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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Back to the "black smoke means a cold fire/dying fire garbage?

Black smoke can also indicate a massive hydrocarbon fire. As in jet fuel, plastics etc. Gee...which on did we have here?

How many hydrocarbon fires have you fought Bsbray? Ive been through three different firefighting schools and have had to help put out a few fires in my military career and I can tell you that black smoke does not necessarily indicate a "cold fire". I have had to help evacuate people on hose teams who have suffered nasty second degree burns to their feet through their firefighting boots from what you would call a "cold fire" (it was producing a heck of a lot of black smoke..so in your eyes it must have been cold). I should call them and let them know they were crippled by a "cold fire".......




posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ah yes...the spam posting again.....

Yep, WTC 7 collapsed onto itself and did not damage any surrounding buildings........

So, I wonder just what caused all the damage to 30 West Broadway...that led to that building getting demolished........



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Yes but when a fire starts out with light coloured smoke and then turns black over a period of time itis a pretty good indication the fire is cooling.

The same fuel was burning the whole time right? So logically nothing new was added to create black smoke right?

Can you see the logic now?

But regardless you know office fires don't get hot enough to cause tons of construction steel to just globally fail, right? Kinda makes all your other arguments mute, right?

Wheels on the train go round and round...



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Back to the "black smoke means a cold fire/dying fire garbage?


When was what I ever posted ever incorrect? Does science change on a daily basis or something that I've missed? What's up?


Black smoke can also indicate a massive hydrocarbon fire.


I know you're being a layman but what does "massive" mean exactly in terms of heat transfer to the steel? It certainly doesn't mean higher temperatures in this case, does it?

The amount of heat (assuming you know the difference between heat and temperature) depends on how much fire, but like I just got done saying, inefficient fires can put out massive amounts of smoke, and tend to do so from the simple fact that they're inefficiently combusting hydrocarbons and that's exactly what soot is. Do you understand this much?

Does it hurt your view of the world that much when I post these simple facts? I don't understand what your problem is.



I can tell you that black smoke does not necessarily indicate a "cold fire". I have had to help evacuate people on hose teams who have suffered nasty second degree burns to their feet


Well it's a good thing the buildings were not made of flesh. I hope you at least know the difference between flesh and steel.

Put another way, when was the last time you saw a piece of steel with a 2nd degree burn?

I've never fought a fire but burned people have nothing to do with the physics of smoke coloration and its relation to the relative temperatures of any given hydrocarbon fire. The only relevant temperatures here, are the temperatures being transfered to the steel. Not temperatures to burn people. I'm still waiting to be corrected on anything specific I said in my last post. Certainly it wouldn't be that hard.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
One theory I am surprised the Bush administration has not investigated is the connection between WTC and WTC 7.

To clarify, the Wu-Tang Clan (WTC) is from New York, where the WTC 7(World Trade Center 7) stood. Why has the 911 commission not investigated THIS link. It is far more likely that the Wu-Tang Clan was involved in the demolition of these buildings than fire.

Maybe that's why 'they' killed the ODB (Ol' Dirty B*****D).

lol

-Cuauhtemoc



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


Did you by chance look up a few posts that I posted video on there showing squibs flowing up the right hand corner of building 7, just before WTC 7 collapses!!!!


Here is the link...
youtube.com...

Just before? Nah, that looks more like during the collapse, ejections of dust and smoke are to be expected.

Besides, where are the sequential BOOM-BOOM-BOOMs we should be hearing?

This is what a real CD looks and sounds like:

youtube.com...

Note that it takes a while for the structure to start falling after initiation.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by 911truthisalie
 


Dude I don't give a damn what you say, or about your web site that you keep plugging here on ATS. Which I believe is against T&C?

I could make a web site with wild claims with nothing to support it too.


I'm glad you agree that the quotes of those featured in the ads are indeed "wild claims." More importantly, they are deliberate lies.


If you had read any threads here you would see your 'hypothesis' has already been de-bunked many times. Sorry but I'm not going to re-hash it all over again, do some reading.


I hasten to remind you that I am discussing your claims. I have posited no "hypothesis". I have pointed out that your basic understanding of structural engineering and what happened to WTC 7 is amateurish, reflecting a lack of education in such matters, no matter how many times you repeat it.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


Well you know, the funny things you'd expect this collapse of WTC 7 to be in the Kean Commission report and its not.

So whats the take in that? If your theory is so correct then why hasn't the engineering community deciphered the horrible ability of American architects in regards to steel framed buildings in the World Trade Complex?

Is does you theory stop at the facts, in research and finding the true cause?

If you want to look up at the sky and see pink go ahead, I choose to Deny Ignorance and find the Answers not just believe anything....


Late note.... I have witnessed "Controlled Demolitions" upon buildings, hat after the initiation of The CD the building still stands....so your last remark of "it takes awhile for the collapse to start..."

