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.

 

What happened to WTC 7 again?

page: 22
0
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
HAHAHAHAHA


The immaturity coming from you is astounding.

It's all very simple.

Military remote controlled planes hit towers.
Towers were planted with explosives and demolished.
Flight 93 shot down with heat-seeking missile striking.
Flight 93 cell phone calls faked.
Pentagon plane wreckage no where to be found.
Pentagon damage was caused by a missle.
Building 7 was demolished ordered by Larry Silverstein.

Which means it took weeks in advance to prepare. Think about that.

Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack

It was all planned out. A well executed murder by The U.S. Government and Greedy Heartless Men that branches out to all of Military & Foreign Agencies.

It is part of a bigger agenda. And it certainly isn't to benefit us.

Iraq War. Based on Lies. Thousands dead. Deception Continues. It will never stop.

The U.S. Government needs to be abolished and start all over with a new system that actually works.

It is a disgrace that a film like United 93 is being released. It is pure propaganda. Don't believe a word of it.

Good day.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by eudaimonia]




posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Are you kidding me! The photos you just provided are of wtc 7 the opposite side of the collapse!!!! No wonder that side looks so good, the impact was on the other side!!!!!!!!! My god man, you're real stupid if you think that is the side that was hit by the twin towers. Trying to pass that on as the side where there was damage.


Ok then just like I asked your buddy, you show us pics of these raging fires instead of just mouthing off.

But the point is the side of the building in the pic I posted has NO signs of raging fire or significant damage.
So you're again saying fire and damage on one side of a building will cause all columns to fail at the same time...OOOOKay, LOL...I'm starting to get dizzy from your circular clueless logic.

So how about tackling the other questions I asked? Oh wait you can't answer them can you, cause they're not covered in your NIST report?

Did you know that almost all of the diesel fuel from the tanks, that supposedly helped fuel the fires, was recovered?


Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that the 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) recovered from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks was probably all of the oil in those tanks at that time. Since the oil in the tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

Note that the size of a 12,000 gallon tank would be a little less than 12 feet by 12 feet by 12 feet (if built as a cube)
.


911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 27/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So you're again saying fire and damage on one side of a building will cause all columns to fail at the same time...OOOOKay, LOL...I'm starting to get dizzy from your circular clueless logic.



Anok, did you just totally ignore this post....


Originally posted by BigTrain

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by BigTrain
Yes. thats exactly how it works. Why wouldnt they? Once it goes, it goes.


LOL you really don't know anything about buildings or physics do you?

Why wouldn't they? Why would they all fail at exactly the same time? All you can answer is why wouldn't they?


Go to school or something...


Sry but this is getting to be just silly.


Anok, just quit man, you sound rediculous. Let me try to explain this to you, ONCE AGAIN.

When you have a column failure in a building, the loads above need to find another way down to the foundation. This places much higher strains and demand on the other columns.

When you have MULTIPLE failures, or in our case, destruction of columns, you are not only having stresses and forces finding a new load path, you now have fires that are weakening the remaining columns that are now tasked with holding up an increased load. These fires will go through the building, weakening columns one at a time, these columns will be put into a buckled shape by the fires, heat on one side hotter than the other causes columns to distort.

Now, the fires continue through the building. they progressively weaken more and more columns, eventually, a majority of the main columns and girders reach a point where their capacity is equal to the ultimate applied forces. Let me make this very clear. The remaining columns AS A WHOLE have an equal capacity as the total applied load.

As soon as this capacity is overcome, they all buckle within milleseconds. Once the first column goes, and there is no more reserve capacity, the next goes, and the next and the next. There is nothing to stop it, the load paths are changing in milleseconds and failing all the remaining columns within the same time frame.

Make no mistake, these columns are trying to resist the load, but they cannot.

Anok, how much harder can you possibly make this. How is it possible you cannot understand this?

So again, did they all fail at the same time, you're damn right they did.

