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.

 

NEW: WTC7 and North Tower Collapse Video

page: 10
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- Remember that it is fire PROTECTION and not fire proofing. Also remember that it is given an rating of how many hours said fire protection will prevent heating of the steel, which will result in severe structural damage.


Fire protection will last longer than it's specified rating. If you want to argue that point look it up.


2-Gee, I remember you complaining about the proposed regs that came out of this study of 7. You are aware that this is the primary mission of NIST, correct? They studied the collapse and are making new regs that should make buildings more resistant to fire induced collapses. So what's your point?


I was complaining that NIST wants to change codes of one area while failing to comply with the current codes in another.


3- It's not about telling YOU. It's about correcting your lies/omissions/distortions of truth. Like I just did above. You make a true statement about fire protection NOT being removed, but not making the true statement that the fire protection will only work for a limited amount of time until the structure will be in danger. This is lying by omission, something I find particularly disgusting when coming from a structural engineer that not only knows better, but should be educating others. You fail miserably....


Then why do other steel buildings remain standing under severely more intense and longer fires? IMO, you are the one who is lying to others.


4- FINALLY, you've ended the whole disgusting sham about how you're "neutral" about 9/11.


I never said I was "neutral". I said I could be wrong in my convictions and therefore open minded to the government's story. That does not equate to "neutral".


Too bad though, it was like comedy gold every time you tried to pass off this particular lie like anyone believed you. Thanks for finally admitting that you're politically motivated to say whatever in order to get some kind of .... whatever out of the experience.......


Politically motivated? I freeking voted for Bush. Duh.




posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
SPreston




There's a bomb in the building; Start clearing out. (New York City fireman)





Are you seriously using this video? lol!
Caught you in another lie:
If you ever watched the full part of this, the video is from when firefighters were located at Stuyvesant High School, during the firefighting effort where there was a bomb scare in the school. Are you suggesting they planted bombs in high schools too? Another lying "truther" vid long debunked.



BOMBS PLANTED IN WTC - Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom! (New York City fireman)




You truthers really ought to clean up your video library soon, as this video has been long debunked as well. This was in reference in the collapse of WTCs as how the floors were collapsing onto each other. Funny how neither ever say or believe explosives were ever present there.

I love the picture by the way. Nice way of showing off the core of the WTC which survived the initial collapse. huh, I'd have thought that the powerful "explosives" that "propelled" hundreds of tons of steel horizontally would have had no problem wiping out the core in the initial collapse as well. Again, do you even understand the physics of explosives?



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


How many buildings built have fire protection codes meant to survive 7 hours of fire plus extra weight loads?

Let's phrase this in another way: How many engineers anticipated a building getting hit by another collapsing building, where a few key structural bearing beams get severed, and then the rest of the building being exposed to fires for 7 hours? As a structural engineer, you should have understood this little dilema as well. one thing you keep forgetting as many truthers are prone to: it was a combination of events that caused this. It was never fires alone or the airplane hit alone, or the building getting creamed by another alone. It was a series of events where the impact of a few hundred tons of steel falling from 500ft up impacting a few key load bearing truss, severing or damaging a few critical areas, (and lets not forget the Comed substation and equipment located in the building), and then having fire engulf the critically damaged area as well. Remember Columbia? A single piece of styrofoam weighing 1 lb managed to destroy an entire space shuttle, by punching a hole in the leading edge of the wing. Do you understand the comparison?



Thanks for proving that buildings don't just fall into themselves. I wonder why people think those videos have anything in relation to WTC 7.


Uh Griff? did you forget my full exact comment?


Why it didnt fall over like these buildings is obvious: it wasnt all concrete+steel. it was just steel. Steel will bend and snap, while a large concrete building will just fall over in more or less one piece as many misinformed conspiracy theorists inncorrectly assumed the WTCs should have behaved.


