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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman

The links are to the University of Manchester, in England, so please don't dismiss their data with a "yeah, but...", please: this is a neutral source of high integrity dealing with well-documented test data. If you have a shred of countervailing evidence, then please post it.



I use them all the time, so we can agree that they are a good source.

However, neither of those links back your claim that there wasn't enough time.... etc. I used one of them in my previous post, LOL...

Most interesting of all though, is the reliance upon this arguement by you. If you actually read the NIST, they themselves state that the columns never reached a temp that would cause a collapse.

So I'm always left wondering WHY this always comes up. Have you read the NIST report? And know what it says? It says there are complex reasons that caused the collapse initiation. Not just too hot>collapse.




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

sorrry took so long to respond wife gets mad when i spend alot of time on the computer , had to coddle her for a few hours.

2 agin it wasnt all a36 low carbon steel there was high carbon steel too, and it even states the a572 (which is 42 ksi min.) wasnt listed in the nist report but was used as was a441 and a514
www.designaids.com... quoted in article (In lieu of actual WTC steel properties, typical stress-strain curves characteristic of 3 of the 12 steels used in the design and construction of the WTC complex are shown in Figure B-2 for three ASTM designation steels with minimum specified yield strengths of 36 ksi (A36), 50 ksi (A441), and 100 ksi (A514). In general, as the yield strength of the steel increases, the yield-to-tensile-strength ratio (Y/T) also increases. For A36 steel, Y/T is approximately 0.6, whereas for A514 steel, Y/T is approximately 0.9.)

7 agreed thickness dose not effect the yield strength but the carbon content dose effect the yield strength or grade but thinkness dose effect the actual strength of the steel

,and reread the exutive sumery says only 12 grades where ended beeing used because of up grades, (but that dosent really matter 14 or 12 )
yield strength is jsut the minimum strength that the steel starts to deform

www.springerlink.com...
,
but when presure is removed it will spring back unless the ultimate tensile strength is reached 58,000 - 79,800 psi for a36 low carbon steel ,

its thermal properties are a totally different animal and thickness has a huge effect on its thermal properties.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.chapelsteel.com...
en.wikipedia.org...(engineering)

8 dont see any errors a36 a572 a514 a441 was used regardless of placement not all steel was a36 steel and you know that dude
it even said not all was listed because there was no steel to evaluate
it was assumed acording to orders placed back in the day

9 this is why all steel is tested using the ANSI/UL 1709 standards

database.ul.com.../UL+1709&objid =1074332286&cfgid=1073741824&version=versionless&parent_id=1073984825&sequence=1

10 as far as steel grades go, you didnt even list the facts, it all wasnt low carbon a36 steel and since u seem to have read some of that pdf you should know that right ??

there was a36 a572 and a514 a441 used in the core columns the pdf even states that they where used but not listed

15 really? that test ( www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...) is for structural concrete not steel but dose effect the

en.wikipedia.or...

which is the main law that effects the speed at wich all structural components heat up the concrete and rebar inside just help absorb heat since it heats up much slower than steel and would, it absorb alot of the heat agin
en.wikipedia.or...

but regardless what me and you post about the grades being this or being that the fact remains the teperature that was recorded during the time the buildings where on fire only reached 1300 degrees f

www.muggyweld.com...
www.blksmth.com...
www.uddeholm.com...
www.beautifuliron.com...
bleiersblog.blogspot.com...
911research.wtc7.net...
so that beeing the case no one can change the laws of thermodynamics
which tell us what the official stoy is wrong

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


look to the right at the open air burn temp dude

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyb98201
I believe now that the fire weakened the supports and brought the building down. The simplest answer is sometimes the correct one.

You are correct in saying that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Since steel structured high-rises have never globally collapsed due to fires before, then believing that fire weakened the supports would not be the simplest answer.

Since the WTC7's collapse looks exactly like a controlled demo in every fashion, then the simplest answer would be it was controlled demo. If it walks like a dog and barks like a dog...

