That's fine. Personally I don't see how it discredits what he may say or point out, but as you said, 'to each his own'.


I have not seen one single argument based on a technical evaluation of the data and a report. Instead all you can do is impune the work because NIST is a federally funded agency.
In other words an ad hominum attack.


No, you've simply been avoiding/ignoring the posts that disprove its fundamental concepts for the most part. At least you have not rebutted or accounted for any of the following thus far:

A) Evidence posted here suggests the fires were never hot enough to result in anything that could cause both buildings to collapse from top to bottom.

B) A lack of fireproofing does not make steel itself weaker. That is an ignorant suggestion. Steel is very resistant to heat even without fireproofing, making (A) a valid argument.

C) The report is biased, starts with a conclusion, and does not entertain any other scenarios or theories as possibilities, or even state what problems there may be with them. All the evidence they off is geared around their conclusion.

D) There are many aspects of collapse the NIST does not explain, ie demolition squibs.

E) And lastly, yes, it is from a government agency.


It seems to me that this is the perfect opportunity for SPINE to show us thier backbone. If you want to tout them as scientists and engineers, fine. If they fail to comment or critique the NIST reports, then as far I am concerned, they are SPINE-less.


Why do you hold the NIST report to be the holy grail here, Howard? What makes you think that only in rebutting it could the conspiracy be true? The report is biased, and is far from all-encompassing.


You are confusing the final report with the technical process used to get to that point. The initial goal of the project was to determine the technical causes of the collapse. The final report presents tose facts determined by the investigation. Since there was no evidence of explosives or other causes for the collapse, it was not necessary to waste time pursuing that.


Twitchy covered this. Numerous demolition squibs, unbelievable collapse rates, 100% pulverized concrete, the exaggerated ejection of material, the perfectly symmetrical collapses, and numerous witness testimonies, including those of firemen, noting various explosions and odd occurences during collapse.

Does the NIST report attempt to explain any of those, despite their clear presence and contradiction to the gravity theory? No.

Btw Howard, what proof is there that the collapses were initiated when a concrete slab fell and resulted in the total collapse, top to bottom, of both buildings? Oh, yeah, there is none. Hm. Hypocrit? No, not even that, because there actually is evidence for what we're suggesting.

Silverstein still say "pull back"?



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
The lack of fire proofing DOES make steel weaker in a fire situation.

That is why it is applied to steel in the first place. A typical structure fire can easily reach temperatures exceeding 1000 C. Steel loses a significant portion of its strength at 600 C.

The overall structural integrity of the WTC buildings was already compromised by the damage from the airplane impacts (in the case of WTC 7, the damage was caused by the adjacent collapse of WTC 1).

I have already explained how your theories about the collapse rate, squibs, and pulverized concrete are wrong.

Again.

If you think that the NIST report is flawed, go ahead and send a comment in.

You are being given an opportunity to have you oppinion heard.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

The lack of fire proofing DOES make steel weaker in a fire situation.


You're not getting the point here, Howard, or else refusing to accept it.

Steel structures are very resistant to fire on their own. Steel begins losing strength when its heated, yes, but the temperatures required to make structures *fail* are very high, even without fireproofing. This has to do with over-engineering, and how the weight load is redistributed to other local columns. You're aware of this feature of skyscrapers, right?

There would have to be super-hot fires, and they would have to be spread all over that section of the building, weakening columns significantly all over it. Anything short of this would just resort in a simple redistribution of the weight load to other columns.


The overall structural integrity of the WTC buildings was already compromised by the damage from the airplane impacts


Warning!: unsupported statement.

Do you have the critical load ratios for the affected sections of the towers?

For you to make any of the two claims above, you would have to have the critical load ratios of the WTC Towers, and from a credible source (non-government affiliated is fair enough considering you're trying to disprove a conspiracy, right?
).

If you don't have the critical load ratios, then you can't claim that the buildings' weight loads were compensated by the plane impacts alone. This is a ridiculous statement to begin with, considering how few columns were damaged during the impacts.


(in the case of WTC 7, the damage was caused by the adjacent collapse of WTC 1).


Another unsupported statement.





That would have to be some hardcore debris coming from Tower 1, to fly over and deal Building 7 a critical blow.

