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.

 

WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 16
7
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
On the subject of sources Fastfingerfunk - for the 3rd time:


Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i've seen plenty of statmements from people who where there that say there were no explosions pertaining to the collapse of WTC7


please quote the statements.


Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
and steve bartmer is a questionable witness. he is being treated for PTSD... a prosecuter would not even let this guy take stand.



Please source your claim that Craig Bartmer is being treated for PTSD (a condition which would not prevent him from testifying in a court of law).



Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
regarding barry jennings. he speaks of explosions heard early in the morning, nothing to do with the collapse of WTC7 and the type of demolition it would take to bring it down.


Please explain how you know these explosions inside WTC 7 had no part in the collapse while also knowing the exterior damage somehow provided "the type of demolition it would take to bring it down."




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Also on the subject of sourcing:
ThroatYogurt asked Cashlink to source his claim that hundreds SAW explosions in the three towers.

I'm not sure why because I already posted several examples of people saying they SAW explosions in the WTC towers. Ignored or forgotten? FDNY Oral Histories for many more.

What is the point of distinguishing between hearing and seeing the explosions? Many say they hear explosions, many say they felt explosions, many say there were explosions but don't specify whether they heard, saw or felt them and many others say they SAW explosions.
An attempt to obscure the overwhelming quantity of high quality testimony about explosions in the buildings by only counting those who say they saw explosions? When someone says “there was an explosion”, we don't count it because they didn't say they saw it?

During a controlled demolition technically nobody sees the explosions because they occur inside the building. High velocity explosives are fast and produce little visible smoke and flash. Detonation flashes may not be visible and even when they are, may be too fast to be captured on film.
There are however several accounts suggestive of detonation flashes:

“I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.” Thomas Fitzpatrick, Deputy Commissioner for Administration, FDNY

“somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode the popping sound and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" Karin Deshore, Captain (E.M.S.)

“I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.” Stephen Gregory, Assistant Commissioner.

“I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby (of WTC 6) all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that 'chase' in pattern...I immediately got the impression they were timed explosives. I have never thought they were anything else, not then, not now.”
Patricia Ondrovic, shield 1634, EMTD, Battalion 8

Full interview

Just a few who SAW explosions:

“You SEE three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.“ Frank Campagna, FDNY, Ladder 11

“I SAW a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.“ David Timothy, E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

“And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.“ Albert Turi, Deputy Assistant Chief, FDNY

WTC worker: “Yes, I SAW it, it just blew up, a big explosion...”



[edit on 3-7-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

please quote the statements.


Please source your claim that Craig Bartmer is being treated for PTSD (a condition which would not prevent him from testifying in a court of law).


Please explain how you know these explosions inside WTC 7 had no part in the collapse while also knowing the exterior damage somehow provided "the type of demolition it would take to bring it down."




type in bartmer PTSD and you'll see plenty of references. seriously though, look and listen to the guy, do you really need a source? i can't give you his medical records if that's what you need.

the explosions inside WTC7 could have something to do with the collapse. i never said they couldn't. it's very possible a fuel tank exploding could have created structural damage.


i will compile a list of statements of people who heard no explosions when WTC7 collapsed.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk

Originally posted by jprophet420

Again I ask for your source of information on the fires. NIST's account varies greatly from yours.


on page 22 of the NIST document you are getting that cut and paste from it says "Fires in WTC7 - which began soon after WTC1 collapsed- were observed on Floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle about half an hour before the collapse; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. Fires were also seen on Floors 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 at various times during the day."

there you go, there's my source. you should scan everything in your source before you use it, because i just debunked you from your own document (NIST's WTC 7 Collapse Final).

i hope, for your sake, you weren't reading that to be "fires started at 11:30 and ended at 2:30."
[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

I'm saying exactly what I posted. Nothing in the NIST report says that fires were burning for 7 hours.
That is not a source claiming that fires burned 7 hours. you originaly claimed 8 if you recall. so what exactly did you debunk? I didnt say how long fires burned for, I simply asked you for your source, and pointed out that the NIST did not say the fires burned for 7 or 8 hours.
I totally admit that I misquoted you and linked to NIST's report of fires not starting after the fall of wtc2. they started after wtc1 fell, which fell second. However, as I mentioned you didn't 'debunk' anything as I simply asked you to quote your source of information of fires burning for 7 hours. You still havent. And if you do it won't convince me of anything other than there was a building fire for 7 hours, provided you use a legit source.

So far in this thread the best (and only real) case you have made is that NIST has found no evidence of CD. Considering the fact that they admit that they did not have a chance to analyse much of the steel as it was shipped off prior to investigation, and that you failed to mention that, leaves me with the conclusion that I have some land in Florida you might want to purchase...



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Mark Roberts has developed his own conspiracy theory according to which the janitor of the WTC, his supervisor and colleagues together with other first responders have conspired to invent testimony about explosions in the WTC and a government cover-up.

Rodriguez's supervisor: "The amount of explosions I heard from 8:46 to the time we got out was so many - at least ten - it was just like multiple explosions to where I felt there was different grenades, that's what it sounded like, like different grenades being set off in the building," “I believe it was a cover up”.