Everyone is absolutely entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, but you are believing the total opposite of the simplest answer.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Check out the Interstate 580/80 fire several years ago - gasoline truck
flipped on turn. Resulting fire buckled the steel supports on overpass
and caused it to collapse


Did either of the structures that you cited contain anywhere near the steel that the towers did? You are forgetting the laws of thermodynamics and just comparing apples and oranges. The more steel you have, the more intense sustained heat it takes to weaken them as the heat will disperse throughout the steel. Feel free to prove me wrong but I am willing to bet there was a lot less steel in these bridges.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


Hey thanx for posting those.

I'm tired of arguing this point with him. He keeps asking the same crap I've already covered over and over.

He's either playing games, or just doesn't understand basic physics and how it relates to structures.

WTC 7 fell with a precision you just don't get from 'natural' collapses.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by ANOK]


And yet even companies that perform controlled-demolitions on a routine basis disagree with you. Perhaps you don't know as much about CD as you think you do.

Again I recommend that you discuss your "findings" with a college level physics professor, since you don't want to listen to me.


EDIT: Also, still waiting for you to source the multiple claims you made in your earlier post with regard to the physics of building collapses...thanks in advance.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
And yet even companies that perform controlled-demolitions on a routine basis disagree with you. Perhaps you don't know as much about CD as you think you do.

Again I recommend that you discuss your "findings" with a college level physics professor, since you don't want to listen to me.


EDIT: Also, still waiting for you to source the multiple claims you made in your earlier post with regard to the physics of building collapses...thanks in advance.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by adam_zapple]


And just where are your sources exactly? We already know that we can produce controlled demo guys that cannot believe that is not what it was. Where are yours that all disagree? You say lots of things but you have done nothing to prove any of them are true.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I DID NOT SAY IT MELTED I SAID IT BUCKLED THE STEEL!

Typical conspiracy loon - twisting everything

Even if steel did not melt the fire caused it to buckle from the stress

What about the other examples I provided - in each case heat from fires
caused steel to warp



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gonenuts
reply to post by esdad71
 

Blab! Blab! Why don’t you show us proof to your statements, and stop the ranting. We would like to see some sources. I am not going to take your word for anything, and no one else is going to as well.
If you want to rant then go to Below Top Secret, they have a RANT page for you.
I thought this was a debating forum, and not a rant room.




What you have just written, my friend, is a rant. It in incoherent, lacks structure and provides no new information to this post.

Oh no, no one is going to take my word...boo hoo...you have hurt my feelings so much maybe I will go to BTSNN or maybe into the secret forum where people are cordial and don't buck up behind a keyboard.

This ENTIRE thread has been derailed, per usual. I am not here to present any evidence as THAT is what the main question was in the OP/ Did you not notice that since you have been just ranting for the last 11 pages?

This is a debating room, and for 11 pages, I have not had one shred of physical evidence to prove that ANY of the WTC buildings were bought down. I mean, I even gave you some crumbs to go check out DARPA but obviously since it came from me you would not read it. You see, that is not denying ignorance and in a debate, you need to know both sides of the argument at hand.

So ANOK and crew, for the last time, WHERE is the physical evidence of the WTC coming down? NO videos, NO it was all shipped away, No holograms and no mind control. This is simple.

NIST has released after seven years a report that states that there were no explosives however many of you disagree. The ONLY way to prove this, just like in court, is to prove, with physical evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt a demolition happened.

Also, thank you to those who have kept decorum and I apologize if my words or action have offended but at this point I feel I am defending myself when it is I who asked a question. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Also, this is a link to the largest building ever demo'd.
link to building article

If you read it, it tells how many people were needed and howl long it took.



Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.


This is ONE building. Seven months of people coming and going and preparing. Now, this pertains to WTC 7. Why wait? I wanted to hear a few answers and the BBC is interesting but there were so many misreported articles pertaining to that day including the Pentagon attack at the gate prior ?