Train



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Stop saying fell striaght down!!!!!!!! The damn building fell in the direction of the initial damage as can be seen by the outer wall being folded over the rubble. Stop believing the lies


Look at the rubble pile WTC7's collapse left. If it didn't fall straight down, then all of the debris still somehow managed to land in a pretty neat pile in its footprint.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
They claim to understand physics, but it is the same sort of “Physics” that once claimed that it was obvious that the sun and stars revolved around the Earth, for who could doubt the evidence of their eyes?


So you agree that damage to one side of a very large skyscraper will cause all the columns of a floor to fail at virtually the same instant, within a snap of a finger? That's the kind of "physics" you believe in?


Originally posted by jimmytango
I'm not ignoring anyone - I just have a problem with you all:

a) stating that the NIST and FEMA report prove anything; and
b) positing that you have it figured out when those with the evidence haven't.


I totally agree with this, and I'll give a short summary to back this up.

Why NIST/FEMA doesn't prove anything so far as the collapses go:

FEMA doesn't offer anything more than a sketch of how the buildings would've fallen via gravity theoretically, which isn't proof of anything. Their report gives figures on the number of knocked-out perimeter columns, and some basic info and background on the buildings, but that's it. This sets the stage for NIST.

NIST's report attempts to explain only the collapse initiations, vaguely describing the collapses of every single floor afterwards as "inevitable" with no further investigation (what world-class engineers folks). As far as the initiations, they simply point to bent-looking perimeter columns and say the trusses were failing and pulling the columns inwards.

Well, that's a fine theory I suppose, but it's not proof of even why the collapses initiated for these simple reasons: they offer no proof that the appearance of the perimeter columns were actually caused by the trusses, and they don't show enough of such columns to justify a collapse initiating. Even if they are right, you have to admit that they never proved those things in their report. They really offered no substantial evidence of any of it.

Actually, if you look at their report, you'll see that they actually show a picture of WTC2 after it began tilting to make up for the lack of "buckled" columns that existed beforehand. Having enough damaged columns after the collapse has already begun doesn't really explain how the collapse actually started, does it? That doesn't even make sense, and yet it's what they suggest.


Originally posted by BigTrain
My god man, you're real stupid if you think that is the side that was hit by the twin towers. Trying to pass that on as the side where there was damage, HAHAHAHAHA


Wow.

ANOK was referring to the fires. Not the damage from the building collapses. And last I heard, government agencies are still explaining that diesel tanks somehow exploded to cause the fires in the building, and that the fires were the ultimate cause of collapse, just as in the WTC. So that would have nothing to do with the towers collapsing.

If you can't follow a very simple line of logic without becoming so confused ("look at the fires" becomes "that's not the side damaged by the buildings!") then why should we put any stock into anything else you're saying?



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Please beleve the gov and the media lies.
I just cant understand you people, you are getting in our way to make Billons of $
cant you all just leave all this alone its not going to help you all to try and figger
out what happened. Now please be STUPIT and forget about that wtc#7 it just fell down ALL BY IT SELF, the explosion you hard lol was a car back fireing lol.
we got our war didnt we, be happy lol if you only really knew what it cost
to bring that building down lol. Be happy we are lol$$$$$$$$$$$ to the bank we will go.

BUSH & Dick C Oh the contracts LOL no bid contracts LOL



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
So again, did they all fail at the same time, you're damn right they did.
Anok, did you just totally ignore this post....
Train


No LOL, I just didn't think it worth replying too...You are making some very big assumptions, like the fire weakened the remaining undamaged columns. There is no proof of that, and what evidence there is points to NO RAGING FIRES! Does it help if I shout like you?
Just like WTC 1&2 the fire did not and could not have got hot enough to weaken steel enough to cause complete failure.
How do you know any columns were even significantly damaged by the debris? Another assumption. We see damage to the buildings facade, show me this significant structural damage.