I thought an "engineer" as yourself would have at least understood this basic fact. A steel building collapsing will behave differently than a solid concrete and steel building which falls over. Also, I find it surprising that a "structural engineer" as yourself wouldn't even understand the comparisons of the buildings I posted which have collapsed from other reasons. So I guess what you are saying is this: Buildings will never fail when their structure or foundation, or structural integrity is compromised in such a way that the building will collapse. So a building should remain standing, even when its main structural load bearing columns are damaged or destroyed? Phew that is a relief! So if I remove a load bearing wall in my house, the house won't fall apart?



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by exponent
Demolition explosives are not designed to withstand fires and will break down at even moderate to low fire temperatures. How did they survive?


I guess the reports of soldiers burning C-4 explosives to keep warm in vietnam are just a myth then?

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]


Once again, C-4 is set off by electric ignition. However, THAT requires wiring. And when C-4 burns, it would degrade. Not to mention the wiring that would burn up in the process or whatever electrical devices that would have been used.



Since I don't believe that it was "wired" for demolition on 9/11, I see no point in you continuing to say this.


So somehow they managed to covertly wire up C-4 on key structural supports in the building, without a soul noticing all the wiring and strange packs tied to columns all over the building, days/weeks/months in advance? Also, are you aware how loud C-4 is when it detonates? A small chunk is pretty loud. Plastic explosives are small and extremely powerful. By powerful they are also very loud. And yet, amidst all of this, no one heard them going off in sequence prior to collapse. And what is the "truther proof" of demolition charges inside WTC7? random flashes occuring during the collapse and windows breaking during the collapse Not before, but during.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


Dariousg, I just wanted to add that I am not a debunker, I am only looking for the truth of what really happened on 911.
You are right I do have a strong belief that our Government did 911, and all fingers point at our Government right at the Bush administration.
Until there is a professional investigation done by independent experts to prove the Government was not involved. Then I will change my mind.

However, sense the Bush administration has sealed all their documents forever, and has, stonewall every independent 911 investigation and made it clear they did not want an investigation to begin with. What would anyone with a normal thinking brain would think?

As far as the official 911 story ( there really is no story) nothing was investigated the only thing we are being told is that 19 hightjackers highjack airplanes and use them as weapons and that fires brought down the three WTC, and Bin Laden orchestrated 911 from a cave in Afghanistan. The Bush administration put together a 911 commission to do damage control for the Bush administration, and for all Government agencies that could have been involved, to vacate them of any wrongdoing. So they came up with a 911 commission report for the public, however the commission cherry pick information from the witness that where at all four location where all the events took place that day to fit what the Bush administration wanted the world to know.

The 911 commission hired NIST, and FEMA to help put together a story for the people. The problem is that their stories actually contradict each other.
The 911 Commission gave the American people flimsy evidences to support their ridiculous story.

According to 911-commission report, not one single element in the Government failed that day and no one is accountable for any wrongdoing. How bloody sweet!

The different between ThrotYogart and I is, I do not support the Government version of 911 spun lies and TY supports the Government version one hundred percent.

To be honest, both sides have little evidence to really make a substantial claim until a new investigation is done.

I just lose it when some people live and breath and support the Government lies. Either they are paid disinfo keyboard ops, or they are playing a game using the 911 threads. I think some do, just to see if they can get you angry, and in doing this to see you get kick off ATS. Other than that I can not see anyone that naïve or ignorant .






[edit on 11/8/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I thought an "engineer" as yourself would have at least understood this basic fact. A steel building collapsing will behave differently than a solid concrete and steel building which falls over. Also, I find it surprising that a "structural engineer" as yourself wouldn't even understand the comparisons of the buildings I posted which have collapsed from other reasons.


I understood your comparison, I just think they are apples and oranges as you've even stated the ones you posted where concrete structures. Now, if you want to do some comparisons, explain why the outer shell didn't collpase like the building I linked to a couple posts ago.