Why would Silverstein wait? Drama? CNN ratings? Did Ted Turner call him and tell him to hold out?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luciferdescending

Originally posted by adam_zapple
And yet even companies that perform controlled-demolitions on a routine basis disagree with you. Perhaps you don't know as much about CD as you think you do.

Again I recommend that you discuss your "findings" with a college level physics professor, since you don't want to listen to me.


EDIT: Also, still waiting for you to source the multiple claims you made in your earlier post with regard to the physics of building collapses...thanks in advance.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by adam_zapple]


And just where are your sources exactly? We already know that we can produce controlled demo guys that cannot believe that is not what it was. Where are yours that all disagree? You say lots of things but you have done nothing to prove any of them are true.


Google Brett Blanchard of Controlled Demolition, INC. He wrote a rather lengthly paper on the subject.

Since you mentioned it...which "controlled demo guys" believe that was a CD?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Since you mentioned it...which "controlled demo guys" believe that was a CD?




Other structural experts


Google Brett Blanchard of Controlled Demolition, INC. He wrote a rather lengthly paper on the subject.


I never denied there were experts that saw it both ways. I am pointing out how easily they just negate each other.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Luciferdescending]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 

LycoDude,
The damage to WTC7 was not caused by a diesel fuel fire, alone, if at all. It was caused by a fire fueled by office furnishings, equipment, combustible construction materials, and paper. It was inside a building, which means it is not "open air" in any case, so the numbers you discovered in Wiki, even if correct, are not at all applicable. Remember we are not talking about melting, just expanding, buckling, and shearing joints. The long steel spans in #7 make it more susceptible yet.
PteriDude.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
And yet even companies that perform controlled-demolitions on a routine basis disagree with you. Perhaps you don't know as much about CD as you think you do.


Disagree with what exactly? What points did I make that demo companies disagree with? Please explain, with sources (other than 9/11 sites pls).


Again I recommend that you discuss your "findings" with a college level physics professor, since you don't want to listen to me.


LOL OK. Listen to you? Listen to what exactly? Your lame attempt to explain the physics you don't understand?


EDIT: Also, still waiting for you to source the multiple claims you made in your earlier post with regard to the physics of building collapses...thanks in advance.


OK what sources do you need other than to the physics I posted?

Where are your sources? What claims are you talking about? I didn't make any claims, I only stated facts that you have yet to prove wrong. You tried a few times, and every time I showed where you were wrong you moved on to some other lame example until we got to your last post that says what? NOTHING.
You didn't even attempt to discus my points, such as the hammer example. where as I discussed yours in every reply. Every time your points were knocked down you just moved on, that is intellectually dishonest.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
It was inside a building, which means it is not "open air" in any case


Wrong, a fire that is not 'open air' is one that is in an enclosed system that supplies a regulated amount of oxygen and fuel, such as a furnace.


...so the numbers you discovered in Wiki, even if correct, are not at all applicable.


So yes they actually are. Any fire that is not in a enclosed system is never going to burn at 100% efficiency.


Remember we are not talking about melting, just expanding, buckling, and shearing joints. The long steel spans in #7 make it more susceptible yet.


Regardless if the fire was the cause of the collapses, any of them, the outcome would not be symmetrical global collapses at near to free-fall speed. Kinda the point of the whole argument really. A fire would cause a gradual failing of structural components as they sag, you would not get a sudden and complete collapse of the whole building as if the structural components just gave up.

But again I implore you guys to get behind your claims and test this out for yourself. It's so extremely easy to test your hypothesis about steel losing it's strength. Take a piece of construction steel and try heating it up with office furniture, jet fuel, and diesel. Then you can come back and prove us all wrong..
Steel reacts the same way to fire whether it's holding up a building, or sitting in a fire in your back yard. Heat that steel up all day and then see how malleable it gets.
First check it after an hour for the other two towers...


[edit on 1/19/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



1. Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7? Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed? (This is a simple logistical question, I do not want to hear about big oil)

2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.



Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7?


No one knows the answer to that question and you know it!


Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed?


Mysterious invisible explosives you are joking right? I have never heard of invisible explosives, have you? My opinion is you are making fun of people who think WTC 7 was taken down by uses of demolition.


This is a simple logistical question, I do not want to hear about big oil)


There is nothing logistical about you question to begin with. You talk about invisible explosives, and the government waiting so long to take down WTC7, you know there is no proof! If, demolition is what took down the WTC7, and what type of explosives that were used. That will not be known for a long time, if ever. You ask questions that there is no suitable answer for you, and people have tried to show you other sources, however, you just dismiss everything. Infact you clearly demonstrated that everyone is wrong, but the OS is right. I do not need to tell you this, but I will, any open-minded person who has done a few hours of research into 911 “knows” there is a problem with it. What the government is saying that happened, in some cases just defies the law’s of physic, which a six grade kid can figure out. So, here is my final suggestion to both of your questions, why don’t you write, or call, your Senator, or your congress man, and ask them to look it to your inquiries


explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have


Evidences, has been found by scientist, but you have made it quit clear not to show you any links on the internet that you consider garbage propaganda websites. Therefore, anything that dose not stand up to your beliefs is propaganda, garbage, and you have made that very clear to all of us. So there is no way, to answer your questions is there.


I mean, if you wanted to create a piece of fiction


I do not believe people in here are trying to create fiction in these 911 threads do you?


but please, convince me without links to garbage propaganda websites. I implore you.


This is why you have 11 pages of fighting and bickering, because any info, given to you is garbage, and you keep demonstrating it over, and over. So what is the point to your thread? By looking at all your responses through all 11 pages you have ridiculed and insulted everyone that has tried to have an adult conversation with you, including me, I am “appalled” by most of your comments, I find them out right insulting, to me and to everyone else, that has taken the brunt of you verbal abuse.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Oh no, no one is going to take my word...boo hoo...you have hurt my feelings so much maybe I will go to BTSNN or maybe into the secret forum where people are cordial and don't buck up behind a keyboard.


I believe, you have answered my question, and everyone else’s your behavior is deplorable. And now you know why people do not take you seriously.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Gonenuts
 


You take one sarcastic remark that was aimed at someone else and make that the basis for your banter with me. C'mon now?

Invisible explosives - This is to mean WHERE are they? This may have been a poof choice of words, maybe I should have said non-existent. There, I wanted some proof of what I feel are non existent explosives. If you have physical evidence I would love to see it.

Also, why is it so hard to find some type of evidence that is not linked to Alex Jones. Sorry, but the guy is a hack.

You know Gonenuts, there are some people in this thread who are still trying to have a conversation/debate and I find it interesting to see the viewpoints. I mean, if I didn't know any better I would htink you were related to my old buddy SLAPNUTS....that's not you is it?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Also, Gonenuts, who is this scientist you refer to



Evidences, has been found by scientist,


Are you talking about Alec Jones here?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Anok,
DoctorFire says about room fires, "Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C."
www.doctorfire.com...
The flame temperature in a closed space is higher because of the radiative properties of the walls. Like a furnace.

You said: "A fire would cause a gradual failing of structural components as they sag, you would not get a sudden and complete collapse of the whole building as if the structural components just gave up."
You believe this because it seems that it should happen that way. Maybe you are incorrect in assuming that your experience allows you to predict such a failure. Maybe things were internally failing for a while and what was seen was the final collapse. Just because it didn't look like your hollywood version of what should happen doesn't mean that it was planned.

You said: "Steel reacts the same way to fire whether it's holding up a building, or sitting in a fire in your back yard. Heat that steel up all day and then see how malleable it gets."

The steel reacts the same way, which is why the building came down. It expands when you heat it. Heat one piece of steel bolted into a framework and it will expand and distort the framework. If the framework is strong, the steel will bend or break the joints.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join