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.

 

FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

page: 13
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Then perhaps you have serious need to research the word autonomous. Because you certainly badly mangled that word.




posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Your solicitor? Are from England or did you mean something else?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Then perhaps you have serious need to research the word autonomous. Because you certainly badly mangled that word.

Got me puzzled there - as far as I can tell you spelt it correctly

I'm in New Holland (known by various other names) and we have solicitors and barristers here. I hear they're collectively called lawyers in some foreign countries.

Semantics are a waste of time



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Back to the actual topic for a change:

I couldn't see any indication in the FEMA document of how long those steel samples had been on the ground or how deep which doesn't help and they don't indicate that it was plentiful as you might expect if it was the root cause of the entire collapse.

If it came from the area of WTC7, there's a source of strong sulphuric acid that could have easily got on the steel - from the batteries for the dozen or so motor-generator sets.

There was also something notably missing from the analysis if anyone wanted to claim thermite was involved in the corrosion of those samples and that's aluminium oxide. Thermite reactions leave large amounts of it around and because of its fine powdery nature it gets into everything - it's extremely stable too and not going to break down.

So I still don't see any evidence of thermite/ate but just steel strongly heated over a relatively long time in the presence of sulphur which doesn't exactly clear up anything for us at all.

I'm still thinking about that video showing the core columns of WTC1 standing for a time after the building was down before they collapsed under their own weight and length - there was no evidence of them being cut or melted there but they did follow the rules of Griff's Euler's buckling formula didn't they?




[edit on 12/1/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 



The problem with that response is that the 'could have been this' is out of context with the rest of the events. Firstly the same corrosion was seen on samples from one of the Towers and Building "7". Next the eyewitness testimony that came from engineers and firefighters that saw "pools of Molten Steel", the denial of such is on the public record by a member of NIST, who even tried to say he never heard of any such eyewitness testimony.
www.youtube.com...


We also must remember the nature of the collapse of building 7 --first time in history for a super steel structure to do so, the other two of course were the Towers on the same day. Building 7 of course was damaged and on fire, but so were a lot of other buildings closer to the Towers and they don't seem to show some of the effects we are seeing on building 7 or the trade towers themselves.

There at least should have been a proper examination and investigation to clear up "COULD HAVE BEEN" considering this was the largest terrorist strike in recent memory and on US soil.

Then of course the disposing of so much steel so quickly.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Got me puzzled there - as far as I can tell you spelt it correctly.


I made it crystal clear to research the definition not the spelling. Otherwise, I would have stated the word was spelled incorrectly, and then stated to do research on the word autonomous.




I'm in New Holland (known by various other names) and we have solicitors and barristers here. I hear they're collectively called lawyers in some foreign countries.

Semantics are a waste of time


Do you live in a state still considered a commonwealth? Why would a solicitor be need to evaluate what is posted in this forum unless being snide? They have no clients needing legal assistance or what? Solicitors are not full attorneys in England and cannot become judges. Barristers are and may become judges. Solicitors are considered a type of lawyer.

Quite frankly, even in commonwealths called states in the US, the legal profession is commonly referred to as lawyers/attorneys and judges, not solicitors and barristers. Barristers, in England, are considered peerage - from royalty connected families only - house of lords.

You can call it semantics all you wish. It is not semantics. It is confusing to others in what you post, if they do not know any better than to take at face value your incorrectness.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


That is provided there were any generators in there. There is no physical evidence any diesel tanks or generators were sitting on floors in WTC 7. No eyewitness accounts. No nothing. Just the words of the Bush administration and those they appointed as spokespersons for the administration and nothing more.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
We also must remember the nature of the collapse of building 7 --first time in history for a super steel structure to do so

If WTC7 had been an typical type construction for its size with typical contents like normal offices etc I'd be jumping up and down calling foul myself. Trouble is, it was far from typical and many aspects and those very atypical features were quite probably its death dentence considering the events that affected it earlier (falling debris, fire etc).

