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.

 

China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Utter garbage. You think after all these years of engineering and construction they would not have figured it out by now if they were building buildings wrong?


Actually, yes. Judging by the recent chinese fires, the topic, the building was not built good enough because it caught fire and burned a chunk of work off. Seeing as a mine in china recently collapsed as well as in the US, it's obviouse they have yet to master building things right. The recent bridge collapse in minnesota shows this even more. The fact that they just rated a whole bunch of bridges badly proves it too. The fact that Earthquakes still bring down buildings also shows it.

Humans aren't God, we're not smart nor perfect.

If construction companies can save a buck, they'll risk security.

good night till tommorow

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Did I win the debate? WOW, for once in my otherwise crappy life I actually wone something? yay!

Well, to further it, the WTC7 simply was weakend in one corner, not the entire structure like the burning buildings above. If the entire structure burns, then weight is even and it stays. However for the WTC7, it weakened on one end and created an unbalanced weight on the building, causing it to collapse on the side of the weakest one. Simple laws of gravity and physics.


Seriously guy, this isn't a "Hey, my logic is better than you logic" debate.

This is about OUR future! If you think this is a game then go play monopoly with your freakin' friends!!!

I never paid attention to what was going on in the world until I actually WENT OUT INTO THE WORLD to see for myself over 10 years ago.

If you actually believe the world is black and white then you are a fool. Naive GOOD people are taken advantage of by people who want money and power that place said naive people in power(make them feel important) that support their agendas.

If you understand the history of the land that is Israel you might have a bit of understanding about what's happening in the world today.

Do you travel outside of where you live and EXPERIENCE the life of the people you visit? Do you have friends in other countries? Just curious.

I tend to believe that people that are gun ho for the official story are either just likey book smart(if that), deaf or dumb, care more about bling-bling and getting laid, unlikely to be able to relate to most humans of the world on a basic level, frightened that "the boogie man is coming to get me!" types.

So you can, with pure absolute knowledge know, that WTC 7 came down, in a global collapse, because the 2 outer south support beams were compromised?

So is it the damage or the fire? You folks confuse me.

And the Bankers Trust building was "lucky" from not collapsing, how?

Please explain how the WTC 7 caught fire and the Bankers Trust didn't. Was it because of the design of the building??? Do tell.


Also, just for my own knowledge, I would like to know all the buildings that were on fire that day. Because I really don't know.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Thank you thedman, thank you soooo much. You proved my other talking about how square based structures COMPLETLY SUCK! This proves it! For a square based structure like WTC 7, when one side goes, the ENTIRE structure goes. First its sides, then the top being dragged down, then the other sides crunch, then it all goes to hell.


Rubbish. Can you tell us the engineering principle behind this? I can tell you the engineering principle that says unbraced structures (series of columns) fail in the same direction and not fold into themselves. Thanks.

[edit on 8/18/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Allow an architect to explain.



No offense, but you seam rather full of yourself Mr. Architect. Or should I say, architect student.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
He worked with the same guys who built it and he Says the workers said that the building was built with its strength on the outside. I'll trust the workers more then anyone else.


I'll trust the engineers who designed the buildings more than day workers. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04
Also, just for my own knowledge, I would like to know all the buildings that were on fire that day. Because I really don't know.



No I believe the only buildings that were on fire are WTC 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7.

I don't think BT was on fire, just had damage cause of one of the towers hit it.

WTF(World Trade Financial) had a deep gash in it also.

Marriott..... I am almost sure the damage to this but no fire.

You have to remember however, there were tons and tons of cars on fire there also for some reason, so stuff from them could have ended up somewhere it shouldn't. You know blown gas tanks and whatnot.

Here are some images to help you get an idea of what was damaged.







And to Gorman91, no you didn't win a debate, I just got sick of the same rhetoric that goes on here all the time with people who think the laws of physics change on 9/11 in 3 spots. That's all..

Also there is an image of someone that showed where all the support columns were on WTC 7, so your crap about 4 support columns were bs.

We in this post have Proven without a doubt Fire wasn't the cause of WTC 7 collapse.

::EDIT::

Added images.




[edit on 8/18/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

No I believe the only buildings that were on fire are WTC 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7.

