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.

 

How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by craig732
If office fires do not get hot enough to cause steel to fail, then why do they bother putting fire-resistant coating on steel beams in office buildings?


I see no one wants to tackle this question.


Simple so the heat from a fire on one floor doesn't spread by heated beams to another..




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't think the fire proofing proves anything. The towers steel had fire proofing right?
That's what I mean when I say contruction steel. It has to meet certain requirments to be used for construction that includes fire proofing.

Are you saying the fireproofing didn't work that day?


I just re-read this and I think I understand differently now.

I think you believe that in order for steel to be used in construction it has to have some fireproofing properties instilled in it or applied at the steel factory?

If that is what you are thinking that is not correct.

Fireproofing is applied to structural steel after the installation of the steel in the building is complete.

It is sprayed on. It is a fire-resistant fiber; maybe you could compare it in texture to that green foam they use in flower arrangements. It is very fragile. It is designed to be sprayed onto steel that will be covered by sheetrock or some other barrier to protect it from being brushed off.

And technically they shouldn't call it "fireproofing". Nothing is really fireproof. The coating makes the steel resistant to the effects of fire.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by craig732
If office fires do not get hot enough to cause steel to fail, then why do they bother putting fire-resistant coating on steel beams in office buildings?


I see no one wants to tackle this question.


Simple so the heat from a fire on one floor doesn't spread by heated beams to another..


The fireproof coating will not reduce the steel beam's heat conductivity.

Also, heat conductivity should not be a concern as the structural steel beams should not be in contact with any flammable material.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomX

Originally posted by astonished
Hey Phoenix, a quick scan of your posts reveal you are pro-Iraq, pro-Bush, and pro-official 9-11 story. This must be a miserable place for you.


I also checked for a bit on Howard Roark - funny how he used to post in the Chemtrail Central Forum (as Wolf_Larson) until he apparently vanished in 2003. I think he was just re-assigned.

Here is Howard showing disdain for anyone "dumb" enough to believe there is anything sinister behind the
Denver International Airport

Same 'ol Howard - spending hours upon hours of his daily life trying to convince others ON CONSPIRACY BOARDS that there are no conspiracies at all. Wonder how he's enjoying the new assignment to ATS?



[edit on 23-7-2006 by astonished]


Hey astonished, a quick scan of your posts reveal you are anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, and anti-official 9-11 story. This must be a wonderful place for you.



Yep, I woke up about a year ago and began to learn the truth in spades. Now I spread it around as much as possible, and those people spread it around, and more and more people wake up each and every day. Stinks for Howard and his minions, but at least it gives them some job security.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't think the fire proofing proves anything. The towers steel had fire proofing right?
That's what I mean when I say contruction steel. It has to meet certain requirments to be used for construction that includes fire proofing.

Are you saying the fireproofing didn't work that day?
Maybe the steel you saw twisted wasn't construction steel?

And your other question is not that important either imo, maybe why no one is jumping on it? We've already shown it's possible to plant explsives, and if you think it's not you just don't want to see it or admit it.

Why don't you answer some of the question you are ignoring?...There's lots to choose from in this post alone, I'll let you pick...


I think you missed the point though I could be wrong.

The point was that normal fires..not even counting huge frikkin planes loaded with fuel...can damage construction steel enough to warrent mandatory installation of fireproofing. The collision of a huge frikkin' plane knocked alot of it off. Do you think that plays a part in anything?



We've already shown it's possible to plant explsives,


Where was this? I missed that post.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
well since the buildings were what they call a tube structure meaning all of the main support beams and electrical wiring and water lines along with elevators and such were all in the middle of the building im sure that would be where the explosives could have been planted


but then i do have something else to say that maybe there werent any bombs planted,i saw a show on tv about building demolitons with explosives where they have cords running all aorund the buildings in hallways and all over the each floor but not tucked away and hidden, i mean they actually criss-cross all over the floor at like waist height or so, the reason why there are so many cords is because they each connect to a certain beam and those cords connect to a main cord which connects to the detonator and when the charges are set off, debris fly out in all directions so when they do that they have to put kevlar around the lower areas of the buildings to prevent damage in the surrounding area, so if there really were explosives set, why didnt anything fly out in a large radius around the building(i mean like huge chunks of stuff, not like little bits of concrete or dust or anything)and if i am wrong, sorry in advance

[edit on 24-7-2006 by blackhumvee113]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Howard Roark I noticed you never mentioned the fact that floor 34 was completely empty and closed to the public and that the elevators did not even stop there, sure could put plenty of explosives there, nor did you address the molten steel that was in the bedrock the towers was built on 30 days after the towers fell, nor the fact that there was maintenance going on and building evacuations for several weeks before the towers came down.