I understand that if some columns are damaged load is tranfered to other collumns, buildings are designed to do that. You know why? Obviously not, otherwise you'd understand why you are wrong in your thinking.

Just like the NIST report, opinion based in wild assumptions whilst ignoring the obvious to fit a pre-concieved conclusion. And you know why NIST would do that right? Question is, why would you?

Gotta quote this again, it's a classic...

Originally posted by BigTrain
So again, did they all fail at the same time, you're damn right they did.
Train


[edit on 28/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I understand that if some columns are damaged load is tranfered to other collumns, buildings are designed to do that. You know why? Obviously not, otherwise you'd understand why you are wrong in your thinking.



Obviously not?? I dont understand why?? Hmm, I forgot who is the structural engineer on this board, oh wait its me. Anok, just curious, what kind of car or truck do you own?

Train



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Ok then just like I asked your buddy, you show us pics of these raging fires instead of just mouthing off.



If that is the standard of evidence, then why don't you guys show us pictures of the bombs inside the buildings, and then show us pictures of someone putting them there.

There are numerous reports about the damage to WTC 7 that have been posted on this thread and others.

However if you insist that pictures must be shown to prove it to you, it's only fair you do the same.

Where are the pics of any WTC building looking like this?




posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Where are pictures of that omfg damage to WTC7 which caused it to collapse straight down ? Show me the money !!!! :>



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
There are none because the damage was like a tick to a bear, annoying at best. How can people say "Oh when he said Pull it and seconds later it fell it wasn't controlled demolition it was, uh, terrorists are gonna get you if you keep questioning Bush!"

Put down the golden statue to Bush and look at what happened, I saw it on tv when it happened, I thought it was an accident, wondered why it interuppted everything, until the second plane hit and thats when it dawned on me we were being attacked, it wasn't until later I found out who attacked us...

Germany and Israel warned EVERYONE that the towers were going to be attacked, everyone but BUSH listened, they pulled non-essential people out, except for Bush as he was on vacation for a month. Then 9/11 happens, no Israel or German dead as they pulled everyone out, and only 3,000+ died, didn't you ever wonder why the number was so low? 2 buildings of that size could hold ten thousand each easily, yet less then a third of each's own capacity died, why? All the other nations pulled people out the weeks before, except America, because Bush was on vacation when the memo was sent and he never told anyone about it.

Then look at this, a friend of the Bush Family, Osama Bin Laden, and his people trained and supported by the Bush Family, "attack" us. People who had months earlier been visiting Bush&Co, had gotten millions in June from Bush&Co, attack? Gee, think that 69million dolalrs was a payoff?



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
LeftBehind...

That is totally illogical. First, the CD crowd doesn't state that the buildings were rigged that way. The non CD crowd DOES state that building 7 was severly damaged. There's a huge difference between wanting a photo of something you guys state as fact and wanting a photo of something we can only speculate on. See the difference? Probably not but worth a try.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarkMan
There are none because the damage was like a tick to a bear, annoying at best.

It was severe enough that the fire chiefs did not allow anyone to try to fight the fires in the building.



Originally posted by StarkMan
How can people say "Oh when he said Pull it and seconds later it fell it wasn't controlled demolition it was, uh, terrorists are gonna get you if you keep questioning Bush!"


Seconds later, huh? You got some proof of that?



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Hey, Starkman...

They actually had a capacity of 50,000. I'm not sure if this was between the twins or in each twin, but I know a LOT more people could have been killed that day.

Ain't it funny how the howling, bloodthirsty jihadis want to kill us all, but, despite ALL their masterful planning, they forgot to attack when they could kill the maximum number of people possible?


Taurus feces.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain--
Obviously not?? I dont understand why?? Hmm, I forgot who is the structural engineer on this board, oh wait its me. Anok, just curious, what kind of car or truck do you own?


What kind of structural engineer are you? What have you worked on? Where did you get your degree? If I were you I'd ask for my money back...


