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.

 

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown(Video added)

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Yes, but notice how it did not have a global runaway collapse that lasted 6 1/2 seconds. There's a huge difference there.


Again the Windosr tower in Madrid was not a steel building. It was steel reinforced concrete.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
reply to post by Redge777
 


There is a International Red Cross and a American Red Cross. Two different agencies. I am not sure..But I dont think the International Red Cross is American. I think they are based in Switzerland.


For the purpose of this thread the American Red Cross is what matters, as far as the fireman's comments.

But my comments on international would make more sence with the ICRC. So I looked at the International Red Cross. There current leader
Jakob Kellenberger
www.icrc.org...

Is shown to have attended 1993 Bilderburg meeting.
www.googleswiss.com...
www.nwo.it...

and the World Economic Forum 2005
www.thoughtnotstatic.com...

But that is expected for a global group like ICRC, and he has constitently critisized the NeoCons. Thanks for clarifying the differance in the two organizations.




[edit on 18-9-2007 by Redge777]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Again the Windosr tower in Madrid was not a steel building. It was steel reinforced concrete.


I know it didn't sound like it, but I ment the steel that collapsed. It collapsed like it should. Slower than a freefall straight down.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Again the Windosr tower in Madrid was not a steel building. It was steel reinforced concrete.



Originally posted by Griff

I know it didn't sound like it, but I ment the steel that collapsed. It collapsed like it should. Slower than a freefall straight down.


I don't really want to get into an endless debate comparing the Windsor Tower to WTC7. They were two totaly different buildings. But, since I brought it up, I feel obligated to show my reasons. I was showing that steel does in fact fail and collapseb due to fire alone. Was Windsor Tower a steel building? Not completely, but the steel that was not protectred by concrete did in fact fail due to fire.

First of all, the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall "globally?" like WTC7? After all, it was on fire for around 26 hours. Well, considering the buildings were designed completly different is a start, the Windsor tower was reinforced concrete in the core and under the 17th floor. Where there was NOT concrete, the steel failed.

This photograph shows the failure of the steel and the collapse of the steel.



The building totaled 32 story's, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.


www.concretecentre.com...


There was quite an extensive investigation into the fire at Madrid. Here is a small part of their findings:


The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...
CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm


Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.

www.cjconnect.com...

Here much more information about the Madrid Towerfire .



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
This photograph shows the failure of the steel and the collapse of the steel.



How anyone can even slightly compare that to this is beyond me.




Why is it not showing my picture? Did the whole imagine thing change?

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Was i comparing anything Griff? I was showing the failure and collapsing of steel.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


No, but you did say that the steel failed. Look at the fire that caused the steel to fail. The fires in WTC 7 were no where near that intense. Or else we would have seen flames shooting out the windows (like the windsor tower) on all faces. So far, I've seen a few pictures were a floor or two was "engulfed" and only partly.

But, we're straying from topic.

Oh, did you read my post about the "pull it" comment? If not, it is on page 3.

Here's a snippet.


NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?

Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.


Source: www.pbs.org...

If that doesn't equate to "pull it" being a demolition term, I don't know what does.



[edit on 9/18/2007 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Hmmmm. Maybe I'm the only one noticing this... but if silverstien said he pulled the building... and he was talking about pulling it down with cables... then okay, fine.

Where are they?... Where? He said he pulled the building... and there were no cables pulling it down. So what did he use to "pull" it? Jesus, this should be painfully obvious. If he was talking about cables, there woulda' been cables. There weren't any. Case closed.

Plus, that collapse in the windsor building was partial and the main core members remained and most of the perimeter. Notice how the collapse was actually where the damage was? YEAH, that's how the real world works. It didn't just cut out from the bottom floor and disappear into the friggin' ground. Even IF the fires were hot enough; the way the building went down isn't consistent, psh, to say the least. The fires were on floors 7 and 12. Not the ground level...