Office buildings don't usually get built over 5 story high zone substations with 20+ megawatt power stations on the 5th floor complete with oil-insulated transformers and fuel tanks for running the generators etc.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
That is provided there were any generators in there. There is no physical evidence any diesel tanks or generators were sitting on floors in WTC 7. No eyewitness accounts. No nothing. Just the words of the Bush administration and those they appointed as spokespersons for the administration and nothing more.

Yes yes
By that twisted logic then I'm not here and neither are you.

You have your amusing moments



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Again a Global Collapse scenario where a building falls in 6.5 seconds, requires a complete failure at precisely the same time on all support structures, I don't think that is likely. Now there again is the term "probable". Recall that most of the diesel was recovered from WTC-7 and was ruled out by Fema in the collapse. Another thing to note was that Bulding 7 was a "superstructure"
WTC-7




BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...






''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...





MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.



The structure was not just a building with these additions, it was over-designed beyond normal "over designing" in these types of Steel Structures. If anything we should have seen more resistance.

Also keep in mind, there were workers that day that knew the approx time of the buildings collapse, even so far as saying "IT IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP"

I mean it is one thing to argue for such an improbable collapse, but now we add that people actually knew the approx time of collapse???
www.youtube.com...

You know in any major fire event where tremendous damage is done, fire fighers and workers might think the building "may" come down, but here with 7 they explicitly said " The Building was about to BLOW UP"!

So then we must also remember the erosion was seen on an item of steel from one of the Trade Towers as well.

If anything a further proper investigation should have been done, instead of sending most of the steel away.

Circumstantially it doesn't look very good.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Why don't you explain, in detail, why WTC 7 was abnormal compared to any other high rise in any city around the world?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
The way it fell fits the idea of that fifth floor (with all the generators and transformers) falling the 5 floors into the substation and it could produce the detected seismic pre-collapse signals too. That event *could* rip the heart out of the building inducing the CD-like collapse seen and there were at least 10 large transformers in that substation with large amounts of oil in them, probably oil circuit breakers and CTs.

It just makes more sense to me in the absence of explosions (I mean real explosions) even though the building was intended to be indestructable but like someone said earlier the Titanic was unsinkable too.


I don't read Popular Mechanics - it's not that popular here



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The way it fell fits the idea of that fifth floor (with all the generators and transformers) falling the 5 floors into the substation and it could produce the detected seismic pre-collapse signals too.


Excuse me? Even one of the flimsier upper floors in WTC1 could withstand 6 floors' worth of impact loading before failure, and this information comes from NIST.

So it takes 6 floors to knock out 1 in the higher-up (and therefore weaker) parts of WTC1, but it only takes 1 floor falling in WTC7 to crush everything all the way to the substation?

You can post this and suggest it to others if you want but I think it's pretty obvious that one "floor," no matter how it comes loose, is not going to go any further than the next floor down if it falls. If I were you, and I thought as you did, I would never step foot into a skyscraper again. The physics you imply of the steel frame basically assumes it would act as a house of cards. And WTC7 obviously suffered instantaneous and complete column failure when it initiated its collapse, because the whole think sunk at once, not just a single initiating floor again. I really don't like how long that stupid theory has been entertained for the towers. I really don't want to see it applied next to WTC7, where it was most obvious that the failure mechanism was a complete and instant destruction of the columns, that continued the whole way down (accelerating literally at free-fall, btw).

The Titanic sunk because a hole was knocked in it and it was floating in water. It didn't hit an iceberg and explode, or fold up into a briefcase.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Generators would normally sit in some type of eye appealing vented small building close to the building being serviced by generators, if they can be viewed by the general public, lessees and employess accessing WTC 7. Ex-sub-stations, close to where a building is going up, is as good a place as any to install generators. Electrical sub-stations were they? Underground wiring is already run and saves on cost when installing generators by ex-sub-stations of electrical companies.

