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.

 

Undebunkable 911 Truths - Official Story Destroyed (again)

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by CameronFox
 


The Windsor Tower was built with reinforced concrete core...


I was talking about comparing the intensity of that fire to the intensity of the WTC fires, not what it did to the building. This is why I can only read Cameron's posts when someone else responds to them.

ThroatYogurt just had the same trouble sticking to what he was talking about. Speaking of which, aren't TY and Cameron the same person? I don't which two accounts it was but it was Griff that first noticed it and the poster wouldn't respond to the accusation. Oh, well.




posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


TY was banned so he became Cameron.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   

posted by Iblis Smiley

Cool, now show me the math. Do you have any idea the conductivity of that steel? The total mass of steel being heated? The rate of dissipation? It is nice to talk about how hot something got, how hot the steel framework got is quite another story. Just ask NIST, they could not make that math either so I cannot wait to see you try.



Exactly. The steel framework of each tower was welded and bolted together. In essence, the entire framework of each tower was a gigantic heat sink, drawing the heat away from any localized area. It is not even possible that the jetfuel contained within the aircraft fuel tanks could have heated the steel framework enough to weaken it anywhere, and most of the fuel burned off outside of both towers.




posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


It is still standing?


You knew perfectly well, what I was talking about.
I knew they tore the building down, and so dose everyone else. I was talking about the building burning all night, and when the fires were finally out the building was still
standing. Unlike the WTC 1 & 2 only burnt a little over an hour.


The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished.
And:

The Damage


After the loooong fire The Windsor Tower was still standing!
The WTC burnt for such little time then the top of one of the WTC just fell over (that’s a proven fact!) and then both WTC fell down. Funny how the lower floor were not even on fire, however since the pancake conspiracies theory has been proven false, and even the lying NIST said fires brought down the WTC what caused the steel to weaken under the rest of the floors can you answer that.


So it didn't "fall over?" Neither did 1,2 or 7.


I never made that statement in my earlier post to you. You just made that statement up however one of the WTC top portion did fall over.


You silly goose! WTC 1 & 2 were hit by airplanes. (going very fast)


No kidding I didn’t know that!


You might want to go and re-read the case study I linked.


Your comments and opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism that is a trap that I am not going to fall into with you.

The Windsor Tower fires burnt for 18 ~ 20 hours and the building were still standing.
Cameronfox, care to explain why those towers were still standing after burning for 18 to 20 hours, and please explain why the WTC tower came down in little over an hour?






[edit on 11/30/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
The Windsor Tower fires burnt for 18 ~ 20 hours and the building were still standing.
Cameronfox, care to explain why those towers were still standing after burning for 18 to 20 hours, and please explain why the WTC tower came down in little over an hour?


Cashlink,

The concrete section of the Windsor Tower, although having to be demolished, survived the massive fires. The steel sections of the tower failed. They started to fail within 2.5 hours of the onset of the fire and collapsed.

The Windsor Tower was still standing because it was built differently than 1, 2 or 7. (steel reinforced concrete)



WTC 1 and 2 were hit by planes sir. As you stated above, you are aware of this.
WTC7 was burning for over 5 hours with minimal firefighting efforts happening.


six

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Iblis Smiley
 


Hey genius..Read my posts and read them very carefully. Do you see anywhere where I stated anything about what caused the collapse? Do you see where I said anything about any math??? I dont think so. Reading smoke isnt crap. It is a tool that is used by firefighters everyday. If one does not know how to read smoke, one could die. Its too bad. The only people who know what went on on those floors have passed. You cannot say with 100% certainty what went on. You can not say if the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel. You dont know. You were not there. If you think that you do, then by all mean please dazzle us with your supreme intellect. You are the ONLY person in the world who does. Show me your math, not someone elses. Show me your body of work that proves without a shadow of doubt that it was a inside job. Do not parrot something that someone else has said. Use your own words. I have looked at other posts of yours, and you have said nothing extraordinary, nothing that hasnt come from a very biased web sight. Do some original thinking of your own. At least I can speak from experience. ALOT of experience. You?


six

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Hey BS. Hows school?

If you look at about the 83 floor there is very turbulent smoke coming from both sides. The smoke is very "roiled" for the lack of a better term.