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
type in bartmer PTSD and you'll see plenty of references.


No that won't do. I didn't ask "has someone on a 9/11 debunking site said it" - I asked you to back up your claim that Bartmer is being treated for PTSD.


Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
the explosions inside WTC7 could have something to do with the collapse. i never said they couldn't.


Your memory fails you:


Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
he speaks of explosions heard early in the morning, nothing to do with the collapse of WTC7 and the type of demolition it would take to bring it down.


[edit on 3-7-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



denial, ellapsed time from WTC1 impact to collapse was 7 hours, i don't remember ever saying 8 (although i'm sure you have no scientific data to back up if an hour would make a difference). NIST states it was on fire shortly after WTC1 hit it (10am) and was seen until it fell at 5pm. that is seven hours. call it six if you want. or even call it 11:30 to 2:30 if you want (and you did, wrongly). i'm not sure what your point is anyway. were you going to make it?

i'm using the logic of a timeline. if you don't think there was fire from beginning to end then prove it. show me a source that says anything different. NIST says there is fire shortly after it was hit until at least 30 minutes before it fell.




[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis



Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
the explosions inside WTC7 could have something to do with the collapse. i never said they couldn't.


Your memory fails you:


Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
he speaks of explosions heard early in the morning, nothing to do with the collapse of WTC7 and the type of demolition it would take to bring it down.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by EvilAxis]


all i'm saying in my original quote is that the explosion he heard had nothing to do with the collapse, meaning at the time of the collapse. the topic of discussion was explosions at the time of collapse. could whatever caused the explosions he heard have contributed to the collapse, yes as i am agreeing, but we were talking specifically about the collapse and explosions.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
then how can you say those supports in WTC7 could withstand fire without knowing all along if it's possible or not? i don't know the temp or duration it would take, i'm asking you, since i've never seen any "truther" debunk if it's possible to melt and the NIST engineers seem to think it can. in this case i will take the NIST word over yours unless you can show me otherwise.


I guess you really don't know what "not applicable" means then? It means that it does not apply. Meaning if there was a threshold temp at which it melted in a normal office fire, they would list it.



Gypsum is the natural form of the product and may contain crystalline silica. CAS 10101-41-4 refers to Calcium sulfate precipitate, and CAS 7778-18-9 refers to Calcium sulfate anhydrous. The apparent melting point caused by loss of crystal water is given. Melting point for the anhydrous form is 1450°C.


www.inchem.org...


Vermiculite Properties

Sintering temperature 1260°C

Melting point 1330°C


www.hoben.co.uk...


Superior Fire Safety
Curtain Wall Insulation has a melting point in excess of 2000°F and is classified as non-combustible
by the model building codes. When installed in approved wall systems, Curtain Wall
Insulations comply with the requirements of ASTM E119.


www.idimn.com...

Pretty high temps to be "melting" in an open air hydrocarbon fire eh?

So, again I'll ask you to prove what you say instead of just saying "NIST says so, so it must be true". Thanks.


also, in NIST's WTC7 collapse study they mention that previous to 2001 fireproofing was "observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor framing above the lobby." so this also makes the case that the fireproofing was flawed in the first place.


So then, why are you not going after those who constructed the building? If it was shoddy workmanship, then people are responsible for it. No?

But, you spend your time endlessly arguing with "truthers" with no evidence to back it up.


[edit on 7/3/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


the people responsible for shotty worksmanship im not worried about, nobody died in WTC7. btw, the insurance company agreed there was no foul play.

and yes i'll take NISTs word for it in this case of if the fireproofing could be rendered useless after certain amount of fire. i see a lot of quotes from you but nothing that proves if WTC7 beams could have been softened enough to collapse. NIST has seen the beams, you haven't.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
the people responsible for shotty worksmanship im not worried about,


Says alot.


nobody died in WTC7. btw, the insurance company agreed there was no foul play.


Yep, and a jury aquited OJ Simpson. There are many innocent people who have been set free from death row (after DNA testing) after being convicted by a jury to death. Yeah, jurys and trials are fact.


Oh, and lawyers never lie.



and yes i'll take NISTs word for it in this case of if the fireproofing could be rendered useless after certain amount of fire.


Then prove it imperically. Not just NIST's word for it.

[edit on 7/3/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
490+ Engineers and Architects!



Lets do one at a time... that way you may actually respond.

490 Engineers and Architects.

Hmmm...

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) membership is 141,000.
www.asce.org...

American Institute of Architects membership is 83,500+.
www.aia.org...

Ok...lets do the math.

141,000 +
83,500 =

224,500.

Your claim (I assume from Richard Gage's website) is 490.

So let see... that comes out to:

0.21%

Who is wrong???



Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City's World Trade
Center, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Structural
Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), in
association with New York City and several other federal agencies and professional
organizations, Text deployed a team of civil, structural, and fire protection engineers to study
the performance of buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC) site.

Ok according to Your link, you gave me, it dose not say anywhere in any report no where that 224,500 engineers all believe that report!