Surely you took some physics classes? With all your structural expertise all you've managed to say so far is "it just happens like that"...Yeah very professional.
Show me where it has happend 'just like that' before 9-11? Oh you can't can you? 'Cause it only happened on 9-11, the day Arab terrorist released their anti-physics bomb.


And yet again you fail to support any of your claims after being asked numorous times to post pics of these HUGE holes and RAGING fires, and structural damage to supporting columns.

BTW what has cars or trucks got to do with it? I don't own a car anymore, don't need one, don't want one, so what?


Did you know that WTC 7 was built to withstand the spread of fires?


5.3.3 Compartmentalization

Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.



A zoned smoke control system was present in WTC 7. This system was designed to pressurize the floors above and below the floor of alarm, and exhaust the floor of alarm to limit smoke and heat spread.



The fireproofing material used to protect the structural members has been identified by Silverstein Properties as "Monokote." The Port Authority informed the BPS Team that New York City Building Code Construction Classification 1B (2-hour rating for beams, girders, trusses, and 3-hour rating for columns) was specified for WTC 7 in accordance with the architectural specifications on the construction notes drawing PA-O. According to the Port Authority, the construction notes on drawing PA-O also specified the following:

* Exterior wall columns (columns engaged in masonry walls) shall be fireproofed on the exterior side with 2-inch solid gypsum, 3-inch hollow gypsum, 2-inch concrete or spray-on fireproofing.
* Interior columns shall be fireproofed with materials and have rating conforming with Section C26-313.3 (27-269 current section).
* Beams and girders shall be fireproofed with 2-inch grade Portland cement concrete, Gritcrete, or spray-on fireproofing or other materials rendering a 2-hour fire rating.


Source...sf.indymedia.org...

[edit on 28/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Ya know ANOK, how many times do we engineers and fire personel and material engineers have to tell you that it doesnt take a raging fire to severly warp a column.

And another thing. It was the failure of the floor connections in the twin towers that caused their collapse, not the failure of the columns. The columns failed after the floors started to pancake on top of each other because they had no more lateral bracing, and failed in buckling.

You ask why the floor connections failed. Easy to answer. The elements with the thinnest cross-section take less time to heat and take less energy to heat. Larger pieces of steel take much longer to heat up. when the floor connections were exposed to the fire, it didnt take long for them to fail. But they were the first ones to fail. Once one floor pancaked on top of the one below it, the bottom floor didnt have nearly the strength to stop its momentum.

But you probably still think that a small little piece of steel should be strong enough to hold 10-20 floors worth of collapse right?

Train



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Ya know ANOK, how many times do we engineers and fire personel and material engineers have to tell you that it doesnt take a raging fire to severly warp a column.


OMG! that is just too funny, your comments get better...

So now you claim small fires could cause fireproofed columns to fail?

Too funny!

And BTW we're talking about WTC 7, not the twin towers, are we getting confused?

BTW you have justy proved, at least to me, you are lieing about being a structural engineer. Maybe a contruction worker, but you ain't no engineer...LOL

You are also again ignoring any question that would help you prove your point. So more proof you can't answer the questions I ask cause you have no idea what you're talking about. If I wasn't having so much fun with you, and the board wasn't so slow, you'd be on ignore by now



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
No ANOK, its you who has no clue as to what im talking about. You are probably one of those people who thinks that a fire has to melt a column before it can fail.

Train



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
ANOK, if your so smart, why dont you do a simple calcuation. Take a steel column, apply a temperature gradient along its axis and see how much it deflects.

I bet the numbers would surpise you. Even use a low # like 300-400 degrees.

Train



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   


So now you claim small fires could cause fireproofed columns to fail?


Here's what you obviously don't understand.

Fireproofing does not make it impervious to fire forever. Is rated in hours, In WTC7 according to your link it was either 2 or 3 hour rated depending on which structural member we are talking about.

Now how long were those fires allowed to burn?



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Here's your WTC7 Controlled Demolition Scientific Evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join