Nor did you address the fact that many people working in the basement levels reported explosions before they heard the planes hit, and there were seismic spikes, it may be debatable about their timing but hey lets look at what you do believe:

the most unbelievable conspiracy theory of all time, the official story.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
Howard Roark I noticed you never mentioned the fact that floor 34 was completely empty and closed to the public and that the elevators did not even stop there, sure could put plenty of explosives there,


Perhaps they could have, but then we all would have seen a huge explosion on the 34th floor at some point.

I was glued to my TV the whole day on 9/11; I don't recall seeing any huge explosion at the 34th floor.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

And technically they shouldn't call it "fireproofing". Nothing is really fireproof. The coating makes the steel resistant to the effects of fire.


True... just stick a piece of steel wool into a cup of oxygen and watch brightly steel can burn...

However..

The reason they coat the steel, expanding on my previous "short" answer is called passive fire protection and has been standard building code...


Passive Fire Protection measures are intended to contain a fire in the fire compartment of origin, thus limiting the spread of fire, excessive heat and corrosive, re-ignitable and fatal flue gases for a limited period of time, as determined by testing, which must bound (see bounding) the installed configuration in all respects in order to comply with the law, which is typically the local building code and the fire code.


Pretty good explanation of that in the good ole

Wikipedia



Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

Kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, however, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.


Siesmic Shocks


Imagine that... siesmic shocks just at the right time...that's some coincidence

BTW anyone know if they ever did a tally on just how many big executives stayed home that day?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I do agree that the pancaking of each floor definitely looked like explosions.

So if there was a controlled demolition, one WTC 1 & 2, it must have started right at the point of impact on both buildings and then proceeded downward.

If there were explosives rigged on the point of impact floors, wouldn't the web of wiring connecting all the explosives be damaged by the impact and explosion of the planes?

Wouldn't the explosives, um, explodewhen exposed to a huge fireball?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Where was this? I missed that post.


It was in the CIA briefing... to bad you missed it




Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/24/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
The reason they coat the steel, expanding on my previous "short" answer is called passive fire protection and has been standard building code...


Passive Fire Protection measures are intended to contain a fire in the fire compartment of origin, thus limiting the spread of fire, excessive heat and corrosive, re-ignitable and fatal flue gases for a limited period of time, as determined by testing, which must bound (see bounding) the installed configuration in all respects in order to comply with the law, which is typically the local building code and the fire code.


Pretty good explanation of that in the good ole

Wikipedia



Ah yes, I love Wikipedia too.

But you should read the whole article before trying to use it as a bolster to your point.

If you scroll down the page a bit you will read:


spray fireproofing (application of intumescent or endothermic paints, or fibrous or cementitious plasters to keep substrates such as structural steel, electrical or mechanical services, valves, liquified petroleum gas (LPG) vessels, vessel skirts, bulkheads or decks below either 140°C for electrical items or ca. 500°C for structural steel elements to maintain operability of the item to be protected)


Please re-read the last 9 words in that paragraph.

Spray fireproofing is not intended to reduce or eliminate heat conduction to other areas. It is intended to maintain operability or the item to be protected.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by craig732]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
BTW anyone know if they ever did a tally on just how many big executives stayed home that day?


I would bet is is a large number. Also taxi drivers and food card vendors were missing in large numbers that day.

I don't think that there is doubt in anyone's mind that an extremely large number of people knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius).



There is a huge difference between the melting point of construction steel and the point at which construction steel begins to weaken (about 500 degrees Celsius).

[edit on 24-7-2006 by craig732]

[edit on 24-7-2006 by craig732]

[edit on 24-7-2006 by craig732]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Alllrighty then.
Back on topic..how were those buildings rigged?
Maybe we could expand and get an idea where everyone thinks the explosives would have to be planted in order to produce such an collapse. It seems like some people think that the explosives could have been planted just anywhere that was handy and accessable. Would this work or would there have to be precise planning like an actual CD?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Personally, I'm waiting for Oliver Stone's movie to come out to learn the real truth. I mean, it's Oliver Stone, man!