I also would have to wonder why no buildings outside of the WTC collapsed. Building 7 was somehow destroyed, being another steel-framed skyscraper, and yet all the other buildings around the complex, including the Verizon Building, the Post Office, and the Bankers Trust Building are still up and running in NYC. Must be some kind of curse!

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

Nope; he's not saying "pull back."

He's saying...






I have already explained how your theories about the collapse rate, squibs, and pulverized concrete are wrong.

Again.


Oh yeah, that reminds me. Howard, you know that link I posted to the Guardian article showing how the fires could not have been hot enough to cause significant damage? You said you rebutted it, and I asked for at least a link to this alleged rebuttal. Just reminding you; I know how bad your memory seems to be.


If I had to guess, I'd say you didn't really 'debunk' it, in the same way you didn't really debunk any of those things you just claimed to.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Too all of those that claim that the NIST report is biased.

PROVE IT

Then submit that proof as a comment.

Thousands of engineers, scientists and architects around the world will look at those reports. They will make important design decisions based on that report.

Many companies will make very important business decisions based on that report.

Why would they do this if it is a biased report?



I can't read the report because I don't have adobe on my computer, nor do I feel like downloading it. However, instead of me disproving a government report, how about you answer my questions.


Why where no indepedant investigations allowed?


Why was the steel shipped off without investigation?


Why was molten steel found in the wreckage of tower 7?


Why did three towers fall from sporadic fires?


Why did fireman claim minutes before the collapse that the fires would soon be extinguished?


Why did fireman, and a whole other slew of witnesses claim to hear demolitions fire?


Why were there drills for the exact same attacks, in the exact same locations in both the london and WTC attacks (proven and admitted)?


Why were gag orders placed if there is nothing to hide?


Where are the black boxes?


Shall the list continue? There's tons of more questions. And these seem like questions that validate an explination. #, if we can spend a few million investigating Bill Clintons trousers, we can spend a few million more on this.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by ANOK
NIST is a government agency.

No chance of any bias there


Do you really expect a government agency to come out and admit it was a controlled demolition?

If you do then you are really naive as far as how government does things.



Look at what has happened to anyone who has openly spoken of a conspiracy in the government.

Read a friggin book man.
Do you know how large the government is?? Is everyone in on it??



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Those are not charges, those are from air being forced out of the building by the copllapsing floors, or do you think that the air would "magically" dissapear?


Actualy, I'd think there wouldn't be that much air left in there anymore if a fire hot enough to melt steel had been raging in there for so long.


That's one of the most intelligent points I've heard in a long time.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by white4life420


Actualy, I'd think there wouldn't be that much air left in there anymore if a fire hot enough to melt steel had been raging in there for so long.


That's one of the most intelligent points I've heard in a long time.



Really...

So what you're saying is that when a fire burns it creates a vacuum and turns molecules of "air" into atoms and then pulverizes them into nothingness. Nifty. Remind me next time I light a fire in my fireplace to stay back so I don't get sucked into the vortex of the black hole or get burned up by all the protons and gamma rays flying about.

The idea is both ludicrous and illogical.

How does a fire burn?

You do realize that when a person is "overcome" by smoke in a fire it's not because there is no air right? It's because the oxygen (O2) atoms are bound to carbon atoms of the fuel source and produce carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide gas (simplified: CO2 and CO) which becomes unusable by our lungs (our body can't separate O2 from CO or CO2). The air doesn't significantly reduce in volume; it just changes chemical properties....

What about underground coal fires?
How can a fire burn underground for over 50 years and possibly continue for the next century?
How can a coal fire burn underground for 92 years?
Some of these underground coal fires have been burning for a century...
One underground coal fire in Australia has been burning for 5,500 years. It's called the Burning Mountain Nature Reserve.
Underground coal fires in China consume up to 200 million tons of coal per year, that's 1/5th of the entire yearly Coal consuption of the USA -- lost to underground fires!


Are all of these fires consuming what little air is available underground and creating vacuums around the globe as well? I'd hasten to "guess" that there are small cracks in the earth that allow air to get in and continue to feed the fire. I'd also hasten to "guess" that the World Trade Center buildings are not hermetically sealed and do actually allow free flow of air into and out of the building through vents and entryways which would be much larger than the cracks in the earth that allow a fire 600 feet below the surface to continue to burn for hundreds or even thousands of years.


