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: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


i dont care about the damge

i never even mentioned that we where (me and you ) talking about jet fuel

and sorry its open air burn is under 600 degrees f true or false?




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Lyco,

I was answering Anok's post.

Open air burn temperature of diesel doesn't matter. The burn was inside a building where the walls can radiate heat back to the fire. Diesel fuel might have not been important because the fires were mainly from office contents and combustible construction materials. This was claimed in WTC 1 and 2, also, saying the Jet-A started the fires and spread them vertically but, once burnt out, office contents continued to burn unchecked until the buildings collapsed.
The temperatures calculated in computer models of the WTC7 fire are consistent with Doctor Fire's numbers of air temps of around 1000 C. This is an accepted value in structural fires. Given that, it was estimated floor temps above the fire were in the 600+ C ranges. The floor supports were being heated at the time and were below that temperature but still hot.
The NIST report, linked in a previous post, recommended a change in century-old building codes that would consider the column, trusses and floor supports, as a whole, and the effects of uncontrolled fire on the system.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The flame temperature in a closed space is higher because of the radiative properties of the walls. Like a furnace.


This is NOT true. Fire will NOT burn at 100% efficiency in open air. An office room is nothing like a furnace. A furnace is a closed space, no windows, no doors etc., it has it's own CONTROLLED fuel and air supply in order to mix them to maximize burn temps. It has nothing to do with walls reflecting heat lol.

You are simply making guesses.


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.


I believe this because it is what I've experienced in real life. Steel when heated will not suddenly fail, it is a gradual process as the steel slowly loses its ability to maintain it's shape.

You are arguing for a situation that just couldn't happen, I, and many other here, have shown over and over again that office fires are not going to cause construction steel to fail, gradually or not, especially in an hour as the towers were.

People were evacuating from the towers right up until they collapsed, where is the witness statements of the buildings core structure failing before the towers globally collapse?


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.


OK but I've already explained why the steel would not get hot enough from open air office fires to reach the temperatures required to cause steel to become malleable. This is why NO steel building has EVER collapsed from fires.

Again also, how did the fire weaken any steel beyond direct contact?
Simple physics shows how redicularse your hypothesis is. The fires simply would not be able to transfer enough heat energy to weaken steel to failure. This is why NO steel framed building has EVER collapsed from fires, that is my precedence where is yours?

And you do realise that unless the core failed COMPLETELY along it's hight, then the buildings would not have globally collapsed asymmetrically, and as in WTC7 into its own footprint? That is why we constantly bring up that old law of RESISTANCE. Any steel that was not heated up enough to fail would resist the collapse and slow it down or stop it completely.

But keep trying, you'll never find a way to explain the collapses unless you step outside your government controlled box.

[edit on 1/19/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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


That was the original debunker argument. But the steel didn't buckle either, it was re-used if you read the article. But so what? What has that got to do with the towers collapsing? The bridge had direct heat to a large area of the bridge. The towers had no known direct heat to the core columns, only what NIST assumed, and what direct heat there was would only be a very small percenatge of the overall steel in the building.

Seriously apples and oranges. Yes typical debunker non-argument that we have to waste time explaining over and over again.

Yes steel can warp from fire, I'm not saying it wouldn't. But you are expecting thousands of tons of bolted and welded steel columns to just completely, globally and symmetrically, fail from office fires on a few floors.

If you really read what I'm saying you will see that I don't work in extremes like you guys want to, you expect the worst possible outcome from the least possible cause. I don't disagree with what your saying fire can do, but you want an office fire to act like a furnace, it just ain't going to happen.

I implore you once again to test this for yourself. You've ignored this request before, why is that, are you scared of the results you will find? Or do you already know...