So I guess what you are saying is this: Buildings will never fail when their structure or foundation, or structural integrity is compromised in such a way that the building will collapse. So a building should remain standing, even when its main structural load bearing columns are damaged or destroyed? Phew that is a relief! So if I remove a load bearing wall in my house, the house won't fall apart?



No, I'm saying that all four corners will not fail straight down. But, nice try trying to make us believe this.

I'll state this again. A progressive interior collapse running from east to west as described by NIST should have caused the exterior to fail like the video I posted last page.

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-Fire protection will last longer than it's specified rating. If you want to argue that point look it up.

2-I was complaining that NIST wants to change codes of one area while failing to comply with the current codes in another.

3-Then why do other steel buildings remain standing under severely more intense and longer fires? IMO, you are the one who is lying to others.

4-Politically motivated? I freeking voted for Bush. Duh.


1-See, you're lying by omission here yet again. You KNOW that fire protection, rated for X amount of heat for X amount of hours will not last forever. A more intense fire/heat = less time and failure. A normal amount of heat for longer than X time = failure. Others may be ignorant enough to not know this, but you do. Again, you fail at educating any of your fellow conspiracy believers.

2-Huh? NIST is making tougher regs for designing for heat effects, I believe. How are they responsible for any compliance? They write the regs, not comply with them. That would be your responsibility. Again, you're distorting the truth by saying that THEY aren't complying. Maybe they loosened some regs. That is NOT non-compliance.

3-Another distortion of fact. You have no proof OR evidence that other building fires were either more intense and/or severe. I know what the argument is from the conspiracy believers - this or that building burned for 17 hrs...... but upon examination, one can find the real facts. These fires burned in one spot for only 90 minutes or so, which is normal for a typical office fire, and then moved on. They were also fought, where 7's fires weren't - yet another omission of fact that conspiracy believers must use to have an argument. I believe that a "normal" fire is also what the regs are designed for. This is well under the normal 2-3 hour fire rating. But 7 had an unusual fuel load at column 79 location that burned for a longer than normal time and/or was hotter, I forget the specifics. it was outlined in the NIST 7 report. You should read it.

4- both times?

In summary, nothing what you have posted will ever convince anyone other than the conspiracy minded individuals that inhabit ATS. What's the point of that?

So here's the problem that y'all have. The NIST report, 9/11 CR, etc stand. "You" want a new investigation, or whatever. You can convince the conspiracy minded all you want. If you want another investigation, you MUST prove your points to "us" first, if for nothing else than as a reality check. To throw questions out there will get you nothing. The questions that "we" shoot down are questions that any other person will ask if you want that investigation.

For instance, suppose that one of the conspriacy minded starts a thread and raises "questions", and none of "us" come out to play with him/her. What have they proved? Nothing. They MUST prove their point. The conspiracy minded have failed on all challenges to their specific pet theory.

A perfect example of this is the Pentagon weidros - they interview guys that support their SoC flight path, but ignore the fact they also say the plane hit the building. You have a friend(s) that SAW it hit, so you know that the flyover/missle/hologram/whatever theories to be ridiculous. And yet they persist, and have not proved a thing to anyone other than the already conspiracy minded/politically motivated/Bush hater/war haters/crazies.

"You" have the same problem, but are unable to see it......



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I'll state this again. A progressive interior collapse running from east to west as described by NIST should have caused the exterior to fail like the video I posted last page.


That's just stupid.

It collapsed like that becuase that's what the demo crew WANTED to happen.

If they wanted, I'm quite sure they could make it collpase to the left, or the right, from the back, from the front, from the center out, and from the outside in.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
[and then the rest of the building being exposed to fires for 7 hours?

Which specific part of the building was allegedly exposed to fires for 7 hours?

The NIST report states that between 12.10pm and 1pm, there were fires on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30. By 1pm there was no evidence of these fires on most sides of the building. Some of these floors may have been controlled by water sprinklers.

Between roughly 2pm and 5.20pm there were fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13. The intensity of fires on floors 11, 12 and 13 was higher, due to more combustibles.