So you dont think that alot more heat would not equate to greater temps? I would have to disagree with you there. Think of it this way. Those floors are the fire box of a fireplace. The elevator shafts and air ducts etc are the chimney. The holes caused by the aircraft are the air supply. I have seen video posted on ATS, which I wish I could find, of smoke being pulled back into the fire, which indicates a very large, hot, and growing fire. I believe that all of the above combined to make, for the lack of a better term, a furnace.

The fire load per floor was 43000 sq ft of carpet, wood, plastic, paper etc. As compared to most commercial occupancies, that is a huge fireload. By fireload I mean, all of the things that can burn, not like a load in the engineering sence.

I would really be willing to bet that there was flashover on most of the affected floors.

It would depend on alot of factors. Was the Windsor tower occupied or under construction? If it was merely under construction, then yes, by far the WTC were much more intense fires. If they were occupied, they did not have a fully loaded jet airliner hot them at 500+ mph. Remember, I never have said anything was melted. I just believe that the sum total of the events caused the towers to collapse.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Who cares, it still STOOD! You can spin this any way you want; however, the building stood after the fires were out it was a skyscraper just like the WTC! You can say Oh, but it was build like this, and it had that on it, Oh and they put a little of these in the metal and they sprinkled some magic dust on the concrete I do not care, THE BUILDING STOOD AFTER THE LONG FIRE! Unlike the small firers at the WTC especially WTC 7. The Windsor Tower burned all night the entire building was engulf in flames.

STOP DEFENDING THE GOVERNMENT LIES!



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Who cares, it still STOOD! You can spin this any way you want; however, the building stood after the fires were out it was a skyscraper just like the WTC! You can say Oh, but it was build like this, and it had that on it, Oh and they put a little of these in the metal and they sprinkled some magic dust on the concrete I do not care, THE BUILDING STOOD AFTER THE LONG FIRE! Unlike the small firers at the WTC especially WTC 7. The Windsor Tower burned all night the entire building was engulf in flames.

STOP DEFENDING THE GOVERNMENT LIES!





Explain the structural difference between the Windsor tower and WTC 7. Did building 7 have a concrete core to help support it after the fires burned out? Oh thats right. The fires didn't burn out on building 7. Why do you suppose the new building 7 has a concrete core? if steel framed buildings are not subject to collapse from common office fire why protect the steel with monokote fire protection? after all. Steel cant burn can it? Why isn't concrete sprayed with monokote?

this post is for the benefit of others as cashlink claims he has me on ignore.



posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
So you dont think that alot more heat would not equate to greater temps?


I never said that.

I wasn't asking about the Windsor Tower itself, either, like I just explained to CameronFox/ThroatYogurt.


I was just asking: there have been several other skyscraper fires. What makes the fires that were in the WTC Towers so bad by comparison? Ignoring the construction of the buildings in which they burned, wouldn't you say the Windsor fire was a very intense, very hot fire?

Here are photos for easy reference:






Again, I'm not talking about the buildings. Only the fire itself.

Would you say the fires in the WTC Towers were hotter and more intense than this?

[edit on 1-12-2008 by bsbray11]


six

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yes. Because the Windsor fire had already vented itself, that is the trapped hot gases had a place to escape. Nothing was there to hold the hot gases in the building. Spectacular...Yes. Hot...yes but not to the extent of the WTC. The majority of the windows in the WTC were intact, there by trapping the heated gases on the floors. One of the first things you do on a fire that has not vented itself is to ventilate a building either through windows or cutting a hole in the roof above the fire. Doing so will release alot of the trapped heat and smoke, making it easier to do what has to be done.



[edit on 2-12-2008 by six]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Hot...yes but not to the extent of the WTC.


Here is bias talking again. There is no way you could know this, and I don't think you are right.








The majority of the windows in the WTC were intact


Which just shows the fires weren't that hot. Windows shatter when they reach a certain temperature. They shattered out of the Windsor Tower.


there by trapping the heated gases on the floors.


If there is a restriction of gases moving around in and out of the buildings, then wouldn't there be a restriction of oxygen coming in too? If what you're saying is true then maybe the WTC fires turned black due to a lack of oxygen after all.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by bsbray11]


six

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





Here is bias talking again. There is no way you could know this, and I don't think you are right.