My hypothesis can be tested in a lab, can you test yours? That is what science is all about.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

i totally agree whith your assesment

for some reason thermodynamics seem to have left the building with all that evacuated acorrding to most debunkers

just amazes me how people can ignore the laws of thermodynamics



once agin i applaud you

and if anyone needs a refresher here

en.wikipedia.org...


this one plays the biggest role in all the fire construction fire situation

en.wikipedia.org...

of of this law this is the most important rule of it all en.wikipedia.org...

there was structural concrete , and gypsum board (doubled up each sheet being 1/2 thick so 1 inch total surrounding the inside hall way wall leading to where the core columns where

and the surface area of the floor was an acre (do most of you even realize that ??) thats a huge amount of concrete 4 inches thick with 1 inc steel rebar lattice fram inside the concrete all of it wich absorbs heat

listen to ANOK he is spot on

I BOW to you sir



[edit on 19-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Anok,
As much as you like the open air burn temperatures you find in Wikipedia, they are of absolutely no importance here. Yes, a closed space is like a furnace. Broken windows and air ducts provide the draft and the fuel is what is in there to burn. No, it is not most efficient. The air temperatures will reach 1000 C in an office fire. This does not need interpretation or estimation because it has been measured.
Even with air temperatures around 1000 C, it took a long time for the steel structure to heat up to even 400 C because it had much more thermal mass than the air, but as it heaed up, it still expanded. It didn't all heat at the same rate and didn't expand at the same rate, which was the cause of failure.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


you have never seen an open hearth furnace have ?

i dont even really know how to coment on what u say

did you even read the laws of Thermodynamics?

and did u see any of the fire balls out side the towers??

they where huge as big as two football fields , look at any videos of the initial fire burst and look how far past each side of the building the flame goes,

then understand the building was 210 feet by 210 feet (you do realize that right?

so most of the fuel burned up on impact, and left very lttle inside the building itself ,but yes it did start the office fire inside,

but pockets of fire where reported not infernoes as all are lead to believe

the firemen radio transmition even says that very thing

agin read anoks post he is spot on

and why do people chose to ignore the fundamental bases of the fire itself which is governed by thermodynamics ?? WHY ?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
When I looked at video stills of the second plane from the underside a long"double bulge" extending the length of the fuselage could have been added as more fuel tank for greater distance or explosive capability. It was probably a drone plane and was probably guided from a nearby vantage point such as bldg 7.Then when Bldg 7 was no longer needed it was pulled. Who was in Bldg 7 that day is logically involved.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
As much as you like the open air burn temperatures you find in Wikipedia, they are of absolutely no importance here.


Hmmm I didn't post that link, but to think they are of no importance is silly.


Yes, a closed space is like a furnace.


No it isn't. Otherwise why bother building furnaces? We could just use the room the furnace was going to be in, right?

A furnace supplies a controlled supply of fuel and air in a contained system. A room with windows does not supply a CONTROLLED supply of fuel or air. However your imagination can be tricked into believing this, a room fire is an open-air fire. There are variables that cannot be controlled such as fuel flow and air supply. An open air fire does not maintain a consistent temperature, and will never reach it's maximum temperature of 800d for a carbon fire.


Broken windows and air ducts provide the draft and the fuel is what is in there to burn.


That is why it's an 'open-air' fire, air and fuel from an uncontrolled source.


No, it is not most efficient.


Glad we agree...


The air temperatures will reach 1000 C in an office fire. This does not need interpretation or estimation because it has been measured.


So what? You still have to transfer that 1000c to the steel. Then what does reach the steel will be wicked away along it's length until equilibrium is reached. The air is not going to heat up what it touches to the same temperature.

To make steel reach 1000c would require a direct sustained temperature of much higher than 1000c. With the amount of steel and concrete in the towers that would take an enormous amoumt of heat (thermal energy).

What happened to the steel floor pans? Where did they go?


Even with air temperatures around 1000 C, it took a long time for the steel structure to heat up to even 400 C because it had much more thermal mass than the air, but as it heaed up, it still expanded. It didn't all heat at the same rate and didn't expand at the same rate, which was the cause of failure.


Yeah you're half right. But the expansion has to do with what exactly? I don't understand how the steel expanding slightly would cause a global symmetrical collapse? Where is your precedence for this happening? There is just not enough thermal energy in an office fire to do that, that is why NO steel building has EVER collapsed from fires. Even fully engulfed ones.