Am I crazy here? I don't think so. If the official theory has so much credibility, then why don't they defend it with facts instead of hiding behind "experts" with conflicts of interest and just listening to this "expert" say, "Well it fell down, all 47 floors from the bottom because, uh,.... Fire is hot and causes demolition worthy symmetrical collapse." Right. I'll believe that when friggin pigs fly. Does anyone remember the NIST tests on all the floor samples of WTC 1 & 2 that didn't even come close to failing? They didn't even try to explain building 7.It's impossible to explain scientifically. You can talk about hot fires and BS like that all you want but when it comes down to physics, it doesn't stand to scrutiny. No fire should cause core members to fail first and then perimeter ones to fail milliseconds later. The debris radius was 70 feet for god's sake. Doesn't add up. Sorry.

Coming back to topic, I did read the testimony of this man and I believe him. I don't think someone would just make that up.

People should listen to the testimony of william rodriguez who heard multiple explosions on multiple floors when helping the firefighters through the building with his master key. He first heard an explosion on b4 when he was on b2 right before he heard the plane hit up above... and you should hear the conviction in his voice. He heard wierd noises in vacant floors of the towers that elevators didn't even stop on and he said it was the first time he ever felt fear. I'll believe firefighter's and first responder's testimonies about systematic flashes and explosions over some BS official story any day. I've jumped on this bandwagon for the simple reason of: This official story doesn't add up with the ACTUAL events of that day. Period. Peace.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by KnowledgeisPower1]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnowledgeisPower1
If he was talking about cables, there woulda' been cables. There weren't any. Case closed.


One way of looking at ... agreed. Still confused as to why a billionaire would admit on a PBS documentary that he ordered his building to be destroyed.


Originally posted by KnowledgeisPower1Plus, that collapse in the windsor building was partial and the main core members remained and most of the perimeter. ......The fires were on floors 7 and 12. Not the ground level...


The central core was made out of steel enforced concrete, that is the only reason why the upper floors did not completly collapse. Are you claiming there were only fires on the 7th and 12 floros of WTC7? Look above to the picture Griff posted and try to tell me the fires are only on two floors.




Originally posted by KnowledgeisPower1
People should listen to the testimony of william rodriguez


Which testimony? He has given many.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Heh, well I guess that would mean all of them.

But if you mean specifics, the one on BBC where the male host asks him if he maintains that there was a conspiracy. It's very youtube accessable. "william rodriguez bbc" or something like that.

Although I hate to reference to Loose Change, he describes the underground explosions in that , eh, documentary.

Honestly just youtube the guy. Those stories about explosions are all over.

The dust/smoke was trailing behind the building because of wind pulling it around and trapping it behind for a short while. Like dust off the back of a moving semi.

By the way: youtube.com...

Let me also ask you something: It looks like all the damage is on one side... why didn't it fall in that direction. And why in the bottom-right oriented video of the collapse does there appear to be squibs rising up the back-right corner? And windows shooting out with sparks coming out in one area?

[edit on 18-9-2007 by KnowledgeisPower1]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnowledgeisPower1
Heh, well I guess that would mean all of them.



Hi Knowledge ~ I'm not a fan of Mr. Rodrequiez. I have stated many times in the past he is a hero for saving the people. But, his story has changed, and he lies. Instead of rehashing it all over this thread please go here

It's a thread I started about him a few months ago.

Thanks



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


What about skyscrapers that have been intentionally hit by commercial airlines at 400 + miles per hour? How many have collapsed from that ?

Thanks,

C.O.



[edit on 20-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What about skyscrapers that have been intentionally hit by commercial airlines at 400 + miles per hour? How many have collapsed from that ?

Thanks,

C.O.


Well the NIST, FEMA, and other reports have stated that the towers withstood the planes impacts, that it was only the fires that caused the collapse.