No. No bias. Just experience. The signs I see point to what I have been talking about. I guess we will just have to disagree then.


Which just shows the fires weren't that hot. Windows shatter when they reach a certain temperature. They shattered out of the Windsor Tower.


What type of glass? Was the glass in the Windsor towers the same as in WTC? Did they need to be the same specs? Was all the glass installed in Windsor? Again not any proof.



If there is a restriction of gases moving around in and out of the buildings, then wouldn't there be a restriction of oxygen coming in too? If what you're saying is true then maybe the WTC fires turned black due to a lack of oxygen after all.


Not if the majority of the opening was used for in inflow of oxygen. Hard for something to move against a current. I dont think that there was a restriction of fresh air in, just heat and smoke out. I think more was trapped in than got out.










[edit on 2-12-2008 by six]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Was the glass in the Windsor towers the same as in WTC?


Yes.

I say that because unless either building implemented fire-resistant glass (I found a patent for that from 1997, and its good to exposure to 900 C of heat) then there could be no real difference. The temperature at which glass will shatter is very narrow by its material properties. Just like the different melting points between different kinds of steel, except narrower because you have less range to play around with. Once glass is set at a certain temperature, if it approaches that temperature again it will shatter.



If there is a restriction of gases moving around in and out of the buildings, then wouldn't there be a restriction of oxygen coming in too? If what you're saying is true then maybe the WTC fires turned black due to a lack of oxygen after all.

Not if the majority of the opening was used for in inflow of oxygen. Hard for something to move against a current.


And it's impossible for a current to exist if there's not a "circuit" present to also channel gases away.

Think of this way: if it were just more and more oxygen pouring in, eventually the air pressure there would exceed the pressure of the air coming in, and it would basically "push" against the incoming air and there would be no more current.

There is no way you can have it both ways: lots of oxygen in, but no gases moving out. It doesn't make sense, but it does show how biased you are in imagining these conditions.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


I think what you people always seem to overlook, and or IGNORE is the fact that the Windsor had a CONCRETE and steel supported core. THIS was all that allowed the tower to survive without collapsing. Maybe if the Twin Towers had a solid concrete core reenforced with steel they may have lasted longer or survived. Its funny how engineers on site at the Windsor said if it wasnt for the CONCRETE core, the whole thing could have come down.

What you ALSO overlook or ignore is the fact that the STEEL only sections collapsed from FIRE alone. No planes hit it, no jet fuel spreadover multiple floors, no fireballs, nothing. Just a regular office fire burning. And the steel failed within 2 1/2 hours of being on fire. So how can that be? Steel failed here at the Windsor. Fire alone did it. No planes/jet fuel/ involved. So instead of ignoring this, why don't you explain how that can be in the Windsor and why it wasn't also possible at the WTCs. After all, it was just office stuff burning in the Windsor. WTCs had an entire 767 inside with jet fuel over multiple floors included.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
THIS was all that allowed the tower to survive without collapsing.


And that is complete conjecture on your part, because you think the towers came down from the impacts and fires alone.


What you ALSO overlook or ignore is the fact that the STEEL only sections collapsed from FIRE alone.


Post images of the parts that failed and let's compare them to any of the steel in the towers.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

And that is complete conjecture on your part, because you think the towers came down from the impacts and fires alone.


No it is not conjecture on my part. This comes from those that worked on WTC and the engineers and countless others that had to investigate.

At the Windsor, fire alone did it and it is a FACT that the concrete+steel core is what allowed it to survive.
You can read the report on it here:
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Also the behavior of the Windsor's concrete has already been studied here:
www3.ntu.edu.sg...

Now as for the WTCs its quite obvious one thing was totally lacking in its structure: CONCRETE + STEEL columns and floors. If you still believe that steel can't fail from fire alone, there are many building engineers that would disagree with you. Firefighters even understand when roofs are steel truss supported, and its on fire, it is not safe to enter the building because of collapse.
Since the floors of the WTC were steel truss supported only, they are more susceptible to fire than a solid steel beam.
In fact you can read all about the dangers of buildings with truss structures (steel or wood) in fires:
www.firetactics.com...
www.firehouse.com...
www.cdc.gov...
From the last source I especially enjoy this line:

Steel trusses are also prone to failure under fire conditions and may fail in less time than a wooden truss under the same conditions.