Remember the towers were on fire for an hour (approx) so you can try to make that argument with WTC 7, but how do you reconcile the time differences for the same effects? Do you believe the fires were hotter in the towers, or something?

You need to qualify your argument because at this point it contradicts itself.

[edit on 1/19/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


It is clear in the videos from that day that there were not just'pockets of fire'. You are misquoting a fireman, one of the first responders, who said they found pockets of fire during the initial ascent before they had even reached the floors that were hit. These fires were due to the jet fuel that fell during the initial impact.

The WTC is huge as it was built to extract the maximum office space possible which gave it the unique design that was its eventual downfall. Have you ever worked in an office environment? There was plenty to burn for quite awhile and it was fed by the broken windows as well as the windows people broke after impact.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

Until you show a steel-structured high-rise building that has globally collapsed due to fires fueled by office furnishings and paper, your "theory" has no credibility or basis what-so-ever.


Originally posted by pteridine
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.

Or maybe because that's how real fires in the real world work? Maybe it's because that's how firefighters are trained? Maybe it's in the firefighters manual. I would suggest going to your local fire department and discuss how fires cause structures to collapse with some of your local firefighters. I bet they tell you "slow and gradual".



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


(9/11 Commission Report, United Flight 175 impacted the South Tower, "crashing through the 77th to 85th floors".)

if im not mistaken the fire men where at the spot of impact they where on the 78th floor

scroll down to the actual transcript of the transmision

and sorry it was transmitted seconds before the colapse

so i guess these firmen on this site are all liers

firefightersfor911truth.org...

(“10-45 Code Ones” is referential to dead bodies)
It is extremely noteworthy that the radio transmissions of Battalion 7 Chief Orio Palmer and the radio responses to it literally occurred only seconds prior to the total collapse in WTC 2. According to the official U.S. government explanation, at that moment there should have been massive structural failings at that section of the building at that time. Therefore, according to the official version, the firefighters should have been rushing panic-struck to evacuate anyone that they could and as rapidly as they could, including themselves. Yet they are not doing so. What they are doing at that moment, in reality, is calmly and professionally preparing to move up to floor 79 to rescue more people. Below are their transmissions from moments before the collapse:
LADDER 15:

“Chief, what stair you in?”

BATTALION 7 CHIEF ORIO PALMER:

“South stairway Adam, South Tower.”

LADDER 15:

“Floor 78?”

BATTALION 7 CHIEF ORIO PALMER:

“Ten-four. Numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here.”

BATTALION 7 CHIEF ORIO PALMER:

“Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.”

LADDER 15:

“Fifteen.”

BATTALION 7 CHIEF ORIO PALMER:

“I’m going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched, we could use some water on it, knock it down, ’kay?”

LADDER 15:

“Alright, ten-four. We’re coming up the stairs. We’re on 77 now in the B stair. I’ll be right to you.”

BATTALION 7 OPERATIONS TOWER ONE:

“Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine. Need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, ’kay?”

BATTALION NINE:

“Alright, I’m on my way up, Orio.”

At 9:55 a.m. is the final radio transmission from Battalion Chief Palmer and Fire Marshall Bucca, as the building suddenly and literally implodes:

BATTALION 7 CHIEF ORIO PALMER:

“Battalion Seven. Ladder 15–”

At that moment F.D.N.Y. Battalion Seven Commander Orio Palmer and Fire Marshall Ronald Bucco were both killed in action, along with 341 fellow members of F.D.N.Y. who were unable to evacuate in time because the buildings imploded suddenly and without warning.

in this pic you can see just how much fuel was burned up look at the size of the fireball it would fill to football stadiums , fore scale the towers where 210 feet wide

look at the north tower look at the black smoke

www.serendipity.li...

thats a fire trying to consume office stuff with out enough oxygen,its burning but not very efficiently,
when you light a torch and the black soot comes from the tip, untill u open the oxygen valve more

( sidenote , if a fire is hot enough to melt steel there would absolutely no black smoke,2750 degrees which is melting temp for steel , would consume any office stuff with out any black smoke , when they add flux in the open hearth furnace they just chunk the whole bag right in the molten steel , the bag is completely consumed in seconds )




[edit on 19-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
It seriously seems that you guys are missing the entire point of this incident.