Look, if you want to believe lies, thats you prerogative, but let e explain you can ignore the truth, yet the truth never ignores anything!!!





[edit on 27-6-2008 by theability]

[edit on 27-6-2008 by theability]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
Note that it takes a while for the structure to start falling after initiation.


Note that we hear from debunkers how WTC 7 wasn't freefalling because it started to collapse seconds before the roof-line kinked and imploded (the penthouse collapses). Works both ways.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
And here we are almost 7 years after the fact discussing the collapse of WTC 7.

Why don't we stop arguing and just accept what the government told us?

What did they tell us?

Let's see. We have the 585 page Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition. It says it "provides a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks" This should settle it. Ah... No mention of WTC 7.

Never mind, FEMA looked into it: "The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was primarily due to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001 there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings"

Ok, this should be interesting. Ah...

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Never mind, very late in the day (thirteen months after 9/11) the government commissioned their own National Institute of Standards and Technology to look into it. Ah... they're still working on it.

Never mind it should be very good when it's finished - they've doing a mechanical and metallurgical analysis of the structural steel. Ah... what does it say here? "no steel was recovered from WTC 7" (NIST NCSTAR 1-3)

Never mind there are lots of people on the internet who can explain it. Popular Mechanics have worked it out and the BBC is helpfully making a program about it - something with "Conspiracy" in the title.







[edit on 27-6-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Well you know, the funny things you'd expect this collapse of WTC 7 to be in the Kean Commission report and its not.

Yeah, they're still working on it, should be out next month believe.

"NIST’s investigation of the WTC 7 collapse was supposed to have been completed by the end of 2006, but more complex, and time-consuming, computer simulations, along with a consideration of some additional evidence (mainly architectural and construction documents and plans), has stretched out the process, according to Michael E. Newman of NIST."

Taking the time to conduct a proper investigation doesn't prove a conspiracy, it shows diligence and integrity. A true conspiracy would have whitewashed it a long time ago instead of letting it linger like this.


Originally posted by theability
If your theory is so correct

It isn't a theory - its a fact: audible explosions and their accompanying flashes firing off in a rapid sequence are the hallmarks of every controlled demolition that has ever taken place.

This has been true for as long as explosives have been going "BOOOOM!" while creating visible bursts of detonation, basically since the day gunpowder was invented.

So when one witnesses a building collapse without said hallmarks one is less inclined to entertain the notion that it was indeed felled by a CD.


Originally posted by theability
then why hasn't the engineering community deciphered the horrible ability of American architects in regards to steel framed buildings in the World Trade Complex?

Actually, the WTC took a major licking and kept on ticking for longer than experts expected, which is testament to just how well-built they were.


Originally posted by theability
Is does you theory stop at the facts, in research and finding the true cause?

The facts have been researched by individuals and institutions far more competent and qualified than myself and they have found no evidence supporting a conspiracy theory. I trust in the judgement of these experts.


Originally posted by theability
If you want to look up at the sky and see pink go ahead

And you can choose to believe that there is such a thing as silent and invisible explosions, that's the beauty of freedom of thought.


Originally posted by theability
I choose to Deny Ignorance and find the Answers not just believe anything....

An open mind and healthy dose of skepticism are always good, but not at the expense of common sense and reason.


Originally posted by theability
Late note.... I have witnessed "Controlled Demolitions" upon buildings, hat after the initiation of The CD the building still stands....so your last remark of "it takes awhile for the collapse to start..."

Yes, it takes a few seconds for the structural integrity of the building to be sufficiently impaired in key locations, hence the sequential nature of the explosions.


Originally posted by theability
Look, if you want to believe lies, thats you prerogative, but let e explain you can ignore the truth, yet the truth never ignores anything!!!

How are they lies? And why are the overwhelming majority of respected and reputable academics the world over endorsing or not contesting them, thus putting their very careers and reputations at stake?

Sometimes the truth is just that simple.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
How is it the whole planet can figure out that on 9-11-01 at 10.00am Alan Greenspan was supposed to anounce the Nesara debt relief initiative and that the computers for this initiative were in the twin towers and that most roads lead to Bush snr and the criminal banking cartel in terms of motive,opportunity etc for stopping this.

A part of this initiative was that Government was to be suspended with elections in 120 days both Bush a Gore supposedly knew this when Bill Clinton signed this legislation so your current government is probably both currently illegal and illegitimate,christ I can find this stuff out in ten minutes isn't there any investigative journalist in your country with the common dog # and balls to do some research or are you all mind numbed sheeple over there ,fearful or stupid.

PLUG' 9/11 'AND 'NESARA' IN GOOGLE AND HAVE AT IT.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
A true conspiracy would have whitewashed it a long time ago instead of letting it linger like this.


It needs more coats of whitewash.