Best example of a large heavy steel truss failure is the McCormick Place fire. The roof collapsed and it was a heavy steel truss supported roof. If that can happen to a heavy truss, what about a light steel truss? And the weight of an airplane on it? And the extra stress that is now being redirected to the remaining columns and trusses from the damaged or destroyed columns and trusses? All that adds up in bad way for the steel and especially at the connections, specifically the seats for the ends of the trusses. And if the fireproofing gets knocked off a bit, whats to stop it from heating up extremely fast in that section and have the whole thing deform and lose its integrity? And lets forget the "heat sink" nonsense. How can heat from a long truss get transferred through two 3/4" bolt and one 1" bolt on the end of the truss to the outer perimeter columns fast enough to save it from overheating? The connections would have been the first to fail.

What is most prevalent in the "truther" mindset, is that its all so simple. They look at the collapse and go, "OH explosives did it!" What they don't get is the complexity of the entire situation. Rather than understanding, studying, learning at least some basics on engineering, fire engineering, chemistry, building tall structures, and listening to actual experts who worked on the WTCs, and the hundreds if not thousands that investigated, studied, compiled the report, they'd rather listen to non-experts pointing out "flaws" or "inconsistencies" in blurry videos and using personal opinions and innuendos which have ZERO basis in facts or truth. What qualifications does Dylan Avery have, or Alex Jones? "Professor" Jones (and I use the term loosely) didn't even have his "findings" peer-reviewed. I can go on and on, but the common factor I see in this is actual facts and truths are ignored in favor of nitpicking "inconsistencies" in a video and then robo-posting the same questions that have been answered years ago, but still they must keep asking them no matter how retarded ( I mean redundant) or how many times its already been explained. If it ain't dripping in juicy conspiracy sauces that prove Bush/Cheney/NWO/Illuminati/Jews/Greys/Mickey Mouse Club was behind it, they don't wanna hear it. And so, facts and truth take a backseat to imagination and shrill loudmouths spewing garbage.

[edit on 12/3/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 12/3/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
No it is not conjecture on my part. This comes from those that worked on WTC and the engineers and countless others that had to investigate.


Then it was conjecture from them. They never studied the Windsor Tower, or compared it to the WTC. They never even offered a satisfactory hypothesis on what brought the WTC towers down, and by that I mean (a) they never actually tested their hypothesis and (b) they only even tried to analyze the very first failures in the buildings, and offer absolutely no explanation of what allowed it to fall all the way to the ground without stopping.


At the Windsor, fire alone did it and it is a FACT that the concrete+steel core is what allowed it to survive.


No, it's common conjecture by people like you. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it any more meaningful.


You can read the report on it here:
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Also the behavior of the Windsor's concrete has already been studied here:
www3.ntu.edu.sg...


I have seen those websites before. None of them offer any evidence that the Windsor Tower would have collapsed if it were just steel-framed, because they never tested it. Like I said, conjecture.


Now as for the WTCs its quite obvious one thing was totally lacking in its structure: CONCRETE + STEEL columns and floors.


The First Interstate Bank also suffered intense fire, longer than either of the towers did, fully involved in places, but it was repaired and is still standing today. And it's steel only. And it uses exterior columns, and then has a core structure in the center, just like the WTC Towers. It didn't need concrete columns. Drawing black-and-white conclusions like that isn't logical.


If you still believe that steel can't fail from fire alone, there are many building engineers that would disagree with you.


Define the word "fail." Because deformations happen all the time, are well-documented, etc. That is what is traditionally considered a "failure." What doesn't happen, and didn't even exist until 9/11, is what happened to the WTC towers, which is everything suddenly giving out simultaneously and simply dropping straight down all the way to the ground.


Since the floors of the WTC were steel truss supported only, they are more susceptible to fire than a solid steel beam.


So what? It's going to break off on all connections simultaneously and fall down like a pancake onto the next floor? Because you know NIST says in their own report that that scenario is highly unlikely. They even said in one of their FAQs that they don't support "pancake theory," that their hypothesis has nothing to do with that.