Some of you people on here make some of the most uneducated claims and comments...



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
Really...

So what you're saying is that when a fire burns it creates a vacuum and turns molecules of "air" into atoms and then pulverizes them into nothingness. Nifty. Remind me next time I light a fire in my fireplace to stay back so I don't get sucked into the vortex of the black hole or get burned up by all the protons and gamma rays flying about.

The idea is both ludicrous and illogical.

How does a fire burn?

You do realize that when a person is "overcome" by smoke in a fire it's not because there is no air right? It's because the oxygen (O2) atoms are bound to carbon atoms of the fuel source and produce carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide gas (simplified: CO2 and CO) which becomes unusable by our lungs (our body can't separate O2 from CO or CO2). The air doesn't significantly reduce in volume; it just changes chemical properties....

What about underground coal fires?
How can a fire burn underground for over 50 years and possibly continue for the next century?
How can a coal fire burn underground for 92 years?
Some of these underground coal fires have been burning for a century...
One underground coal fire in Australia has been burning for 5,500 years. It's called the Burning Mountain Nature Reserve.
Underground coal fires in China consume up to 200 million tons of coal per year, that's 1/5th of the entire yearly Coal consuption of the USA -- lost to underground fires!


Are all of these fires consuming what little air is available underground and creating vacuums around the globe as well? I'd hasten to "guess" that there are small cracks in the earth that allow air to get in and continue to feed the fire. I'd also hasten to "guess" that the World Trade Center buildings are not hermetically sealed and do actually allow free flow of air into and out of the building through vents and entryways which would be much larger than the cracks in the earth that allow a fire 600 feet below the surface to continue to burn for hundreds or even thousands of years.


Some of you people on here make some of the most uneducated claims and comments...



You are over-complexing the issue. The fact is, fire eats air. If there is a fire that is raging so heavy that it melts steel, that fire is consuming air at a rapid rate. The air that fire will be grabbing at most would be coming from out side of the building more than the inside (hence why when there is a fire, you should not open windows or doors).

[edit on 24-7-2005 by white4life420]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by white4life420

You are over-complexing the issue. The fact is, fire eats air. If there is a fire that is raging so heavy that it melts steel, that fire is consuming air at a rapid rate. The air that fire will be grabbing at most would be coming from out side of the building more than the inside (hence why when there is a fire, you should not open windows or doors).

[edit on 24-7-2005 by white4life420]


Actually, he's right. If you would have followed his links, you'd have learned this.

The 'air' being brought in from the outside is a result of the fire pushing the CO and CO2 upwards through the building and/or exiting the building through the huge gapping holes. But regardless of the movement of 'air' in the building, the 'air' is still there, just not breathable. 'Air' doesnt just stop existing, regardless of which type of 'air' you use, it still has pressure and volume.

Hence CO2 containers (think pellet guns, paintball guns) or Propane.. The air is compressed and its volume is small.. but its still there.. regardless of its chemical makeup.

But, to fall back on this theory some, I still have a problem with the original theory that the outbursts from the building were caused by this air being pushed down by the falling floors. The theory just doesnt make sense. When you pliffs of 'air' accompanied by a large enough density of dust to be seen from the ground, there must have been some type of explosion. Perhaps the 'air' being pushed out of the building was so strong it literally shattered the walls several floors below the action, or there was an explosion of foreign nature.

I'm still undecided..

To debunk the claims of these plumes of smoke by merely stating they were JUST air and no other possible circumstance is embracing ignorance.

While the NIST report does a fabulous job or reporting the structural flaws and weaknesses of the building, (to the point I now understand why they fell) it doesnt mention this huge amount of pressure flowing through the building as it fell. Huge enough to blow out the walls?

Maybe I'm missing something here. I'll reread the report.. :x



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Also, to counter alot of claims I've read here on ATS, I really encourage people to read this NIST report, even if it was published by a "federal" source..

* Claim 1: The fire system (sprinklers) werent turned on..

Wrong. NIST page 78 --

There was no way to fight the fires. The piping providing the water supply to the automatic sprinklers
had been broken, and water was flowing down the stairwells. Even had this not happened, the system
was designed to supply water to about 8 sprinkler heads at one time, enough to control the flames from as
much as 1,500 ft2 of burning material. The water supply was likely sufficient to control fires up to triple
that size. The fires, however, had already grown far larger than that.