Floors 7 and 8: The fires appeared to travel clockwise heading East from the North face.

Floor 9: There was no visible fires until around 4pm, where it appeared to start and spread from the West to the East.

Floor 11: Appeared to spread counterclockwise. For a two hour period, the images showed no visible signs of burning.

Floor 12: Similar to Floor 11, showed more signs of continous burning.

Floor 13: Similar to Floors 11 and 12. At 4.38pm, the fire had died down to the East.

Floor 14: Flames seen briefly after 5pm on the North face.

Again, which part of the building was exposed to fires for 7 hours?



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Once again, C-4 is set off by electric ignition. However, THAT requires wiring. And when C-4 burns, it would degrade. Not to mention the wiring that would burn up in the process or whatever electrical devices that would have been used.


I used C-4 as an example.



So somehow they managed to covertly wire up C-4 on key structural supports in the building, without a soul noticing all the wiring and strange packs tied to columns all over the building, days/weeks/months in advance?


First, have you ever been in a building where the structural steel columns were visible? Or are they usually covered with drywall? Second, I used C-4 as an example of an explosive that burns instead of exploding. It is not my fault that others can't extrapolate the meaning of the example.


Also, are you aware how loud C-4 is when it detonates? A small chunk is pretty loud. Plastic explosives are small and extremely powerful. By powerful they are also very loud. And yet, amidst all of this, no one heard them going off in sequence prior to collapse. And what is the "truther proof" of demolition charges inside WTC7? random flashes occuring during the collapse and windows breaking during the collapse Not before, but during.


I guess you didn't look at the video I posted before replying? Because your questions are answered by it.

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But 7 had an unusual fuel load at column 79 location

Seymour, please quote an external quote from the NIST report that confirms this.

You made the claim, so you should be able to easily verify it and provide us with a quote and page number from the NIST report.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2-Huh? NIST is making tougher regs for designing for heat effects, I believe. How are they responsible for any compliance? They write the regs, not comply with them. That would be your responsibility. Again, you're distorting the truth by saying that THEY aren't complying. Maybe they loosened some regs. That is NOT non-compliance.


NIST has failed to comply with the International Building Code's requirements for computer modeling reporting.


3-Another distortion of fact. You have no proof OR evidence that other building fires were either more intense and/or severe.


I have about as much proof as you do when you state that 7's were more intense etc.


These fires burned in one spot for only 90 minutes or so, which is normal for a typical office fire, and then moved on.


I guess you failed to read in the NIST report that 7's fires burned in one area for less time and then moved on?

The rest of your diatribe isn't worth my time.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
That's just stupid.


Again with the name calling eh?


It collapsed like that becuase that's what the demo crew WANTED to happen.


Exactly. And pray tell, can you tell us how the demolition crew accomplished this?

I'll help. They severed the columns in order from one side to the other. Just like the "progressive collapse" of WTC 7.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-NIST has failed to comply with the International Building Code's requirements for computer modeling reporting.

2-I have about as much proof as you do when you state that 7's were more intense etc.

3-The rest of your diatribe isn't worth my time.


1- You mean the req's for building DESIGN? How does that jive with modelling a collapse?

2- No, you have none whatsoever. I have the NIST report on 7 that states about the abnormally high paper load around the failure point.

3- Of course. It's inconvenient to your fairytales. You'd like to think that "we" must disprove what you question. You are wrong. If you can't see the truth behind THAT, then your search for truth about 9/11 is doomed, because you're blind to it....



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- No, you have none whatsoever. I have the NIST report on 7 that states about the abnormally high paper load around the failure point.
Your source = ???

Page number = ???



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- You mean the req's for building DESIGN? How does that jive with modelling a collapse?


If the ICC PERFORMANCE code for Buildings doesn't include modeling a collapse, what would you suggest does?


Edit: The ICC stands for International Code Council and the IBC (International Building Code) is part of the whole package of codes.