But we can see reports from NIST, FEMA and others that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel needed for the buildings to collapse.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well the NIST, FEMA, and other reports have stated that the towers withstood the planes impacts, that it was only the fires that caused the collapse.


Please show me the source where it states your above quote. You are cherry picking here and you know it.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Please show me the source where it states your above quote. You are cherry picking here and you know it.



1. NIST report stating the fires were not hot enough to cause the steel to weaken.

wtc.nist.gov...

A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss seats and wind dampers.

The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.

...

Of the 31 core floor truss connectors (core seats) recovered, about 90 percent were still intact, although many were extensively damaged. Only two were completely torn from the channel.

...

A coating on the SFRM prevented the loss of the SFRM in some locations on the perimeter columns. This coating appeared as a band of white features on the SFRM wherever two aluminum panels met on the exterior columns of the buildings, becoming visible when the panels were dislodged. This may be a coating applied to protect the SFRM from moisture infiltration at the aluminum panel joints, acting to preserve the SFRM even when the SFRM was knocked off both above and below those locations.

...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.





2. Quote from NIST report stating that the planes and the fires did not casue the collapse.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
fahim.sadek@nist.gov
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I asked you where you got this information from:

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well the NIST, FEMA, and other reports have stated that the towers withstood the planes impacts, that it was only the fires that caused the collapse.



There is no where in the NIST report that states that it was "Only the fires" that caused the collapse.

I asked for you to show me the source where it states that.

Thanks,

C.O.


edit to add:



The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.


If you take out one of the three:

1. Plane impact
2. Loss of fireproofing
3. Fire

It would be VERY possible that the building is still standing today.


[edit on 20-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious



I asked you where you got this information from:


There is no where in the NIST report that states that it was "Only the fires" that caused the collapse.

I asked for you to show me the source where it states that.

Thanks,

C.O.



I just posted quotes from NIST reports that stated the buyilindg withstood the planes impacts, which leaves only the fires to cause the collapse. But here is more facts from the NIST reports.


The unusually dense spacing of perimeter columns, coupled with deep spandrels, that was an inherent part of both the architectural and structural design of the exterior walls, resulted in a robust building that was able to redistribute loads from severed perimeter columns to adjacent intact columns.

The wind loads used for the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, which governed the design of the perimeter frame-tube system, significantly exceeded the prescriptive requirements of the New York City building code and selected other building codes of the era (Chicago, New York State), including the relevant national model building code (BOCA).

The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large dimensional size of the WTC towers helped the buildings withstand the aircraft impact.

The composite floor system with open-web bar joist elements, framed to provide two-way flat plate action, enabled the floors to redistribute loads without collapse from places of aircraft impact damage to other locations, avoiding larger scale collapse upon impact.

The hat truss resisted the significant weakening of the core, due to aircraft impact damage and subsequent thermal effects, by redistributing loads from the damaged core columns to adjacent intact columns and, ultimately, by redistributing loads to the perimeter walls from the thermally weakened core columns that lost their ability to support the buildings’ weight.



Here is a quote from a FEMA report that the building withstood the planes impacts, leaving only the fires to cause the collapse.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework. Heat from the fire was comparable to the energy produced by a large commercial power-generating plant, the report said.




[edit on 20-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima...

NIST did not say that fires ALONE caused the collapse and you know it. Stop saying that. I asked you to show me the quote where it states that fire alone caused the building to collaspe. It does NOT state that. NIST states that there were three contributing factors to the collapse.

1. Plane Impacy
2. Lost fireprotection
3. fires



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ultima...

NIST did not say that fires ALONE caused the collapse and you know it. Stop saying that. I asked you to show me the quote where it states that fire alone caused the building to collaspe. It does NOT state that. NIST states that there were three contributing factors to the collapse.

1. Plane Impacy
2. Lost fireprotection
3. fires



NIST and FEMA both state the buildings withstood the planes impacts. Which means that leaves ony the fires to cause the collaspe.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join