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.

 

NIST Answers the Critics... LOL

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
And of these other floors the fire remained confined to utility closets or their close neighborhood, just on one floor the fire spreaded further and even then just on 21% of the floor's area.
Plus it was an ordinary office material fire which, as several CTers tried to persuade me, cannot heat steel enough.


Why can;t you just admit you were wrong instead of googling, agreeing with me and presenting a diferent argument.

You are WRONG again anyway, gasoline was used to start the fire... not just "plain office materials" and ALSO this was BEFORE the sprinklers were installed IIRC.

Just make your own thread about this instead of derailing this one.




posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
So somehow it is irrelevant that just on one floor the fire spreaded anough to influence the trusses? The floors where fire was restricted to service closets can be hardly considered as heavily influenced.
I doubt that gasoline poured to the 21% of the floor's area - it's safe to assume that most of it was, in fact, an ordinary office fire. Starter is one thing, majority fuel is the other. And majority fuel was just ordinary office equipment.
Btw did the sprinklers work on 0911?

As for the "t" word, fell free to use it. I'd say it tells more about you than about me.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
So somehow it is irrelevant that just on one floor the fire spreaded anough to influence the trusses? The floors where fire was restricted to service closets can be hardly considered as heavily influenced.
I doubt that gasoline poured to the 21% of the floor's area - it's safe to assume that most of it was, in fact, an ordinary office fire. Starter is one thing, majority fuel is the other. And majority fuel was just ordinary office equipment.
Btw did the sprinklers work on 0911?

As for the "t" word, fell free to use it. I'd say it tells more about you than about me.


You know..you guys. Every day I am on the fence. I have to admit that and due to some of this evidence, I may have to swing a hard right. Not because of this but because of what Esdad contributed to the forums. I'm sorry Slap-Nuts to derail this thread in particular but it was already derailed. I still have my theories but if there actually was damage to the trusses in the fire of 1975 then maybe, just maybe it did happen.

But, until I see hard proof of actual damage.....



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Imoh they are silly questions.. #15 could as well be:

Why did people hear loud noises in a coffee shop 100m from the South Tower as it fell down?

why don't we submit them a list of questions we would like answered:

-why did george keep reading a book about a goat after hearing of the attacks
-who else decided to "pull" #7?
-please explain the perfect floor by floor desintegration down to the basement of both towers
-explain the earthquake readings, the explosions,
-is thermates such a crazy idea

And maybe the dancing Israelis were on a rooftop because they were part of a theatrical play (hard not to use a pun here) and we just didn't see the audience clapping beside them ..



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
The fireproofing was not used in the seals of the telecommunications lines in the WTC when built. The fire spread because of this lack of fireproofing in 75. There also were no sprinklers at the time.

The sprinklers were damaged on a few floors and verified due to eyewitness accounts of them not working.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The sprinklers were damaged on a few floors and verified due to eyewitness accounts of them not working.


Since sprinklers need to exceede a certain temperature before they individully trigger, this proves nothing. Other 'eyewitnesses' saw working sprinklers.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Question 4...


Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.


WTF? Are we to believe that air flowed 100 stories down... through a tunnel... up 90 storys and blew out windows???

This is their coverup line for the odd explosin that occured in WTC 1 perfectly timed with the impact in WTC 2.

This statement is fla tout RETARDED if you have ANY formal training in fluids.

"these observations "prove" NOTHING"



[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

WTF? Are we to believe that air flowed 100 stories down... through a tunnel... up 90 storys and blew out windows???

This is their coverup line for the odd explosin that occured in WTC 1 perfectly timed with the impact in WTC 2.

This statement is fla tout RETARDED if you have ANY formal training in fluids.

"these observations "prove" NOTHING"

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


What are you talking about??

Do you understand how pressure works? And then your explination is that they set up explosives timed perfectly to the 2nd plane impact?? To do what? Get red of those extra few windows that would have prevented a total collpase?

Those observations pretty much prove everything. The issue is simply not wanting to believe them. If one has a pre determined conclusion, nothing is going to be convincing.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Since sprinklers need to exceede a certain temperature before they individully trigger, this proves nothing. Other 'eyewitnesses' saw working sprinklers.


