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.

 

Mystery of Building 7 collapse, on 9/11

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Dude... People bend steel with charcoal was my point.





I shouldn't have to explain my point.

And note that there is an actual skill to blacksmithing. It isn't just sticking iron into any ol' fire and then beating on it with a hammer.

And there was no "enormous pressure" on these columns. They were built to take what they were carrying and much more.




posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And note that there is an actual skill to blacksmithing. It isn't just sticking iron into any ol' fire and then beating on it with a hammer.


Um, no, anyone can stick an iron in a fire and bend it. It's really that easy. I built some stuff about six months ago where I did just that, although it was a wood fire.

Almost no one could forge a piece of steel into a samurai sword, but anyone can stick a piece of metal in a fire and bend it on the ground after a bit. It really is that easy.


And there was no "enormous pressure" on these columns. They were built to take what they were carrying and much more.


You wouldn't call the weight of a couple dozen stories enormous pressure?

Some of the supports that were supposed to help them bear the weight were gone. And some of the remaining ones were reduced to 10% of their normal strength from the heat of the fire.

And you don't think that was enough pressure to bend steel?

Sorry. There's a whole lot of scientists who disagree with you.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11




Also... And you don't have to believe this, but it's the truth...

One of these steel beams in the picture. If I could somehow manhandle one of those home, I could bend one of those into a L shape using nothing but firewood, a sledgehammer, and some car jacks.

And I sure as hell ain't no blacksmith.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by whiterabbit]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Some of the supports that were supposed to help them bear the weight were gone. And some of the remaining ones were reduced to 10% of their normal strength from the heat of the fire.


If you are going to debate something as fact, please show the evidence. Show us the evidence that the remaining steel was reduced to 10% of its strength.


And you don't think that was enough pressure to bend steel?


Bend it. Maybe. Cause a global collapse of the entire building. I don't think so.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
If you are going to debate something as fact, please show the evidence. Show us the evidence that the remaining steel was reduced to 10% of its strength.


Both the NIST and Popular Mechanics article stated that pockets of the WTC reached 1800 degrees.

At 1800 degrees, steel has 10% of its strength.


Bend it. Maybe. Cause a global collapse of the entire building. I don't think so.


If it bent, that meant the entire mass of the remaining floors was coming down on the ones below it at once--and despite everyone acting like the building was made of adamantium, it was simply not strong enough to support that. The force of the falling floors was enough to shear steel and destroy the remaining floors.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Both the NIST and Popular Mechanics article stated that pockets of the WTC reached 1800 degrees.

At 1800 degrees, steel has 10% of its strength.


Tell me the difference between heat and temperature again? Also, what does NIST say about the steel? Show me that the steel got to 1800 degrees. I'm assuming you mean Faranheit. If so, steel starts to turn red at around 1000 and glows at 1200-1500. Show me pictures of the towers columns where you can see this.

www.muggyweld.com...


If it bent, that meant the entire mass of the remaining floors was coming down on the ones below it at once--and despite everyone acting like the building was made of adamantium, it was simply not strong enough to support that. The force of the falling floors was enough to shear steel and destroy the remaining floors.


Can you show me this shear force that would shear the steel? I'll give you a hint to get you started: shear stress = Force/Area
Let's see some calcultaions to back your theory.

You may say, "where are your calculations?". I would have a hard time doing any when I can't get ahold of the construction documents. So, how are other engineers so confident that the official story is true when no one is able to find out because construction documents are classified?



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
If What whiterabbit was saying was true then this building should have collapsed because it burned HOT WITH FLAMES for 17 hours without any sprinklers working!!

That is almost a full day of a raging inferno.

BTW this is the fire in Caracas, this is a steel building and *NOT* the fire in Spain, I use this example because the structure and its steel are relevant.





Also according to NIST the temperature was below 500 or even below that for most of the time




At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near
1,000
o
C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated
temperatures were near 500
o
C or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain
information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All
four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours
without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.)




Surely not ever single column burned that hot, and that was only for approx 20minutes

Also the Steel was tested and it sustained for more then 2 hours without collapsing.


And if the towers were that hot how was it that people were seen standing in the open wounds of the Towers? They were seen right where the impact was.




[edit on 13-3-2007 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
If What whiterabbit was saying was true then this building should have collapsed because it burned HOT WITH FLAMES for 17 hours without any sprinklers working!!


No.

That building did not have a plane shear off some of the load-bearing columns, nor did it have a plane knock the fireproofing off a bunch of columns. Not to mention the different construction.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Tell me the difference between heat and temperature again? Also, what does NIST say about the steel? Show me that the steel got to 1800 degrees. I'm assuming you mean Faranheit. If so, steel starts to turn red at around 1000 and glows at 1200-1500. Show me pictures of the towers columns where you can see this.


