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: 13
2
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You said: “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.”

How convenient for your argument in not permitting a first of a kind. Until you have hard evidence of demolition, your "theory" has no credibility or basis what-so-ever. Since you claim it you must prove it. In the absence of any other evidence, it must be concluded that the planes and subsequent fires caused the collapses. I would say the steel-structured high-rise buildings that have globally collapsed due to fires fueled by office furnishings and paper must be WTC #1, #2, and #7, with #6 a good example of a partial collapse.

You then said: “ 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".

Both steel framed structures, below, lasted only a short time after fires started. I’ll bet they didn’t collapse “slow and gradual.” Maybe your firefighters manual is talking about how real wood-frame structure fires in the real world work. I would suggest going to your local fire department to discuss what fires do to steel structures with some of your local firefighters.
McCormick Place Convention Center, Chicago -- Burned and collapsed, Jan. 16, 1967
Sight and Sound Theater, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania -- Burned and collapsed , January 1997




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Isn't it amazing how it heated all of the supporting beams at the same rate and made for such a uniform collapse...hmmm

Truly

Amazing


Magical even



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Nick_X
 


It is unlikely that the WTC 7 beams were heated at the same rate. Why would that be a prerequisite for any special kind of collapse?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Sorry about that there pteridine - I was in Reply to a previous post of yours discussing the burning and fire in WTC1/2....the thermodynamics of the warping steel etc.


Hmmm would be cool if there were some post ID numbers that would show who was replying to which specific post.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
And tell me why again The United States would stage an Attack on itself?

And why would The United States want to murder tax paying citizens? Shut down commerce and close Wall Street?

Why would the United States attack it's Pentagon? Murdering and Wounding it's LOYAL military followers?

Why would the United States cause it's own Government to run for cover?

Is it just me or does any one else find this Preposterous and Utter Non-sense!?




posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
A clever mad ones said. a nation in fear is a easy nation to control. But im a educated welder and metal worker, worked around 14 years my brother around 23 years and my father 40+ and i can say for sure it takes a lot of heat to melt iron, and those old buildings have molten thats even more harder to melt.

I dont know much about all this but i can surely c that there is somekind of coverup cause everytime a video comes on you tube that aint to good it get delled, and theres just to much about this i dont know why the USA govement dont open the doors and start fresh.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.


I believe you didn't read what I said. You say I'm wrong, but you don't show how or where.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself, but you need to learn about the transfer of thermal energy...900-1000c air temperature is not going to make the steel reach that same temperature in open air ever. That can ONLY happen in a controlled 100% efficient burn.


It is important to realize that for heat to be transported between two points, a temperature difference between those two points must exist. That is, one point must be hotter than the other..

www.physics.ohio-state.edu...

Do you understand what that means?

It means when the two objects reach equilibrium there is no more heating of the objects. When the steel and the fires reach the same temp, the steel will heat up no more. All transfer of heat stops. So even if the whole building was engulfed in fire (e.g. The windsor tower) it still wouldn't be enough thermal energy to cause the steel to fail. Too much steel not enough thermal energy.

AGAIN this is why NO steel framed building has EVER collapsed from fire.

Where am I wrong on this, please explain?

[edit on 1/20/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Brainiac
 


People who have done years of extended research in to 911 and our corrupt government have uncovered a lot of good evidences that support their claims. Do not be so quick to judge them.


And tell me why again The United States would stage an Attack on itself?


Did you just fall off a ladder, and bump your head! You need to research (False Flag Operation.) read about Operation Northwood. That will help you understand why.

To think that our government is not capable of killing it own people is Delusional in it self. It is a known fact that the military does it all the time, using are own men testing out all kinds of new bio warfare weapons, nothing new here. Before you think, everyone is crazy for believing in such an ideas try doing a little research first.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
It is unlikely that the WTC 7 beams were heated at the same rate. Why would that be a prerequisite for any special kind of collapse?


For a building to fall symmetrically , all four corners at relatively the same time, then all supporting columns would have to fail at the same time.

This is the basis of 'controlled demolitions'.

If ANY supporting columns, or walls, present resistance then the collapse would not be symmetrical. Objects always take the 'path of least resistance', which means whenever an object meets resistance it will try to fall away from that resistance. If there is no easier path (less resistance) for the object to fall, then it will either stop, or be slowed by that resistance.

In the case of a buildings collapse, that means unless all supporting columns fail at the same time you end up with a very messy partial collapse. Which is why they have demolition experts to make sure that doesn't happen.

Who, or what, made sure that didn't happen on 9/11?

That's why all buildings that fail from fire, or asymmetrical damage, are not perfect global collapses that occur at near free-fall speed like three buildings did in NYC on the same day.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Brainiac

No one can really answer your questions. We can all make educated guesses but what good will that do you?

The physical evidence that there is more going on when it comes to the buildings collapses than we've been told is overwhelming.

Not knowing why doesn't change that.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





11:13 PM by pteridine


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.