Claim 2: Small pockets of fire..

Wrong again.. NIST page 79 (and 82) shows the placement of fires.. they were not small pockets .. Look for yourself. Examine the footage, and compare them to the images NIST provided.. they all jive.

Claim 3: Explosions on lower floors..



There were two additional express elevators to the Windows on the World restaurant (and related
conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and to the observation deck in WTC 2. There were
also five local elevators: three that brought people from the subterranean levels to the lobby, one that ran
between floors 106 and 110, and one that ran between floors 43 and 44 (in WTC 1), serving the cafeteria
from the skylobby. There were also eight freight elevators, one of which served all floors. All elevators
had been upgraded to incorporate firefighter emergency operation requirements.


For explosions to occur all the way down to the lobby isnt hard to precieve.. Ever hear of a "potatoe" gun? It's a really simple logic (and quite dangerous I might add, so don't go trying to make one) where you cap off one end of a tube, drill a hole in the cap, supply a small amount of highly flammable material, and hold a flame to the small hole.. The result is a HUGE explosion down the tube exiting out the open end. All thats required is a tiny bit of flammable material. Once it's ignited, regardless of amount, the force generated by the flame will push out the other end.

Potatoe guns are known to literally propell a potatoe through car doors using nothing but a small amount of hair spray.. (again, very dangerous, dont try it at home)

Video of potatoe gun destroying a guys computer

Also, I just want to add something here.. It's quite obvious that many of the posters here (32 pages!) have not read the NIST report.. ALOT of your theories are debunked in this report.. not all of them, but ALOT of them.

And even after supplying a link to the NIST report, many of you are arguing facts that were intensly researched and presented in the report.

[edit on 7/24/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

While the NIST report does a fabulous job or reporting the structural flaws and weaknesses of the building, (to the point I now understand why they fell)


So you actually believe those fires caused both buildings to collapse? o.O

The NIST report isn't going to explain the squibs. x.x..



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

While the NIST report does a fabulous job or reporting the structural flaws and weaknesses of the building, (to the point I now understand why they fell)


So you actually believe those fires caused both buildings to collapse? o.O

The NIST report isn't going to explain the squibs. x.x..


I don't believe anything other then the hard facts presented to me. The report, if you read it, shows exactly which support beams, columns, terraces, ect were severed from the impact. It also shows precisly where the fires were, how big they were, and are back up with video/picture research.. again.. read the report

The building should have fallen without the fires. It's a miracle they didnt.



Small pockets of fire?

[edit on 7/24/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   


I can see this thread is going to end up the same as the 757 at the Pentagon thread - eighty-something pages and still going round and round in the same circles. Then every now and then someone new jumping in after having skimmed some of the previous pages and claiming that everyone else (with a different opinion to them) knows nothing, or has not read the report, or doesn't know anything about the science of the issue, or whatever.

And it's amazing how petty the arguments have become, mostly focused on semantics.

"No. You said "83rd floor". It's the 82nd and a halfth floor, and if you'd actually done some research you'd know that. Here, this 6000 word post with animated, 5+Mb images I made proves it."

"A fire doesn't feed on "air"
, it feeds on oxygen, and even though I really knew that's what you meant, I'm going to spend 5 posts showing that you were wrong, that the fires could have burned for 6000 years, and rubbing that misuse of a word in your face with glee."

"You know nothing about physics, structural engineering, or explosives. Now listen up sonny while I make a 3000 word post with video about trailer trash with potato guns to explain the simple concept of the expansion of burning gases in a confined space."

"You said the fires were 'tiny'. Does this look 'tiny' to you?"
"I said, "moderate", not 'tiny'."
"No, you said 'tiny'...well, okay, maybe you said "small"...now I'm going to search back through the last 15 pages to find where you said it and prove it!"

"Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too! And you're mom said you did when I humped her last night. ooooOOO~!"

Yes, I'm exaggerating, but I'm not far off the mark.

Okay, ice cream break's over. Everyone back on the merry-go-round! Weeeeeeeeeeeeee~!!!




top topics



 
4
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join