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.

 

August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives"

page: 22
17
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam
Anyway, if your logic tells you that a steel building collapsing from fire would probably look the same as one being demo'd, my logic would tell me not to listen to you.
[edit on 24-8-2008 by JimBeam]



So, my question is what would it look like? And how would you know? Since it's never happened before and all...

Down, down, down, the spiral never ever ends.




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
probably because they hypothesized, studied, did experiments and compared data.

After all at one point in time there had never been a CD. They knew from buildings falling down in the past that they never fell down into their own footprint and engineered a way to make that happen.

As Einstein said "where would we be without the educated guess?".



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Build it and then test it to failure, or do you use previous experience?


I use previous experience. What is the previous experience of "thermal expansion" imploding a building?


2- so you're using statements for the towers and using it here? And here I was, thinking that engineers had a little more integrity about making these kinds of statements. Guess I was wrong. NIST predicts a significant amount of heat in the lower floor beams too. Maybe you need to quit ignoring that and factor that little tidbit in before you make sweeping statements about how many falling floors it would take.


Maybe NIST should actually state first how many floors it would take? After all, they're the ones with all the answers, correct?


3- Yep. Never used for demolition of a building. Proven.


But, proven by NIST that it could achieve the same effect.


[edit on 8/24/2008 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1-I was clearly talking about a lateral displacement of the connections, and you give me lateral displacement of the building.


No. I was giving you the thermal expansion of the beams. If you can't see this, then I can't help you. No offense ment.


Really, this is to be expected from you though. Getting a straight answer outta you can be like squeezing blood out of a turnip. Why you do this is unfathomable. Actually, it is, would be a violation of T&C to explain it.


And I'll say again. "Just because you misunderstand what I am saying does not mean I am Lying."


2- Yes. Walk-off is when it is pushed off its bearing seat. The bolts aren't there to hold the weight. Only to keep it aligned. I didn't know that buildings in NYC were designed for extreme earthquakes. Or are you making another non-relevant point here... as usual.


First, shear connections are there to transfer the load to the column. NOT keep it aligned.

Second, research the NYC building codes and earthquakes. I'm pretty sure, you'll find an earthquake load in there somewhere. Better, yet, tomorrow at work, I'll scan the page out of the ASCE 7 (building load manual) and we'll just see. OK?


3- 1 end of the floor beam (that underwent thermal expansion) butted into the external columns. the other acted on the girder. So you saying that 2" on each end is demonstrably false. the girder will be weaker in resisting lateral forces (weak beam) than the ext column. So all 4" will act against the girder.


OK. And the girder will do what exactly? Buckle in the lateral direction. You still have to show how this causes the connections to slip and/or causes the floor below it to collapse also.


4- no idea. But you're also ignoring that the floors below were heated, which would weaken them. Also, you're comparing it to a statement that NIST made regarding a perfectly intact truss and applying that here, when the conditions inside 7 clearly weren't pristine. Again, not surprising...


As stated by NIST: All damage was outside column 79's area of influence. So, why are we not talking about a pristine floor and column again?

[edit on 8/25/2008 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

So, my question is what would it look like? And how would you know? Since it's never happened before and all...



Well, since fire has only partially collapsed buildings in steel skyscrappers over the past 100 years or so, my guess would be partial collapses in each building looking very different from one another. But hey, that's just my logic talking to me.

Your "logic" seems to tell you that anything is possible as long as it is explained to you by authoritarian types. And of course your "logic" is correct because there was just too much dam destruction and energy from them to be demo'd, had to just be the fires.


Your logic and those like you are just awesome man. I need that same ticket you have to Disney World, because it's clear you like fantasy more than reason. I wish I could get on the same train you are on.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I didn't know that buildings in NYC were designed for extreme earthquakes. Or are you making another non-relevant point here... as usual.


Just as a follow up to this question/attack.