I don't think BT was on fire, just had damage cause of one of the towers hit it.

WTF(World Trade Financial) had a deep gash in it also.

Marriott..... I am almost sure the damage to this but no fire.

You have to remember however, there were tons and tons of cars on fire there also for some reason, so stuff from them could have ended up somewhere it shouldn't. You know blown gas tanks and whatnot.


[edit on 8/18/2007 by ThichHeaded]


I know about the cars on fire(read that thread), some pretty far away. But I just find it extremely bizarre that all the WTC buildings(except 3) caught fire while no other building around did. If other buildings were on fire, I'd like to know. The BT building didn't catch fire nor did the 2 buildings next to 7 catch fire. I just don't understand how many coincidences, on that day, are needed to convince diehard debunkers that there is something seriously wrong with this picture that the govment is trying to paint for us.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


I'll trust the engineers who designed the buildings more than day workers. Thank you.


Engineers are good and all, but people controlling the construction process like to save money. To be honest I would do the same. If I wasn't expecting a tower to be hit by a plane, why not save on money to put its strength on certain areas then everywhere? NY has no earthquakes to worry about, a little risk of tidal wave from Africa that is a 1 in a million chance of happening. There really would be no bad side effect of sacrificing some strength for money if there was no danger in the regions. No one expected back in the 70s during construction that 30 years later they would have replaced fire retardant with Eco friendly crap and that a passenger jet would come into it.

Obviously they crapped out on the bridge in Minneapolis. They simply wanted to save money by not checking the trusses as often as usual. It happens all the time. Partly because of corruption, partly because of dumb asses.

Conundrum04, I do go out, and do know who does what. I know that Israel was on the land originally, was forced off by drought, returned with Moses, got kicked off by Greeks (maybe someone else) Returned from exile, got kicked out by Romans, then returned after WW2.

It's simply that other people take available land all the time. Land goes to the victor. You think there would be a USA if the Indians had guns first? Humans are no different then nature. Strongest gets the territory.

Honestly at this point I see a corrupt white house who used a disaster for war profits. And they screwed up big time. Now they'll lose money from the war's failure, cost the American tax payer alot and enslave him to pay for it, And simply go down as an idiot. I cannot imagine some pathetic thousands year old organization that waited until the world was at its strongest to take it down. Why didn't they take over into a world wide government with the romans? or why not the Holy Roman Empire? Why did they wait until now when we were so strong? Makes no sense, as does a NWO. I used to believe, then I realized that although they are taking away our rights, they can never take over a nation like the US where there are so many different points of view and types of people that unity becomes impossible.


I suppose the sudden decrease in NWO believers is because we feel we won. The NWO cannot do anything, their surrounded. If they push for a NAU, they'll be overthrown, if they push for Iraq/Iran, they'll be overthrown. They're just slowly dissolving into nothingness.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   


know about the cars on fire(read that thread), some pretty far away. But I just find it extremely bizarre that all the WTC buildings(except 3) caught fire while no other building around did.


Apparently haven't done your homework - thats an "F" for you

Damage to 130 Cedar St (behind 90 West)



Structural damage from projectile impact and fire occurred primarily above the 9th floor. Fire damage was evident on the 11th and 12th floors in the northwest corner. Several concrete columns were cracked, possibly from the impact. Several bays at the northeast corner were severely damaged from debris impact. Concrete samples from two fire locations indicated that the concrete structure may have experienced fire temperatures of between 315 °C (600 °F) and 590 °C (1,100 °F). Spalling of capitals was observed in the fire areas


Damage to 90 West St



Most of the damage was restricted to the two northernmost bays, with the exception of fire damage on the 1st through 5th, 7th through 10th, 14th, 21st, and 23rd floors. The fire did not spread to the south side of the building, except for the first 4 floors. Columns were buckled 1-2 inches on the 8th and 23rd floors, approximately a foot below the ceiling, as shown in Figures 7-16 and 7-17. A tube column supporting a north exit stair from the roof and a built-up column supporting the roof were the only other heat-induced buckling damage observed during initial inspections