NIST's hypothesis is the trusses expanding from being heated, pushing the perimeter columns outward, and then sagging, pulling them inward, and then enough perimeter columns buckled a significant enough amount to cause everything to start moving. That's when they stop, no more analysis.


And the weight of an airplane on it?


The planes didn't weigh that much compared to how much weight was being supported by each floor already, and they are actually built with redundancy.


And the extra stress that is now being redirected to the remaining columns and trusses from the damaged or destroyed columns and trusses?


Damaged trusses aren't redistributing loads anywhere except their own dead weight where they lie. The damaged and the destroyed columns were still greatly outnumbered by the intact ones, which again were built redundant and to be able to take additional loading.


And if the fireproofing gets knocked off a bit,


A bit? It's still a big "if."


whats to stop it from heating up extremely fast in that section and have the whole thing deform and lose its integrity? And lets forget the "heat sink" nonsense. How can heat from a long truss get transferred through two 3/4" bolt and one 1" bolt on the end of the truss to the outer perimeter columns fast enough to save it from overheating?


The entire truss itself is a heat sink, and the columns, concrete slabs, and surrounding air all absorb heat that might otherwise go to the trusses as well.

It would take an immense amount of heat energy to heat the truss very quickly. It took NIST 30 minutes to heat a truss to 700 C in a lab using a spray burner generating between 1.9 and 3.4 megawatts of power, which was just calculated in another thread to be equivalent to several hundred open fire places, in half the size of a garage. It takes more than a few minutes to heat a significant amount of steel to any temperature with an open, uncontrolled fire, let alone uniform elevated temperatures.


What is most prevalent in the "truther" mindset, is that its all so simple. They look at the collapse and go, "OH explosives did it!" What they don't get is the complexity of the entire situation.


I think I have a pretty good understanding for the complexity of it. Like the way WTC1 just starting falling straight down, all 4 corners and the antenna (meaning the core, too) at the same time. To reiterate, it all happened at the same time. Not something that finally happened to the perimeter column here, then caused a problem here, there, etc., but something that took out the core at the same time the perimeter columns failed, also on all 4 corners and all 4 faces at the same time. That is a complex thing to accomplish. There was timing involved. Or if the core was entirely cut first, then the perimeters would all drop as a result of that through the hat truss, but then that also contradicts NIST's hypothesis.


Rather than understanding, studying, learning at least some basics on engineering, fire engineering, chemistry, building tall structures, and listening to actual experts who worked on the WTCs


Maybe that's your problem: you only learned the basics?


I take that to mean you take for granted any 2-bit excuse any seemingly credible fellow will give you, as long as it sounds like it makes sense and it doesn't require you to think very hard about the issue anymore.

I've had physics, and I actually try to imagine as many things and weigh as many variables as accurately as I can from a theoretical level. When I try to understand things, I try to understand them from the most fundamental level, I'm always trying to go back to the root. That's why I look at what NIST did (or didn't do), and what it implies, instead of picking the "side" that has the most people on it.


and the hundreds if not thousands that investigated, studied, compiled the report, they'd rather listen to non-experts pointing out "flaws" or "inconsistencies" in blurry videos


There are professionals (experts) in a wide range of fields saying exactly the same things, and they actually use more than "blurry videos." The reason people keep pointing out flaws with the official reports is because they're trash. FEMA was the "preliminary" report, and then they passed the torch on to a NIST team, whose hypothesis is so ridiculous that you can't expect people not to say bad things about it.


What qualifications does Dylan Avery have, or Alex Jones?


This rant is getting farther and farther away from being a response to anything I was talking about. Now you're talking about people that I have nothing to do with. Keep trying, maybe one day your ears will be clean enough to hear what is being said without being so much of a know-it-all that you don't even know what you're saying.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by bsbray11]


six

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There is a process called "mushrooming". What happens is when a fire is burning on a floor of a multistory building, the products of combustion will rise to the upper floors then start building downwards. Now you are looking at approx 25 floors +/- @ roughly 43000 sqft. I am not sure of how high the ceilings were, maybe on average of 9' to 10'. You have alot of cubic feet to fill up. Plus, products of combustion were escaping as evidenced by the smoke exiting the building. More of the hole was used for the inflow of oxygen than the exiting of gases. The set up was just right for it to be a very hot fire.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join