New York City is not free from earthquakes. It is located in a zone of moderate seismicity. For instance,
since 1884 the entire state of New York has experienced four damaging earthquakes with magnitudes
between about M~5 and M~5.5 and many smaller earthquakes are recorded every year.
The greater New
York City area alone can expect on average one magnitude M~5 earthquake about once every 100 to 200
years (the last such damaging event with magnitude M~5.2 occurred in 1884). Based on geological
arguments and comparison to geologically similar regions elsewhere, the possibility cannot be excluded
that magnitudes as high as M~7 may occur near New York City, including adjacent offshore areas on the
Atlantic coastal shelf. This possibility for M > 6 earthquakes exists despite the fact that in the short
historic record (about 300 years), no larger earthquakes than M=5.2 have been observed near New York
City. But during historic time much larger (M = 7 ± .5) and quite damaging events have occurred
elsewhere along the Atlantic coast of eastern North America.
The ground motions associated with earthquakes in the eastern United States differ distinctly from ground
motions in the western U.S. in several important ways. Eastern earthquakes are reported to have released
higher rock stresses compared to their western counterparts, thereby causing the ground motions to
contain more high-frequency energy. The ground motion shaking is more intensely felt to larger distances
because the Earth’s crust and its rocks in the eastern U.S. transmit seismic waves more efficiently,
especially at the higher frequencies of engineering interest. This stronger shaking, especially at shorter
building periods and to larger distances, is caused by the fact that the crustal rocks in the eastern U.S. tend
to be older, more competent, and less riddled with seismically active faults, compared to generally
younger California rocks along the tectonically very active San Andreas fault system.


mceer.buffalo.edu...



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Can someone explain to me how the OK bombing blew away literally half the building, and the rest of it managed to stand. A huge bomb blast and the building doesn't fall on it's own footprint.

But yet a fire and minor damage was able to bring the WTC 7 down and destroy the entire building completely.

www.apfn.org...

And how does this building burn completely from top to bottom and still stand?

www.911myths.com...

The explanation for WTC 7 does not make sense or follow known physics. They had create a new "phenomenon" just to even come up with such an explanation.

And to say I have somekind of agenda or whatever is just silly. I never really paid much attention at all to politics or things that were going on. I blindly just trusted what the media/government told me. But I'm not dumb. I understand how stuff works.

"They", being whoever did this, screwed up. And they screwed up big time.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Any of you ever seen the main support beams used in building 7? I saw pictures of one beam. It was a steel I-beam. Do you have ANY idea of how thick that thing was? The picture (which I have not run across again from several years ago) showed the beam being hauled away on a flatbed truck, with a guy standing next to the truck. Imagine it sitting just like this---> I

That was the way it sat on the back of the semi. The vertical part was at least 3 FEET thick. Not the horizontal top and bottom, but the middle part. Do you have ANY idea how long it would take even a CUTTING TORCH to cut through 3 FEET of steel?

Edit to add: Here was the part that was 3' thick--->I



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
So, my question is what would it look like? And how would you know? Since it's never happened before and all...


My quesstion is do you believe everything the media tells you like a good little media robot?

Or can you think for yourself and investigate and do research?



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam
Well, since fire has only partially collapsed buildings in steel skyscrappers over the past 100 years or so, my guess would be partial collapses in each building looking very different from one another. But hey, that's just my logic talking to me.


So you agree that noone actually knows what a total collapse would look like, correct? And given that, noone could know that it would or would not resemble the only other thing they can compare it to, a CD?



Your "logic" seems to tell you that anything is possible as long as it is explained to you by authoritarian types. And of course your "logic" is correct because there was just too much dam destruction and energy from them to be demo'd, had to just be the fires.


I don't need any possibilities explained to me, and I'm not the one putting forth absolutes such as "This can't be, it's never happened before!!!! ZOMG!@!@!1111oneone!!! INSIDE JOB!"

There's a first time for everything, period. It's erroneous to claim that just because something hasn't happened, that it cannot or won't. You said it yourself, there have been partial collapses before, so is it actually so unreasonable that there be a total collapse given the right conditions?



...because it's clear you like fantasy more than reason...


Funny. I think it's one thing, the simplest thing there is to explain the event. But yet you and "those like you" as you say believe in such things as :

Lol-O-Grams © (Owned by me, in response to the hilarious claims of John Lear)

Real planes crashing into the towers, followed by normal CD (deduced from witness testimony of sounds of explosions)

Real planes crashing into the towers, followed by Hush-A-Booms ® (Owned by Griff)


CGI across all networks live, and implanted in all private video (laughable)

Missiles

Nukes

Beam weapons from outer space (lawl)

Military planes filled with napalm, lasers, pods, etc, etc...

Am I missing anything?

None of the above "theories" has one solid single shred of evidence going for it...
Looks like me and "others like me" aren't the ones using fantasy logic.