It is fortunate the Bankers Trust (130 Liberty - Deutche Bank) did not
catch fire or might have collapsed into other buildings.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Is that WTC 3? One of the buildings shown to have uncontrolled fire? If so, they even state the columns didn't get higher in temp than 600 C. So, how did WTC 7's columns all fail at the same time in different directions again?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Ok but if that building in China had some slicing done to it like a plane hitting it then exploding from within and all the weight of that plane and steel with all that calapsed steel pointing down or falling within would that not add some factors? I do think there is more to 9/11 than we know for sure but we still have to be logical and keep asking questions with OUT biast thinking in order to find truth.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by The time lord]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman


Apparently haven't done your homework - thats an "F" for you

Damage to 130 Cedar St (behind 90 West)




I did a very quick and lazy search and didn't find anything, that's why I said "If other buildings were on fire, I'd like to know.", which you conveniently left off my quote.

I'll go look into those buildings now.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
Ok but if that building in China had some slicing done to it like a plane hitting it then exploding from within and all the weight of that plane and steel with all that calapsed steel pointing down or falling within would that not add some factors?


No, asymmetrical damage will not cause a symmetrical collapse, no matter what caused the damage.

Plane impacts do make make buildings defy physics.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
So, how did WTC 7's columns all fail at the same time in different directions again?


Originally posted by ANOK

No, asymmetrical damage will not cause a symmetrical collapse, no matter what caused the damage.


They didn't, one already failed once the fire was out, then its pressure was transfered to the closest columns, which in turn began bringing down the entire side, then the pent house and roof, then the entire structure had no support so it came down.

Once again, look at the pic:


[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I already went over this with you, do you not read the posts?

One more time. Your pics are showing a classic CD. Take out the central columns first, thus the 'kink' in the middle of the building, so that it falls inwards on itself. You don't have to believe me just go do some research on controlled demolitions. Oh and some basic physics while you're at it.

WTC 7 fell into it's own footprint, impossible from asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires, period...




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I already went over this with you, do you not read the posts?

One more time. Your pics are showing a classic CD. Take out the central columns first, thus the 'kink' in the middle of the building, so that it falls inwards on itself. You don't have to believe me just go do some research on controlled demolitions. Oh and some basic physics while you're at it.

WTC 7 fell into it's own footprint, impossible from asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires, period...



Yes but there were no explosions when the first two sides went, just the original north and south tower smoke. It seems to me that if you were going to brake or crack a side pannel you would need an explosion. I would point out that the only questionable thing is how did a fire take out so much of the side of it. Besides that, they knew it would fall, evacuated everyone, and no one died. Why would they kill off everyone in the first two towers and not the building 7. if they were smart enough to pull it off, they would have bees smart enough to "pull" WTC7 DURING one of the towers's collapse, not a long time afterwards. It's like whoever planned it if they did, was smart at one time, and dumb a second later.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You are making no sense. What two sides? The whole building fell at the same time. There is not enough difference in the way all 4 sides fell to even consider it. Only the kink is worth noting, which I've explained already and can be verified by doing a little research.

How can you judge what actions were dumb or not? You weren't there to know why those decisions were made.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Gorman91
 


You are making no sense. What two sides? The whole building fell at the same time. There is not enough difference in the way all 4 sides fell to even consider it. Only the kink is worth noting, which I've explained already and can be verified by doing a little research.

How can you judge what actions were dumb or not? You weren't there to know why those decisions were made.


Actually I was there, viewing it along wth 8 million Americans, and everyone always says that it wouold make no sense to make a demo obvious by blowing it after the first 2 towers rather then during. And watch this, 2 walls were down for a few seconds before the entire structure went:

www.youtube.com...

watch the top left of the building

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]

here, found this, kind of interesting.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   


I guess this was some kind of "special" building.


sure was...probably didn't house the files implicating all the bush's friends and their continuous corporate corruption.... nor was it owned by silverstein....



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



According to Gorman91's logic, and the logic of his material, all of the controlled demolition crews of the world are wasting their time and money with explosives, when they can just drop a 5 ton piece of steel on the buildings to make them fall perfectly in their own footprint.

How this logic appears to be correct in their eyes is far beyond anything I comprehend. I guess I just can't be fooled by bad research.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join