So when one witnesses a building collapse without said hallmarks one is less inclined to entertain the notion that it was indeed felled by a CD.


Those hallmarks, the rapid fire explosions were heard in the large towers.



And you can choose to believe that there is such a thing as silent and invisible explosions, that's the beauty of freedom of thought.


"Truth is beauty and beauty is truth, That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." Or something like that, is what Keats said.




Yes, it takes a few seconds for the structural integrity of the building to be sufficiently impaired in key locations, hence the sequential nature of the explosions.


These buildings were on the ground in a few seconds.



. . . why are the overwhelming majority of respected and reputable academics the world over endorsing or not contesting them, thus putting their very careers and reputations at stake?


Whose career came undone by endorsing the Bush administration's or NIST's version of events?


Sometimes the truth is just that simple.


However, when truth is not that simple, a scalawag can still count on telling a simple lie to a simple public.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
It needs more coats of whitewash.

Evidently, seeing as the damn "truth" keeps leaking out.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
Those hallmarks, the rapid fire explosions were heard in the large tower

.....but weren't heard on any of the dozens of camera mics focused on it, which also failed to capture their accompanying flashes as well. Hmmmm.

Anyway, we're talking about WTC7 here.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
These buildings were on the ground in a few seconds.

Within what frame of reference? There weren't any relevant detonations, audible or visible, to get the clock ticking, it just fell when it did.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
Whose career came undone by endorsing the Bush administration's or NIST's version of events?

If you think academics are afraid of criticizing the Bush administration take a look at how many of them are attacking his retarded views on global warming.

Anyway, this is a standard CT defense mechanism: when you can't get the reputable and respected scientists to support your claim declare them cowards or government agents, thus invalidating their contradictory findings.


Originally posted by ipsedixit
However, when truth is not that simple, a scalawag can still count on telling a simple lie to a simple public.

I guess this would imply that everybody who doesn't buy into "9/11 Was An Inside Job" is a simpleton in need of enlightenment by those who are coherent enough to see the irrefutable evidence.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
when you can't get the reputable and respected scientists to support your claim declare them cowards or government agents, thus invalidating their contradictory findings.


There are already non-profit organizations of scientists and engineers that disagree with the FEMA and NIST reports, putting their names and professional careers on the line, demanding evidence be put into public domain and a new, independent investigation be launched.

The ASCE, which later went to FEMA, which later went to NIST, were the only ones to EVER have access to the relevant evidence, including the critical structural documents, and those reports did not entail the critical thinking of thousands or even hundreds of engineers as so many people will blurt out in 2 seconds. You confuse serious input with simple modeling or graphic jobs, etc.

ASCE and FEMA were only precursory and did not even attempt to verify their hypotheses.

NIST never bothered to test its most important hypothesis, either, and never even took a look at a global collapse analysis.

If you think the evidence is on your side, then I'd like to see it (from FEMA, NIST, etc.). What you think the majority of engineers think, is irrelevant, because not only are there lots of professional engineers and scientists putting their names on the line to disagree, but no public Joe Shmoe engineer has ever had any more actual evidence before them than you or I. And electronics engineering is my field, and I happen to know that doing calculations or analyses is critical to reaching any conclusion. Opinions are not worth a damn. Ask Galileo.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There are already non-profit organizations of scientists and engineers that disagree with the FEMA and NIST reports, putting their names and professional careers on the line, demanding evidence be put into public domain and a new, independent investigation be launched.

And how many of these folks are there in comparison with the opposing side? What alternate theories are they proposing that don't crumble under the slightest scrutiny and that actually merit investigation? All they're doing is naysaying and nothing else.

Until they can actually bring something solid to the table they're just, as my French teacher used to say, "jerking off." This is why very few in the academic community pay attention to them anymore, they view 9/11 Truth "science" the same way they vew Creationist and Holocaust Denial "science:" as grossly unscientific and basically a waste of their time and resources.


Originally posted by bsbray11
The ASCE, which later went to FEMA, which later went to NIST, were the only ones to EVER have access to the relevant evidence, including the critical structural documents, and those reports did not entail the critical thinking of thousands or even hundreds of engineers as so many people will blurt out in 2 seconds. You confuse serious input with simple modeling or graphic jobs, etc.

ASCE and FEMA were only precursory and did not even attempt to verify their hypotheses.

NIST never bothered to test its most important hypothesis, either, and never even took a look at a global collapse analysis.

False. wtc.nist.gov...


Originally posted by bsbray11
What you think the majority of engineers think, is irrelevant, because not only are there lots of professional engineers and scientists putting their names on the line to disagree, but no public Joe Shmoe engineer has ever had any more actual evidence before them than you or I.

So the government-employed engineers are in on it as well?


Originally posted by bsbray11
And electronics engineering is my field, and I happen to know that doing calculations or analyses is critical to reaching any conclusion. Opinions are not worth a damn. Ask Galileo.