Sorry the hard drives are not detachable on the desk top pc's, they are small (80 to 100 Gb) internal hard drives containing very little in programs, only their job discription determains what programs and information they have access to, most programs and all information is stored on the mainframe that may or may not be in the same building.
All employees have e-mail but not everyone has internet access again it depends on their job discription, Some may have cd/dvd burners others may have been disabled so information cannot be copied and taken from the building it all depends on their clearance level.
Look at it this way most pc's in government buildings are like dumb terminals if the mainframe is offline for any reason most will not be able to do much of anything unless their job description dictates they have stand alone software installed on their pc.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac
And tell me why again The United States would stage an Attack on itself?
And why would The United States want to murder tax paying citizens?


And why would the government fill it's troops with poisonous untested vaccines that were known to have serious side effects in trials?

I mean I was a tax paying citizen.

It's really naive to think the government is above harming it's citizens, it's been doing it for years, and has killed thousands more than it did on 9/11, just not so spectacularly.

This is what's keeping you from realising the truth, it's what we mean by conditioning. We are conditioned to regard government, authority, church etc., to be above reproach and morally sound. It's so ingrained into your psyche that it's hard to break out of that mindset, some never can.

Our history is full of government atrocities, but we have that 'it couldn't happen to ours' mentality. That is what government relies on to keep you uninformed and ignorant as to what they really do, and who they really represent.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I think I read on the net that Tower7 was the place of operations,just what I read and I saw an documentary here in norway where they said that they were shipping out gold from the towers.
Dont flame me, I just saw it on tv, allmost an die hard Ny scenario..




posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   


The physical evidence that there is more going on when it comes to the buildings collapses than we've been told is overwhelming.


Where is the physical evidence ANOK? There is no physical evidence so nothing is overwhelming. Also, you are assuming that since in the past there were specific operations that the US performed that anything can be put in that category. Assumptions with no evidence.

To the new poster...

There is not physical evidence. The truth movement uses the SAME videos and Stephen Jones testing of metal in a pot to prove thermite was used but no actual physical evidence. The CTers will then tell you that BUsh and Co shipped all the steel to China to cover it up when this is simply not true so that no testing could be done.

FEMA, NIST and the FBI did and still do have access to quite a bit of the pieces that failed and were left after processing. Some was also used in the USS New York as well as numerous museums around the country and other structures as well.

Please take a look at this site from NOVA.
Link



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

What I am saying is that your flame temperature data is unimportant because fires in buildings are measured to reach about 1000 C air temperatures. This means that the steel will eventually get that hot if there is enough fuel and time but that it is unlikely that the fires burned long enough for that to happen. What did happen is that the floor pans reached 600-700 C and the suppport beams were probably around 400-500 C [932 F] or so.
This entire discussion is not about steel melting but that it expands as it heats and loses some strength. If it gets hot enough for a long enough time, that expansion will cause joints to fail, beams to twist, and, eventually, cause the collapse of the building as one failure precipitates the next. The 50 foot spans in the WTC7 building could have expanded by 4 to 5 inches at those temperatures. Is that enough to shear 7/8" bolts?
Edit to add two steel framed buildings that collapsed from fire:
McCormick Place Convention Center, Chicago -- Burned and collapsed, Jan. 16, 1967
Sight and Sound Theater, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania -- Burned and collapsed , January 1997


[edit on 1/20/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I just have one thing to say.... Do you guys realize the level of conspiracy you are talking about here?? IF this was an inside job, then there must be hundreds of people in on it...And not one of them said anything?? If this was a government cover up, there is no way in hell that so many people would keep their mouths shut... just think about that..

And as far as wtc7... my building was BLOCKS away and it suffered structural damage... so think about that one... what if my building was closer to the twin towers? it would have fell like WTC7 ... and yes other buildings around the towers didnt fall but they were structural impacted...



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
ok here is my rather odd theory of 911. ready? o.k so a bunch of muslim radicals decided to make a powerful statement by killing 300 civilians,crazy huh?if this is not the case then why is binladen hidding in a cave hes amillionaire an could afford a dream of attorneys to defend him,but hes just scared? so scared he admits to the deed? cmon kids put the koolaid back in the jug its bad for you.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

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


Is this the same paper where he states that it is impossible for the WTC towers to be CD'd because they didn't start from the base? I.E. What has come to be as known as "top-down demolition"?

www.youtube.com...

Not that I'm saying it is an exact comparison to the towers, but it does refute what Mr. Blanchard claimed.

I wonder where Mr. Blanchard's pay check comes from?



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.


That's all fine but remember that even NIST admits in their report that these office fires burned in one area for ~20 minutes.


Maybe things were internally failing for a while and what was seen was the final collapse.


Since the rooftop is held up directly by the columns, the roof would visibly fail if the interior columns failed before the global collapse. Think about the penthouse collapse seconds before the rest of the building.


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.


If this is truly what brought (bought) down WTC 7, then IMO the designers of this building should be held accountable. Thermal expansion is not something new. We have known about it's affects well before the 1980's when WTC 7 was built.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no reason to cause the collapse of a building for any files kept in a field office.


No offense but you sound like you have first hand experience. Is this so?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join