To me, yes it is more logical that 2 planes crashed into 2 110 story buildings causing extreme damage and fires that toppled one of them onto a 47 story building damaging it and causing unfought fires that raged for hours and managed to weaken it's structure enough for it to eventually collapse. A first? Yes. Illogical, hardly.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
To me, yes it is more logical that 2 planes crashed into 2 110 story buildings causing extreme damage and fires that toppled one of them onto a 47 story building damaging it and causing unfought fires that raged for hours and managed to weaken it's structure enough for it to eventually collapse. A first? Yes. Illogical, hardly.


Its just too bad you cannot post 1 official report or any physical evidence to support your fantasies.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Edit to add: Here was the part that was 3' thick--->I" and "


For some reason, my post got garbled.

Anyway, for future reference, that is called the "web" of the beam. Let us know if you find that picture please.


[edit on 8/25/2008 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Its just too bad you cannot post 1 official report or any physical evidence to support your fantasies.


1? How about 8 official reports?

www.gwu.edu...

Of course it's rather absurd to ask someone to post "physical evidence", and since we all know that there is not 1 solid single shred of physical evidence proving any of the conspiracy theories, I highly doubt anyone will be able to post that either.

Thank you, come again!



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

and since we all know that there is not 1 solid single shred of physical evidence proving any of the conspiracy theories

Where is it supporting the official account?

Can't you see the absurdity of what you're saying?

[edit on 25-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Where is it supporting the official account?

Can't you see the absurdity of what you're saying?

[edit on 25-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



Did you not read the 8 reports?

No absurdity, Ultima said there was no "official reports", well, mystery solved.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

So you agree that noone actually knows what a total collapse would look like, correct? And given that, noone could know that it would or would not resemble the only other thing they can compare it to, a CD?


So since "we" have never experienced a total global collapse due to fire we should just assume it was, indeed, just the fire that caused the collapses??? WOW! ok then. It happened 3 times in one day and NEVER in the history of steel skycrappers happened before.

Should I just throw out my hands and say "hey, s@#t just happens"?

Soloist, it seems to me, like the "rest of you debunkers" need to have to take things at face value(David Blaine style). I go back and forth between believing the "Official story" and some of the "Conspiracy theories". But I don't subscribe to either.





I don't need any possibilities explained to me, and I'm not the one putting forth absolutes such as "This can't be, it's never happened before!!!! ZOMG!@!@!1111oneone!!! INSIDE JOB!"


I really doubt that you have even the slightest understanding of how an operation like this could be an "inside job".

Do you not understand that if just one US government agent/official aided these "terrorists" to do this, it's an inside job???

Are you and "your types" really that naive.






[edit on 25-8-2008 by JimBeam]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by JimBeam]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



Ultima said there was no "official reports", well, mystery solved.

...but what do those official reports state??

I have partially read them, but I can't say I can take them too seriously because they're flawed.

It is the easiest thing in the world to look at videos of the collapse, the fact it was reported early, etc.. and compare that to what the NIST say about it.

It's clear that they don't match, so the official report must be wrong (the physical evidence doesn't lie).

[edit on 25-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam

So since "we" have never experienced a total global collapse due to fire we should just assume it was, indeed, just the fire that caused the collapses???


Wow, is it really that hard?

No, that's not what I said, try and put aside your mistrust and re-read my post.

I stated that because something hasn't happened before is not the ONLY reason to discount it. Yes, we see this posted time and again "It's never ever happened in the history of skyscrapers, blah blah". I call baloney on that line of thinking, as it is totally ignorant.

Again, just because something never happened, does NOT mean it can't or won't.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
...but what do those official reports state??
I have partially read them, but I can't say I can take them too seriously because they're flawed.


Not my fault you didn't read them, make up your own mind. HOWEVER, I was responding to the comment made that no official reports exist, to which I believe in your above quote you and I are in agreement that they do.

So, to Ultima, you can stop the same tired, canned responses to everyone now.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

There's a first time for everything, period.

911
1st time a skyscraper fell due to fires - 3 times
1st time the hijack codes werent entered - 4 times
1st time the wreckage of an airliner wasn't identified by SN - 4 times
1st time 3 federal investigations were physicaly destroyed on the same day.
1st time a MSM outlet reported a disaster before it happened - 2 times

Theres more I'm sure, thats just off the top...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join