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.

 

Leaked NIST Docs: "Unusual" Event Before Collapse Of WTC 7

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Ok, then:


NIST could not determine what actually caused the corrosion. They even said this themselves.


Debunk me.


As I quoted before, the cause was hi temp, corrosive action that was exacerbated by the presence of sulfur.

While it's true that NIST is unable to determine WHERE the sulfur came from, that doesn't mean that they don't undertand the process that thinned the steel.

There, you're debunked.

Live with it.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
While it's true that NIST is unable to determine WHERE the sulfur came from, that doesn't mean that they don't undertand the process that thinned the steel.


No, it just means they don't know why in the hell it happened.

That's actually important to what caused it.

Sorry.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Back on topic, the flames shooting out of the building prior to collapse is a hot topic.

NIST does not support either the 'explosives' theory OR the 'pillow of air pushing down' theory.

This is very interesting to me because the main 'debunking tool' of the explosion theory is the 'pillow of air theory'.

IMHO it is a good thing because it raises more questions, and the more people questioning the events of that day the better. If there are 10,000 conspiracy theories and 9,999 get debunked and the official story never gets proven, well well have ourselves a winner.

And if they manage to 'prove' what happened w/o a conspiracy, fine. My tax dollars from '01 will have been well spent.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
At the risk of going off topic, ThroatYogurt pointed me to a very interesting article.


One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''


query.nytimes.com...

So again, I'll say that it doesn't matter if that one column (K-16) was found by NIST to be in the pile when it vaporized, as this shows that there were still more pieces that this happened to while it was still attached to the column and It had burned first, then buckled.

So again. What caused it NIST? Because it's a very important question to consider.

On topic: It's interesting that NIST doesn't hold to the "compressed air" theory on this one. What else could it be other than the obvious?


[edit on 6/29/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/29/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I just want to throw in that the word "burned" is a bit misleading. When fire "burns," that chemical reaction (fire is a chemical reaction) is oxidation. At certain temperatures, some materials (like woods, plastics, fuels) will readily react to the oxygen in the surrounding atmosphere and release more energy (in the form of heat) that keeps up the local temperatures and sustains that reaction, which produces what we know as fire.

No fire that I am aware of burns anywhere near the temperatures required to vaporize steel. We already know that fires can't melt steel, and the energy required for vaporization is well beyond the energy required for melting.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Is there any information released about where that corroded I-beam was located in the building?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


As far as I know, it was a piece that happened to be on one of the delivery trucks bound for freshkills landfill. BTW, I find it haunting that they "scooped and dumped" the steel with remains still in there and took it to a place called "freshkills". Is it just an eerie coincidence that they dumped at "freshkills"?

Anyway, the Dr. just happened to be staying at a hotel that the trucks would stop at a red light near. He took it upon himself to investigate some of the steel (in the middle of the night) but not thouroughly enough because he assumed that the steel would be saved by the time he got to freshkills landfill. He was wrong. He was one of the ones who actually made a stink and is one of the sole reasons there was any steel left to examine. As far as I'm aware.

BTW, WTC 7 steel was the first to go obviously as NIST didn't even get a piece to examine.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Re: Freshkills, pure coincidence about the name, its the largest landfill near Manhattan, though ghoulish you're right there.

Amazing story. Blatant destruction of evidence. Shakes head and sighs.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Re: Freshkills, pure coincidence about the name, its the largest landfill near Manhattan, though ghoulish you're right there.


I believe it just goes to show how insensitive they were. Everyone talks about the truthers disrespecting the survivors and dead. Why on earth would you "dump" the remains in a place called "Fresh Kills"?

It's like if your last name was Butkus (sounds almost like "but kiss"), why on earth would you name your son Dick?

Sorry Dick Butkus.

www.dickbutkus.com...

[edit on 7/1/2008 by Griff]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join