[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 11/8/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

posted by SPreston
There's a bomb in the building; Start clearing out. (New York City fireman)


posted by GenRadek
Are you seriously using this video? lol!
Caught you in another lie:
If you ever watched the full part of this, the video is from when firefighters were located at Stuyvesant High School, during the firefighting effort where there was a bomb scare in the school. Are you suggesting they planted bombs in high schools too? Another lying "truther" vid long debunked.

So you are claiming there was a 5th hijacked aircraft and it smashed into Stuyvesant High School? Bwahahahaha. Geeze are you pseudoskeptics for real? You make up the wierdest nonsense.



posted by SPreston
BOMBS PLANTED IN WTC - Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom! (New York City fireman)


posted by GenRadek
You truthers really ought to clean up your video library soon, as this video has been long debunked as well. This was in reference in the collapse of WTCs as how the floors were collapsing onto each other. Funny how neither ever say or believe explosives were ever present there.

Like we would take your word for anything? It is funny how debunked to people like you means you deny deny deny deny forever. Go ahead and deny all you want. Open-minded people can look and decide for themselves. That's who I am posting for; not for a bunch of paid shills and pseudoskeptics.


posted by GenRadek
I love the picture by the way. Nice way of showing off the core of the WTC which survived the initial collapse. huh, I'd have thought that the powerful "explosives" that "propelled" hundreds of tons of steel horizontally would have had no problem wiping out the core in the initial collapse as well. Again, do you even understand the physics of explosives?



I like that picture too. It shows the immense power of whatever explosive blasts shattered the core, pulverized the concrete in mid-air, and blasted many ton sections of exterior wall in all directions over 500 feet. But I like this picture too. It shows a huge piece of exterior wall section being blasted by the core explosion up and out and down onto the Winter Garden and WFC3 building 600 feet away from the North Tower. Watch the video again. Some simpletons think this many ton piece of exterior wall was floating on air like a balloon.


Sheesh. you guys crack me up with your lies.


by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics



Here's the huge piece in flight - DEMOLITION -




And here's where it landed - DEMOLITION -




Another view of Winter Garden and WFC3 with 4-ton WTC1 exterior wall sections



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
So you are claiming there was a 5th hijacked aircraft and it smashed into Stuyvesant High School? Bwahahahaha. Geeze are you pseudoskeptics for real? You make up the wierdest nonsense.

Why are you inventing something and claiming someone else said it? You're obviously not aware of the actual topic of this warning and your rather poor attempts to straw man your opponents position doesn't change the fact that he is correct.

Don't you think you should be addressing his position with actual facts, rather than trying to ridicule your opponent? Hardly the behaviour of a proper sceptic wouldn't you agree?



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

posted by SPreston
So you are claiming there was a 5th hijacked aircraft and it smashed into Stuyvesant High School? Bwahahahaha. Geeze are you pseudoskeptics for real? You make up the wierdest nonsense.


posted by exponent
Why are you inventing something and claiming someone else said it? You're obviously not aware of the actual topic of this warning and your rather poor attempts to straw man your opponents position doesn't change the fact that he is correct.

Don't you think you should be addressing his position with actual facts, rather than trying to ridicule your opponent? Hardly the behaviour of a proper sceptic wouldn't you agree?

GenRadek said the video is about Stuyvesant High School. Obviously it is not.

I have no idea what disinformation you two disinformation specialists are pushing this time. Is Stuyvesant High School a tower? Does Stuyvesant High School have more than 6 floors? Did an aircraft impact Stuyvesant High School? That video is relative to firemen talking about explosions in the towers.


Originally posted by GenRadek
SPreston


There's a bomb in the building; Start clearing out. (New York City fireman)



Are you seriously using this video? lol!
Caught you in another lie:
If you ever watched the full part of this, the video is from when firefighters were located at Stuyvesant High School, during the firefighting effort where there was a bomb scare in the school. Are you suggesting they planted bombs in high schools too? Another lying "truther" vid long debunked.




top topics



 
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join