So you honestly think a plane that travels streight through a building is not going to take out sprinkler systems? I am sure there were working ones on floors that were not damaged. But to expect that they worked fine when large portions of the building were destroyed? Who are we trying to kid here?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
They also ignore thermite variants and linear shaped "thermite/mate charges".


And you ignore that the thermite would have to be placed within the hour between plane impact and tower collapse. As well as done in areas inaccessable, full of collapsing debre, and fire. Also, parts of the building would have to be cut open to access the support colmns to place the termite. All this without being seen. Even though it takes demolition crews months to do this. They managed in an hour.

And we know pre planting them was an impossibility as they would be damaged and/or destroyed in the impact. We can also rule out any demolitions below the impact zone since none of the floors below the collapse are destroyed until they are hit by the floor above.

This hole argument reminds me of the evolution/creation one. Where creationists dismiss the theory of evolution because of a few minor unknowns (as in any event there will always be some, no matter what), and then replace it with the idea of some magical god snapping his fingers.

You can poke holes all you want because they will always exist. but until you can actually come up with a more conclusive theory, that's all you are doing.


Dae

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There is also proof that there was buckling of the floor trusses in the fire that occured in 1975. They closed my thread, but you can still find it. I wonder why NIST did not jsut use that as a precursor to state that a fire in 1975, that covered less than 25 % of one floor, started by gasoline, caused truss buckling of the floor members.


I can guess why NIST didnt use that excuse... Did all three buildings suffer from this fire or was it only one as I'm presuming? Because if it was only one building that suffered this fire, then how does it explain the same collaspe of the other two buildings? It cant, so NIST wisely doesnt use this excuse.

Unless Im wrong and both the towers and building 7 suffered similiar fire damage in the 70's causing similar breaches, then that fire cannot be used in this case. I rest my court.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   
gordonssite.tripod.com...

The above link goes to my site which explores some of the more obvious failings, faults and fallacies propounded by NIST in their latest fact sheet.

"It is firstly noted that NIST have refused continual invitations to debate these issues, but instead choose to answer their own interpretations of the many unanswered questions. But even in doing so it is apparent that their story is falling apart like an old suitcase. ....................."

Gordon Ross



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dae
Unless Im wrong and both the towers and building 7 suffered similiar fire damage in the 70's causing similar breaches, then that fire cannot be used in this case. I rest my court.

Why would the buildings have to suffer the same fire damage in 1975? The 1975 example only proves that the buckling of floor trusses was observed even in relatively limited 1975 fire.
It doesn't mean that the WTC collapsed because 1975 fire damage.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

WTF? Are we to believe that air flowed 100 stories down... through a tunnel... up 90 storys and blew out windows???

This is their coverup line for the odd explosin that occured in WTC 1 perfectly timed with the impact in WTC 2.

This statement is fla tout RETARDED if you have ANY formal training in fluids.

"these observations "prove" NOTHING"
[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


The "puffs" didn't include windows IIRC, just a different behavior of the smoke coming out of the impacted floors - which would IMHO be caused by blast wave from the explosion accompanying the impact on the neighboring tower. No need to the air to go down and up.
You may try it yourself, light up a candle and then let a firecracker go off near it. You'll see the flame would also be influenced.
After all, in the Gulf in 1991 giant explosions were used to put out fires of oil wells. By their blast waves.
How large blast wave would be produced by the jet fuel fireall? I'd say big enough to cause some oddities in the flame and smoke behavior on the second tower.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

How large blast wave would be produced by the jet fuel fireball? I'd say big enough to cause some oddities in the flame and smoke behavior on the second tower.


The simple answer is none. Jet fuel does not detonate in an atmospheric fireball, it deflagrates and does not produce the characteristic blast wave that is produced by a high explosive. The situation would be different in an enclosed space, but the behaviour would depend on the geometry of the space and the distribution of the jet fuel. An engine combustion chamber is one such example and pulse detonation would give an extreme example of the behaviour.
The geometry of the conduit that allowed the effects to be transmitted from one tower to the other would need to be studied to ascertain any likely effects. Other than transmission through the atmosphere the only available route would be through the basements of the towers, and this would be a complex route nearly half a mile long.
For these reasons I would hesitate before I committed myself to an absolute statement such as you have made.