Yes 224,500 engineers are all members of (SEI/ASCE).

Just because 224,500 engineers are all members DOSENT mean they ALL agree with this report! SAYS WHO? You!


Founded in 1852, ASCE represents more than 125,000 civil engineers worldwide
and is the country’s oldest national engineering society. ASCE members represent the
profession most responsible for the nation’s built environment. Our members work in
consulting, contracting, industry, government and academia. In addition to developing
guideline documents, state-of-the-art reports, and a multitude of different journals,
ASCE, an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved standards developer,
establishes standards of practice such as the document known as ASCE 7 which
provides minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7 is used
internationally and is referenced in all of our nation’s major model building codes.

Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley
Senior Vice President
Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc.
Skokie, IL
(On be half of the
American Society of Civil Engineers.) Oh, so if a small group of Blockbusters Videos' millions of members enjoys a certain movie, then all of the members like it as well? That's nonsense because only a few of the members of the American Society of Civil Engineers were involved.

So Please show where it said all 224,500 members have sign a statement to confirm this?

Because this report is only ONE SIDED That mean all these engineers 224,500 cant THINK for them selves WOW! Not one person can speak out against this report Hmmmm.... Is it because they will LOSE thier Member ship with (SEI/ASCE) if they speak out. Hmmm....


Now this report was for the Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives May 1, 2002.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


i don't have the resources to prove it imperically, nor do you. like i said, NIST was in possession of the supports, you aren't.



[edit on 4-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i don't have the resources to prove it imperically, nor do you. like i said, NIST was in possession of the supports, you aren't.


Care to back up that NIST is in possession of WTC 7 steel.

But, what they could do is spray on some fireproofing onto an I beam (H beam) and set a fire to see how hot it needs to get before the fireproofing melts.

But NIST doesn't even need to do this as the fireproofing industry has already performed these tests. Hence why they list melting point as "not applicabale".



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


cashlink... learn to read. I simply put the numbers up for you. The percentage was the amount of Engineers/Architects that DISAGREE with governments findings. (publicly) IF there are more....then have not made it clear. Griff for one is a member of A/E For 911 Truth.

I might add that those numbers could be a bit inflated since his process of verification has changed. For instance, until recently there was an Engineer named M. Mkay Mackey (the teacher from South Park).



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Also on the subject of sourcing:
ThroatYogurt asked Cashlink to source his claim that hundreds SAW explosions in the three towers.

I'm not sure why because I already posted several examples of people saying they SAW explosions in the WTC towers. Ignored or forgotten? FDNY Oral Histories for many more.

What is the point of distinguishing between hearing and seeing the explosions? Many say they hear explosions, many say they felt explosions, many say there were explosions but don't specify whether they heard, saw or felt them and many others say they SAW explosions.
An attempt to obscure the overwhelming quantity of high quality testimony about explosions in the buildings by only counting those who say they saw explosions? When someone says “there was an explosion”, we don't count it because they didn't say they saw it?

During a controlled demolition technically nobody sees the explosions because they occur inside the building. High velocity explosives are fast and produce little visible smoke and flash. Detonation flashes may not be visible and even when they are, may be too fast to be captured on film.
There are however several accounts suggestive of detonation flashes:

“I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.” Thomas Fitzpatrick, Deputy Commissioner for Administration, FDNY

“somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode the popping sound and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" Karin Deshore, Captain (E.M.S.)

“I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.” Stephen Gregory, Assistant Commissioner.

“I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby (of WTC 6) all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that 'chase' in pattern...I immediately got the impression they were timed explosives. I have never thought they were anything else, not then, not now.”
Patricia Ondrovic, shield 1634, EMTD, Battalion 8

Full interview

Just a few who SAW explosions:

“You SEE three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.“ Frank Campagna, FDNY, Ladder 11

“I SAW a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.“ David Timothy, E.M.T. (E.M.S.)

“And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.“ Albert Turi, Deputy Assistant Chief, FDNY

WTC worker: “Yes, I SAW it, it just blew up, a big explosion...”



[edit on 3-7-2008 by EvilAxis]


So, they were silent bombs? Are these the special Hush-A-Bombs?

Several videos of CD's have been posted in this forum.
CD's are VERY loud. and yes you see flashes.

Again, no one is saying there were not explosions. More than bombs explode.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



Ok...lets do the math.

141,000 +
83,500 =

224,500.

Your claim (I assume from Richard Gage's website) is 490.

So let see... that comes out to:

0.21%

Who is wrong???

I rest my case.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


One more thing you are not Debateing anything in this thread.
Everything is ONE SIDED your side only.

You dont want to hear what anyone eles has to say, but to belittle everyone in here.

Being one sided dosent get to the truth, so you have nothing to debate.

You keep refuseing to answer our questions you just belittle everybody.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


The percentage was the amount of Engineers/Architects that DISAGREE with governments findings. (publicly)

Oh really, show me all there reports all 224,500 ?

(percentage) What percentage?

[edit on 7/4/2008 by cashlink]




top topics



 
7
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join