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.

 

Latest Polls after new NIST report

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
well, i can only give you speculation based on my knowledge of ground zero, and i would say that the most likely explanation for molten metal would be that after the building went down, it essentially made a furnace out of the wreckage.


Please explain where the heat source came from since the fires in the building were burning out before the collapse. Also all reports stated the fires in the buildings did not get hot enough to melt steel.

Please explain the molten metal and steel in the basement of building 6?




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


are you aware, that them demo'ing a building because it is on fire is just plain crazy? to take a building down puts A LOT more people in danger than to let it stand and CONTAIN the fire. i was in volunteer fire dept. we were trained to contain fires that we knew were not going to get put out, not take the entire building down. that would cause more damage, and possible loss of life then letting it burn to the ground on it's own.

also i KNOW that the NYFD made the decision, that is why i think it is so silly for someone to assert that they played a part in what happened that day. do you guys understand the kind of people you are pointing the finger at now? you are literally saying that the very people who risked their lives to save people in the twin towers, are the same people who demolished a building... and for what? because it MAY or MAY NOT protect surrounding buildings? i personally believe that another building catching on fire was not at the top of their priority list, because from my experience fighting fires you want to get all the PEOPLE out of danger, before you go thinking about creating even more danger.

you guys have no logical leg to stand on in this argument.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by Techsnow
 


i highly doubt "all" of them claimed to hear explosions, even then. i tend to not totally believe every little detail that comes out of someone's mouth right after they were just in what could literally be termed as "hell on earth" people tend to get a little panicked in those kind of situations and can often hear, or see things that didn't REALLY happen.


I was hoping you would respond so I could call you on this.

This video sums it up, I have nothing more to say to you about this.




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
are you aware, that them demo'ing a building because it is on fire is just plain crazy? to take a building down puts A LOT more people in danger than to let it stand and CONTAIN the fire.


Well then you have not read the statments from CHief Hayden about the fact that they were worried about the buidlings coming down on its own and spreading more fires. You really should find things out before posting so you do not look so immature.

Remeber they had no water to fight anymore fires.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


i already explained the molten metal to the best of my abilities, if you are going to keep pushing the goal posts back im just going to stop, you people are impossible to have a discussion with because if it doesn't match up with your skewed and uneducated account of what happened that day you keep beating around the bush until you have some stupid little minor detail to beat into the ground.

the fire could have reignited from the presence of other flammable materials in the extreme amount of wreckage left after the buildings collapsed. what you need to take into account is that most materials only need to reach a certain TEMPERATURE to ignite, they don't have to be caught on fire via a direct flame. so, if what i am speculating is accurate, and the wreckage turned into a sort of furnace, then the temperatures present in there could have very well added fuel to the embers, and reignited a super hot, furnace like fire.

it's not like the building was 100% non-flammable materials.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
i already explained the molten metal to the best of my abilities, if you are going to keep pushing the goal posts back im just going to stop,


I do not push the goal post back, you just keep failing to meet any goal at all.

Please explain to us where the heat source for the molten steel and metal came from or everyone on here will see that you are wrong again.

Also you need to explain where the molten steel and metal came from in buildsing 6.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 



way to ignore everything i said, and keep pushing your baseless and biased explanantions.

like i said, people in times of extreme stress, can't always remember or KNOW what they are hearing. do you not understand this? have you ever been in a car wreck where you couldn't remember exactly what happened... because it all tends to jumble together, and you can't remember if the boom you heard was before the light turned red, or after...

crap would you please stop posting just to get any kind of response so that you can post a video that shows exactly what i was trying to explain? i mean it's like you put it out there for bait so that you could go ahead and click the post button on the post that you already had written up waiting for my reply.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


holy crap, you aren't even reading what im typing now, I GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION AND YOU IGNORED IT. stop acting like a child, and DEBATE, don't sit there and try to gang up on me and pound my rational logical, and based on facts, arguments. you won't win... i got all day to prove that you guys are naive.

FYI: you did push the posts back, we were talking about something TOTALLY different from the molten metal, and RIGHT after i got done proving that you guys are just ignoring the facts, you said what amounted to "yea well, what about this" and when i answer this you will ask the same thing again, except about some other little detail that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. it's chidish.

i gave you a possible reason for why the metal could have melted, and instead of taking it in, and applying what i told you to the situation, you automatically called it wrong, because it doesn't match up with you naive and pre concieved view on what happened that day.

if you think the gov't did it FINE, i would be willing to entertain the idea too. if you guys would use intelligent thought out arguments instead of using the same old, tired, and crazy sounding rhetoric that people like you have been using for 7 years now.

[edit on 8/23/08 by SRTkid86]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by Techsnow
 



way to ignore everything i said, and keep pushing your baseless and biased explanantions.

like i said, people in times of extreme stress, can't always remember or KNOW what they are hearing. do you not understand this? have you ever been in a car wreck where you couldn't remember exactly what happened... because it all tends to jumble together, and you can't remember if the boom you heard was before the light turned red, or after...

crap would you please stop posting just to get any kind of response so that you can post a video that shows exactly what i was trying to explain? i mean it's like you put it out there for bait so that you could go ahead and click the post button on the post that you already had written up waiting for my reply.