Gordon.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
you can go ahead and lock this thread... the ST911 guys have 100% and completely destroyed the NISTs latest worthles steamy pile of dog feces taxp payer paid lies.

Go see for your selves.


www.st911.org

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
And you ignore that the thermite would have to be placed within the hour between plane impact and tower collapse.


Why is this?


As well as done in areas inaccessable, full of collapsing debre, and fire.


Well, I believe it was placed well before the actual day of 9/11....I'll get to why in a minute.


Also, parts of the building would have to be cut open to access the support colmns to place the termite.


Not when the core columns could be reached from the elevator shafts and ductwork. See the photo Howard loves to put up about the lack of fireprotection. Did they need to cut open areas for that inspection?


All this without being seen. Even though it takes demolition crews months to do this. They managed in an hour.


First, maybe they were seen. Remember Rodriguez's testimony that he saw one of the highjackers in the building before 9/11? I'll get back to your assumption that they place the charges during 9/11.


And we know pre planting them was an impossibility as they would be damaged and/or destroyed in the impact.


Here is where you are dead wrong. There is no need to place anything on the impact floors. "But they started collapsing at the impact floors" you might say. Well, in my scenario (placing the thermite/mate on 3 strategic points on the core) would cause the building to collapse at its weekest point on the outer columns. Where would the weekest point be? The impact zone. I'm starting to get a little annoyed at people who state that it would be impossible because the impact would either sever the explosives or set them off. I don't believe explosives were used first of all and second, there was no need to have anything at the impact floors.


We can also rule out any demolitions below the impact zone since none of the floors below the collapse are destroyed until they are hit by the floor above.


Really? How about floor 22 and the basement? Obviously that damage was well before collapse time because the people who saw that damage are alive today.


You can poke holes all you want because they will always exist. but until you can actually come up with a more conclusive theory, that's all you are doing.


Have you read my theory yet? Here's an overview. Place incendiaries (thermite/mate etc.) on 3 parts of the core columns. Once the core fails, the building will fail at the weekest point (the impact zone). Meaning that there was no need for thousands of pounds of whatever, the collapse will always start at the impact zone, no need for hundreds of people to know, etc. I'm not saying my theory is water tight but it does answer alot of questions (so called debunks) you guys have with the CD theory.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

The "puffs" didn't include windows IIRC, just a different behavior of the smoke coming out of the impacted floors - which would IMHO be caused by blast wave from the explosion accompanying the impact on the neighboring tower. No need to the air to go down and up.
You may try it yourself, light up a candle and then let a firecracker go off near it. You'll see the flame would also be influenced.
After all, in the Gulf in 1991 giant explosions were used to put out fires of oil wells. By their blast waves.
How large blast wave would be produced by the jet fuel fireall? I'd say big enough to cause some oddities in the flame and smoke behavior on the second tower.


I can actually agree with this. I'm not a fluids or blast pressure expert but this sounds plausible.

Edit: But then I read Gordon Ross's post after this and now I'm skeptical again.

[edit on 9/5/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
The "puffs" didn't include windows IIRC, just a different behavior of the smoke coming out of the impacted floors - which would IMHO be caused by blast wave from the explosion accompanying the impact on the neighboring tower. No need to the air to go down and up.


So, all of the windows should have been blown out of the closer side?

How did this "funnel" the air out of a few windows in the middle of the opposing side?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Griff, you sound like a logical person who makes their own mind up based on the evidence. If you have the time take a look through my site,

gordonssite.tripod.com...

This page identifies the various different phenomena present during the collapse and puts them into a logical commentary. Many of these factors were either not identified or not acknowledged by the official reports. The site is fairly simple to follow and each point is illustrated by photographs etc. and details of how these fit to the collapse scenario.

If you have any comments or questions, I will endeavour to answer them, either here or by e-mail. My address is gordonjross@yahoo.com. Your thoughts, or anyone else's, whether they are in concordance or in contrast with mine , would interest me and may show any deficiencies in my arguments.

Gordon Ross.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join