Right, but a scientifically-reached consensus is.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 




Sometimes the truth is just that simple.


How might I ask is any of this Simple? Seriously

Before I go any further, your evaluation of the Kean Commission and WTC 7 being annotated to it, is to the best of my knowledge, not true. The Omission Commission never once wanted, nor will they ever include WTC7 anywhere, the COMMISSION was CLOSED YEARS AGO!!!! I have the book right here next to me. Not one mention of facts regarding WTC 7.

Next, across the ENTIRE planet, for many decades STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS have had ragging fires, Hundreds of them!! Including the WTC complex in the 1970's and never collapsed! Yes the WTC Towers have had fires before! Never has one Collapsed!

Now your concept of simplicity is that we are to digest the Improbable nature of such outlandish accounts that On 911 only do, and will in HISTORY Steel Framed Buildings Felled by fire alone??? Then to go on the Amount of incalculable statistical improbabilities associated with the day alone, the systems of streamlining failures that lead to the the topic at had, not only are all these statistics improbable they are IMPOSSIBLE!!!


Now please regard this for a minute...

If WTC 7 never fell like it did that day, I would be able to accept your position in regard to the day 9/11. Yet with my research, and a look at the equations and summations at had again, the fingers are pointed in one direction for me, denial in the Kean Commission is the most Complex part of all this, they omitted the situation of WTC 7 cause if they included it (AT THAT TIME), it would be the dagger in the hand.....With them standing next to the bodies. Most of the world does not KNOW about WTC 7 and this is exactly the slight of hand I referrer to.

...like Houdini once said, "What the eyes' see the mind believes!"...

When did the world see this with their eyes'? I believe that we all saw this unfold on TV, with the camera being "our" eyes', slight of hand, simply put upon the masses.


WTC 7 was a huge mistake, no matter what anyone says, WTC 7 is the most conclusive part of the whole 9/11 debate, and if you don't sit upon the fence and use deductive reasoning, you'll see sheep instead of wolves.

Grissom from CSI always says, "Follow the evidence without emotions. The evidence does not lie!"

...thats right truth isn't lies...



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Can someone please explain how a fire collapsed a sky scraper ? You could set fire to my car, fridge, stone house, and it wouldn't fall over - heck most trees don't "fall over" after major bush fires in Australia - they just, well, grow back.

Please explain how steel and concrete just - well - fell over. Its a bigger mystery than Loche Ness.

Fire doesn't even melt a paper clip.

Fire doesn't melt steel.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
And how many of these folks are there in comparison with the opposing side?


I have read more names objecting to NIST, et. al. than names (and especially evidence/sound theoretics) supporting the same. My question to you is, what does the number of people matter? Do you have a strong mind? Do you know what Galileo stood for?


What alternate theories are they proposing that don't crumble under the slightest scrutiny and that actually merit investigation?


None are needed to point out the obvious: NIST never supported its hypothesis, and it was supposed to be the "final" report.


All they're doing is naysaying and nothing else.


What else can you do when you don't have access to physical evidence or structural documentation to verify anything? Do you want these people to be engineers, or Joe Public watching YouTube videos?



False. wtc.nist.gov...


Can you tell me what specifically was false and what specifically you are referring to on that FAQ?

Where is the testing where NIST verified their truss failure hypothesis (ie that sagging trusses exert the required amount of force to the perimeter columns)?


So the government-employed engineers are in on it as well?


I'm sure there are two or three bad apples in there near the top. If you think this is unrealistic or even that it wouldn't be enough, fine. You can think what you want, but NIST still has no proof of its hypothesis at the end of the day.



Right, but a scientifically-reached consensus is.


You missed the point. It was scientific consensus in Galileo's day that the Earth was the center of the universe, despite obvious contradictory observations anyone can readily make in the night sky -- ie the relative movements of the Earth, Sun and Moon taken together.

These were even times when people probably spent more time looking at the night sky, being more agricultural and etc., and they were still too stupid to figure this one out. Ok? That is what sheep-think always has and always will give you, because in the end no one gives a damn about the sheep anyway. I could disprove the Church with the knowledge I have today, too, but would you believe it back then -- against the majority of "experts"?

Point: masses of people are stupid, just like sheep. Thus the whole "sheep" analogy, which isn't anything new. Should I also point to Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, China, or even how stupid most Americans are today? Do I need to post one of those 4th-grade tests from the 1800s that most people would not pass today? Stop talking to me about consensus and start talking to me about logical sense, if you have it in you.


And by "logical sense," you can start with the lab experiments where NIST validates its truss failure hypothesis. Let me see it.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Slightly,

I am still waiting for the posters that say physics were ignored, to come up with a peer reviewed paper to back up what they state.

:TY:

Will you be posting some sort of peer reviewed journal that explains the collapse of wtc7 then?




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join