The question you should be asking is "Why would they NOT demo WTC7?"

An entire floor was occupied by the CIA and contained a multitude of top secret information. Yes, the building's underground structure was probably damaged to a degree - and it was impossible to survey the damage to see if it was safe enough to force guards to risk their lives staying in the building to protect the information.

A controlled demolition and disposal of top secret information is the logical choice here, rather than that information fall into uncontrolled hands.

If the building was NOT demolished, it would be a soft target for infiltration and theft of the top secret government data.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Nick_X
 


Secret material would be in fireproof containers. If the building had not collapsed, the area would have been controlled. With the north face capping the wreckage, it's unlikely anyone slipped in to find the goodies.
There is no reason to cause the collapse of a building for any files kept in a field office.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


I appreciate your assertions, as they are mostly accurate. However, the building sustained explosions earlier on in the morning.

Look up the initial report given by Barry Jennings, who as an official of the New York City Emergency Management , witnessed and lived through detonations ongoing in WTC 7.

Mr Jennings, later tried to sidestep his original story... Why?

He is deceased as of July or August of '08. The circumstances are unsettling to say the very least.

Investigate, please.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by vze2xjjk
 





When I looked at video stills of the second plane from the underside a long"double bulge" extending the length of the fuselage could have been added as more fuel tank for greater distance or explosive capability. It was probably a drone plane and was probably guided from a nearby vantage point such as bldg 7.Then when Bldg 7 was no longer needed it was pulled. Who was in Bldg 7 that day is logically involved.


The "pods" you claim on the under side of the planes are fairings covering
the landing gear

Every 767 has them

Underside of 767






posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE . I DIDNT SEE MUCH OF EITHER IN OR AROUND BUILDING SEVEN IN ANY VIDEO. AT LEAST NOT ENOUGH TO BRING IT STRAIGHT DOWN.PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS DEBATING IF 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, THAT THE PLANE DID BRING THE TOWERS DOWN, OR THAT IT WAS ALL FABRICATED. AFTER YEARS OF AFTERTHOUGHT, AND SHRUGGING OF THE (TRUTHERS) I HAVE CONCLUDED THE THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE PLOTS.ATTA AND HIS BOYS HAD NO CLUE THAT THEY WERE ABOUT TO BE THE ALMOST PERFECT COVER. IF YOU FOLLOW THE MONEY, MANY POWERFUL PEOPLE HAD FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACKS. I THINK THE KEY TO FINDING OUT WHO DID THIS IS RESEARCHING WHICH OF THE FIVE OR SIX COMPANIES IN THE WORLD WITH THE LOGISTICAL CAPABILITY TO PULL IT OFF AND SEE WHICH ONE HAS THE MOST EMPLOYEES TAKING A DIRT NAP.I USED TO THINK PEOPLE WHO POSTED THINGS I JUST DID WERE CRAZY.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I believe that you are incorrect in your assumptions however your imagination was tricked into believing them. The measured temperature in these types of room fires is commonly 900-1000°C.

Thanks for that novel "outside the box" advice. You should spread that idea around; the MBA's will eat it up. It will probably catch on with those who have nothing to say but feel obligated to say something.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


And you reckon every single employee put away every single piece of secret information that was on their desk back in the fireproof containers when they were ordered to evacuate?

What about the computers? Every single computer hard drive would not be in a fireproof container.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nick_X
 

You said: "And you reckon every single employee put away every single piece of secret information that was on their desk back in the fireproof containers when they were ordered to evacuate? What about the computers? Every single computer hard drive would not be in a fireproof container."

I so reckon. Classified documents are not scattered around the office and sensitive ones may have been in an exclusion area. Few or none may have been out at any given time. All that would have to be done would be to put the classified documents into the containers along with the classified hard drives [yep, detachable] and other media, shut the door and spin the dials. The CIA knows how to do this.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join