Behind WTC 7, where they would not be seen, is the ideal place to install generators and bury extremely large diesel tanks, easily fed by tanker trunks. The diesel tanks feeding the generators would be buried close to the generators. Underground electrical lines would be run to the generators controlling the main electrical panel or panels in the building when a power outage hits.

The generators sit very close to the diesel tanks. No one with any logical reasoning placed diesel tanks and generators on floors in high rises. OSHA would prohibit it as would fire department regulations. People only have Rudy Giuliani and his hand picked spokespersons telling people that diesel tanks and generators were on floors inside WTC 7. There is no proof of that other than hearsay.

They cannot pipe out generator or diesel fumes into the storm drains without chance causing an explosion. They have to be vented through the roof instead with HVAC work being done.

So how much plumbing for diesel fuel feed was on the floors of WTC 7? It is not the same as plumbing used for sewers. They would need anti-gravity feed, to feed any diesel fuel to upper floors from underground tanks, just to get it for any storage tanks on upper floors. Between the plumbing and and anti-gravity feeds, that runs into an extremely high extra cost in any building, much less a building the size of WTC 7.

No one buries fuel tanks under high rise buildings. They do become compromised over time and have to be replace. It happens by natural reaction of soil against metal and corrodes them and/or the plumbing lines. Tearing out all that concrete in sub-level floors becomes highly costly on tear out and replacement of reinforced concrete floors.

They do not build high rises on unstable ground and expect them to stay up. Only someone not familiar with construction of any buildings would even say such a thing.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


The people hiring those setting the cutter charges knew exactly when they were going to implode. The job looks to be that of a highly seasoned independent contracto, and I do not mean the legal type of independent contractors always operating within the law.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


At least, I am not prone to taking hearsay and forcing it to fit illogic as you have been doing. Exactly what do you know about construction, OSHA, fire and zoning regulations, etc. in relation to permits for construction?

Exactly what do you know about structural engineering? You have not proved you know anything about it. You have not proved you know anything about the construction of the WTC complex. You have consistently labeled the architect a complete idiot, and he was certainly no idiot by anyone's stretch of imagination.

You did not have to say the word. All you had to do was "redesign" the WTC complex to fit the highly inconsistent, illogical "official" version you voraciously promote on hearsay, severe inconsistencies, and complete lack of physical evidence force fed everyone in the "official" reports.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I think as bsbray11, mentioned we are not dealing with a 'house of cards'. We are dealing with a superstructure. I just want to mention again the fact that you find people 'knowing' of the buildings collapse in advance of the collapse! When you factor all these things together, along with the way it was investigated, the quick clean-up and disposal of the evidence, it really doesn't look good for the official story.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...


One of the true remarks leaving Larry Silverstein's voice box. That and WTC 7 was pulled by controlled demolition implosion.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


WTC 1, 2, and 7 did not blow up. They imploded - pulled in on themselves through use of cutter charge explosives (of some type) to remove strategic primary supports.

As you correctly continue to point out, that is how they speeded up the falls to near free fall conditions inside a vacuum. Vacuum effect of implosion, outside a vacuum, manditorily must always be done by humans with controlled demolitions.

That means humans must almost exactly simulate the natural effects of free fall into a building's own footprints as it would exactly naturally happen inside a vacuum. That means major physical supports causing heavy resistance on fall. Fire nor plane will do that. It is impossible by all the laws of nature.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


You have not carefully observed WTC 7 immediately prior to collapse. It starts at the roofline, center widt from length wall to length wall, and then all 4 roofline walls are being pulled into themselves. That is so easily seen in videos across the Internet. Only controlled demolition of implosion effect is capable of doing that, and bringing any building into its own footprint at near free fall speed outside a vacuum.

WTC 7 had the sloppiest appearance of the three collapses, but went exactly where the pro(s) intended WTC 7 to fall.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join