So, basically, you'll believe the explosives/thermite theory, despite the fact that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support them... But for the actual theory of what happened that we do have evidence for, you'll demand that we iterate every scientific point found? Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.

Dude... Listen to me.

People have established over and over and over and OVER again why it couldn't have been explosives or thermite that brought the towers again. I mean, the thermite is outright ridiculous, and the explosives theory is almost as bad.

So, with those two theories blown away, what's left?

Unless you want to cling to those theories, despite the fact that they've been debunked as much as anything possibly can be, everything points to--GASP, the horror--the official version being true.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
So, basically, you'll believe the explosives/thermite theory, despite the fact that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support them...


I don't believe in any given theory at the moment. That includes the official theory.



But for the actual theory of what happened that we do have evidence for, you'll demand that we iterate every scientific point found? Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.


It does make perfect sense because so far, I haven't seen any calculations that explain the official version of what happened. I have seen a few calculations that dispute it, however, we need the construction documents to be sure. But, I guess we are to believe in magic bullets and magic steel that has no resistance?


People have established over and over and over and OVER again why it couldn't have been explosives or thermite that brought the towers again. I mean, the thermite is outright ridiculous, and the explosives theory is almost as bad.


I wouldn't go so far as thermite et al is rediculous.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
That building did not have a plane shear off some of the load-bearing columns, nor did it have a plane knock the fireproofing off a bunch of columns. Not to mention the different construction.


Its too bad that the NIST and FEMA reports both state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have stood all day if not for something else causing the collapse. It was not the fires since we have videos, photos and reports from the firemen who made it to the upper floors that the fires were isolated, and not burning long enough or hot enough to weaken the steel.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
If you google civil engineer trade center failure you get an interesting number of referrences. There have been many conferences dealing with the collapse of the Workd Trade center.

So far, I support what the civil engineers have concluded, not the conspiray theorists. I just don' t believe that you could buy the silence of thousands of engineers.

Here's just one link. What Engineers Have to Say



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
If you google civil engineer trade center failure you get an interesting number of referrences. There have been many conferences dealing with the collapse of the Workd Trade center.

So far, I support what the civil engineers have concluded, not the conspiray theorists. I just don' t believe that you could buy the silence of thousands of engineers.

Here's just one link. What Engineers Have to Say


Thats strange becasue thier are other engineers and demo experts that disagree with the official story.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
We could settle it once and for all if they'd give us the construction documents. Why are they hidden again?



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
There is not complete agreement within the engineering community as to the mode of failure. That is true. BUT the vast majority of engineers who attend conferences about this occurence to not support the view that this was done with explosives.

The vast majority of engineers support the fact that the planes crashed into the building damaging the columns with the fire weakening some of the remainnig columns thus leading to failure.

Search what conclusions have been reached by the engineers, not by the conspiracy therorists. Your only hope for truth lies with the engineers.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Search what conclusions have been reached by the engineers, not by the conspiracy therorists. Your only hope for truth lies with the engineers.



The only conclusions will be when they release the actual FBI and NTSB incident and crime scene reports.

LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH NOT A CONSPIRACY.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH NOT A CONSPIRACY.


You're right.

But people (and I'm not saying this applies to you) who believe in controlled demolition when the overwhelming scientific and logical evidence shows that it COULDN'T have been that, they're just perpetuating a conspiracy theory plain and simple.

There's nothing wrong with doubting that two planes brought down those buildings. In fact, I think it's a good thing to doubt it. Question it, whatever.

But believing an alternative theory (like controlled demolition) even when it's been disproven JUST because you doubt the official story is insane. We can show how the explosives theory doesn't hold up, and we can ESPECIALLY show how ridiculous the thermite theory is.

That doesn't mean people have to keep doubting that the planes brought the buildings down, but that DOES mean they need to find a new theory. Because those two alternatives are busted.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You're right.
But believing an alternative theory (like controlled demolition) even when it's been disproven JUST because you doubt the official story is insane. We can show how the explosives theory doesn't hold up, and we can ESPECIALLY show how ridiculous the thermite theory is.



The official story has been proven to be the most unlikely from lots of evidence and since the poeple on the 911 commission stated they did not have enough time of money to do a proper investigation and thier are so many things left out of or missing in the 911 commission report.

Problem is controlled demolition has not been disproven. We do not have the official reports from the FBI ( who were the main investigating agency)

The thermite theory has not been disproven either, not when thier is no good explanaton for the molten steel in the basements of the builidngs.



[edit on 14-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join