I have seen data from all sides on this issue, personally, I think that the collapse was attributed to more than just the airplane hitting it. I'm not a physicist, architect or any of that technical type of profession. I tend to read a lot though, and I don't take everything I read for granted, no matter where I see it. Many studies though have showed how thermite would have the same effects on the beams that were recorded on 9/11. I think there were secondary incinerations and explosions that ultimately dropped the towers and building 7.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

You said the fires burned how long? 6 hours.

Case closed


I didn't say fires burned for 6 hours. I don't think the fires were as bad as claimed.

So using your analogy how did all other steel framed buildings that have had majors fires, the one in Madrid for example, manage to remain standing after being engulfed in flames for what 2 days? How did building 5 and 6 remain standing after having more damage and fires than 7?

Did they used different steel in WTC 5 & 6, & in Spain?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
Bush had long time dealings with the Bin Ladens stemming from Bushs first oil company Arbusto Energy.


A lot of people have businesses with the Bin Laden family because they own one of the largest construction companies in the world, and the Bin Ladens have offices in a couple of European countries, so a lot of governments and people have business with the Bin Laden family......the problem is not the Bin Laden family...the problem is Osama Bin Laden, which contrary to the claims of some members have nothing to do with the president of the United States...


Originally posted by TONE23
Silverstien says "pull it" at about 5:30 and then the building comes down.


Silverstein is not a firefighter, but he obviously heard the chief firefighter make a comment about "pulling out", which means take all people out of the area, mostly firefighters, so silverstein says "pull it"....meaning to get his people out....


Originally posted by TONE23
Of course there were no firefighters in the building 7 since about 11:30 AM that morning.


False, this has been already debunked in these forums. I posted pictures of firefighters right next to WTC7 when the fires were raging in WTC7, the fires in WTC7 were seen and reported at about 4:30 pm. Before that only smoke was seen coming out of WTC7.

and really presenting links from sites such as "Rense.com" and some other sites which obviously have a hard on on trying to blame president Bush for every butterfly that farts is not "reliable evidence"...

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
There is also the fact that not once before or since has any steel structures fell from fire and while one could argue that two of those buildings were hit by planes that's not the case with WTC 7.


WTC7 was hit by debris from the twin towers, from both towers, and there was damaged to the structure by this debris. The fall of the twin towers also were like earthquakes which weakened even more the structural design of WTC7. That and the fact that burning debris was sent into wtc7 when the planes crashed and the towers collapsed was the reason why wtc7 fell. Also WTC7 was a very high building, not as high as the twin towers but higher than wtc5, which for some reason people like bsray do not present as fact...



Originally posted by goose
I have to wonder why molten steel was found a month after the attack in the bedrock the towers stood on. And then there are the seismograph reports showing that there were spikes of energy just before the towers came down. I have to wonder why anyone knowing all of this would not question the official story.


The molten steel claims have been made so many times is not even funny. I searched when this question was raised a few months back to see if there was any truth to this claim. i went to the website of the person who was contracted to remove the debris at ground zero, nowhere did he say anything about "molten steel". If anything melted it could very well have been aluminum. Again, it could be possible, but I haven't seen any evidence to prove this.


BTW, please....stop quoting from Rense.com...is insulting, really....



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
I think you missed the point though I could be wrong.
The point was that normal fires..not even counting huge frikkin planes loaded with fuel...can damage construction steel enough to warrent mandatory installation of fireproofing. The collision of a huge frikkin' plane knocked alot of it off. Do you think that plays a part in anything?


How much fire proofing do you 'freakin' think could have been knocked off?
You seem very impressed by these huge 'freakin' planes. The buildings were designed to withstand mutiple hits from a 707, heavier than a 757 btw. The buildings were constructed so if some collumns failed the others would take the slack.

The planes impacted maybe 5 floors, what happened to the other 105?

What caused the fire proofing to fail in the rest of the building?

The plane that hit building 2 didn't even impact the central core, so how did knock off the fire-proofing there?

The fires didn't even effect floors at least, and this is being very liberal, 80 and bellow.
How did the fires weaken enough steel to cause global collapse in these lower floors? This is what none of you have answered yet, without defying physics in your answers.

Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.
No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.
wtc.nist.gov...

So how did fire cause the steel to fail?


[edit on 24/7/2006 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join