Wow you are amazing, if you would watch the video I just posted you can hear the explosion that came from WTC7 building.

Top this video off with many witnesses claiming they heard explosions in the WTC7 building.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
way to ignore everything i said, and keep pushing your baseless and biased explanantions.


All you do is repeat what the media told you with no actual evidence to support anything you post.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


mater of fact, i get none of my information from media, it is all independantly researched and verified by myself, and my existing knowlege on subject similar to this.

this is the typical truther thing to do. if someone doesn't agree with you, or has a different outlook on what happened that day, you start saying they are sheep, and they get their info from fox news etc.... you know nothing about me, or whay i know what i know... so don't make assumptions based off a few of my posts.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 
Hello again my friend, I see that once again the debate rages on! I must say however, that it would seem that once again the obvious evidence in the case of WTC7 is being ignored.
I have been looking into fire as a cause of collapse of other buildings in the entire world. I have not found 1 single modern steel structure in the entire world that has been brought down as a result of fire. Not one. In many cases the entire structure has been completely involved and the main steel columns have withstood the heat of a temperatures in excess of 1950+degrees. There are cases all over the world. In fact I have seen test cases of structures built to scale by engineers with government agencies that were intentionally set aflame and left to burn. In every single case the main steel support structure withstood the temps that are said to have been reached in all 3 buildings, and in every case the skeletal structure of steel supports remained intact. There are only 3 precedents for total destruction of a steel supported modern structure succumbing to fire. Guess which 3.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 


i watched the video, there is no reason to believe that was an explosion that took down wtc 7. there was plenty of noise and booms going on that day.

you have no idea apparently what it's like to be in the middle of a shizz storm. which is great for you, but it also give you no experience with dealing with crazy and stressful scenarios.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


So you are going to ignore the video I put up aren't you?

I don't blame you, if you do watch it, you can clearly hear an explosion, and of course the source is undeniable.

But if you had watched it you would only hear one explosion in the video (that did indeed come from WTC7), one of MANY explosions heard by the firemen that day.

So the question remains. Why can we clearly hear explosions in this video given to us by CNN and why are there so many reports of explosions? This is completely contradictory to what the NIST report is saying.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Techsnow]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


speaking of steel for testing, funny that the front end of new class of Navy ships has been built entirely of WTC complex steel (fron end) and is at sea now.....

www.foxnews.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...

How can the Offical story say they had no steel recovered to test, yet they had enough steel to make the front end of a navy ship??


This story is getting more rediculous daily, and the fact that people still believe it and stand behind it, is insanity!!!



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
mater of fact, i get none of my information from media, it is all independantly researched and verified by myself, and my existing knowlege on subject similar to this.


Well what are you using for research becasue you have missed a lot of important information?

You do know that Chief Hayden was worried about fires from the buidlings spreading?

You do know that Chief Nigro evacuated the firemen before the call to Silverstein was made, so the fire commander could not have been talking about the firemen when he stated PULL IT?



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spookjr
Hello again my friend, I see that once again the debate rages on! I must say however, that it would seem that once again the obvious evidence in the case of WTC7 is being ignored.


Hey friend. Yes i have posted alot of facts and information on this but as usual the believers keep ignoring it becasue it does fit into their fantasy world.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


you are not being intellectually honest here though, you are saying that because the made the decision to pull out of there BEFORE they called Silverstein and said it was coming down, that that MUST mean that they had planted explosives and were going to demolish it.

please show another example of a fire department demolishing a large building in the middle of a cirt filled with other large buildings, because they thought the fire was going to spread.

what i am saying is that based on my knowledge of fighting fires, you get your men to safety, and get everyone accounted for, before you go making gung-ho cowboy moves... like demolishing a large building in the middle of a city that is already filled with panic. so once again common sense and logic would dictate that they are going to make sure their men are safe, first and foremost, before they make phone calls to anyone, letting them know what the situation is.

that being said, i personally don't see how you guys are trying to say that the very same people who risked their lives to save the more fortunate victims of this terrorist attack, are the people who blew a building up, in the middle of a crowded street, because they were worried about something else catching on fire. i assure you, that was prolly the LAST of the MYFD worries at the time. their job first and foremost is to protect the people, then the property. so it makes no sense for them to demolish the building, when knocking the building down, would have been a bigger threat to the safety of everyone in the area.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 
Interesting factoid. Solenoid activated hand held explosive detonator, a type of detonator. This device is a detonator for charges set in a sequence and detonated by Prima-Cord or Det-Cord. Consists of a handheld device with a ring and a small metal cable. The ring is grasped and pulled and the detonation cord is ignited. The most common order after the all clear is given for the activation of the charges is"pull it", a description of the very action that is neccesary to initiate the sequence.
Hmmmmm.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by spookjr
 


where is your proof of this, because from what i have read, the term "pull it" has never been verified to be common nomenclature when dealing with domolitions.




top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join