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.

 

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 10
59
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


Yeah, yeah... I keep hearing that. One day, one day.... That is the main theme on this board. Gotta go to work now, nice chatting with you.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


no point in directly arguing with tide... even if he does beleive you he can't post anything that remotely shows it... any normal logical thinking human being would have some doubt over the events of 911... but when someone doesn't even want to question one aspect or anknowledge the 100s if not thousands of anomolies ... well we all know who they are.....robots lol



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


Yeah, yeah... I keep hearing that. One day, one day.... That is the main theme on this board. Gotta go to work now, nice chatting with you.



I tought you were at work?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


I do have doubts btw. I am not totally closed minded. However, there is no hard proof and until I see that all there is is speculation. Maybe someday someone with blow the whistle on the conspiracy. Hell there had to be hundreds if not thousands involved in it. You would think that at some point someone will come forward, or at least some real hard substantial evidence will come about. Untill then I we will have to agree to disagree. I do respect your's and everyone elses point of view, even if I disagree with it.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


on my way. Hard to get off this site. It gets addicting.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I searched "Farid Alfawakhiri wtc" to see what the first engineer on your list says about WTC7.

All I find is Popular Mechanics consulted him during their "research". No personal statement outlining his views - unlike the hundreds of engineers at www.ae911truth.org...


Originally posted by tide88
there is no hard proof and until I see that all there is is speculation.


Many criminals are convicted in the absence of "hard proof". Overwhelming circumstantial evidence can be more than enough to prove a case.

The official story has it's own problems with "hard proof".


5th time: Ah, ok there's no point...


[edit on 10-2-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Just look up the manhatten project....how many people worked there...??? its somthing called compartisation or the onion layer effect... everyone is on a need to know... the fact that no one has come forward doesn't prove or disprove anything.. because it could easily be kept quiet... I am interested to know which doubts or concerns do you have regarding 911?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


there really isn't a point ...... it won't change his mind.. at least not on a forum



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

591 architectural and engineering professionals
and 2991 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Ever hear of compartimentilization? The concept is to have people do work yet they have no idea what goal will be.

If you have people that will do just enough to get the job done without knowing full well what they are doing, they will do it blindly and without any consideration. This is how you can have thousands of people involved with a conspiracy without anyone blowing the whistle. They wouldnt know what they were blowing the whistle on.

It's used all the time for innocent reasons. You as an employee are on a daily basis subject to this sort of compartmentalization.

In construction this is quite common. You as a laborer are told to put Structure A on Support B and weld it to Truss C. Or your told to put Brace B 4' after Column Support D. You don't ask why, most of the time you don't care, it's what's told of you so you do it. You don't ask where the part comes from, you don't ask what the part is made out of, you are just told to put that part there and be done with it.

A common question comes up with conspiracy debunkers as to how on earth they could put demo charges into a building without anyone knowing about it.

Kinda funny what they can do with explosives nowadays. They can make them thar things look like just about anything. You could be wrapping plastic explosive around a support column that to you looks like something as innocent as say a cat 5 cable. How would you as a construction worker know that in fact that spool of cable your boss hands you isn't sheathed in an explosive compound? How would you know that thing you just installed on a support brace isn't filled with C4? Fact is, you don't, and you probably won't ask any questions about it either, because all you want to do is get the job done, go home, collect a paycheck, and go on to the next project.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienj
reply to post by talisman
 


Wow I would place a bet it didnt have two major high rise structures less than a block from it and sharing the same foundation come crashing down around it. Its unbelievable how stupid you guys can be, what would you say the explosive tnt equivilant would be to having both trade center towers detonate right next to you, hhmmmm of course that plus the fire would have nothing to do with the collaspe. Wait I think this has been reported already to be a factor if someone would even take the time to read independent studies but I doubt the author of this post even has time too, after pouring over endless dribble of consiparcy theories to even look at facts.




Sorry, but that is a poor point. So many other buildings were damaged FAR WORSE than WTC-7, on 9/11, but they did not collapse, so sharing the foundation does not address what I am talking about.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyprex
Here is a video of the building, the morning after.



And a before the fire piture.
flickr.com...



WoW, it looks like the Trade Towers in the way they constructed the Steel. Very interesting looking building.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
By goading Tide88 with my repeated question I was trying to prevent the discussion returning to the WTC7 damage issue.

It's difficult for a newcomer to this subject not to get blinded by the smoke and dust that threatens to obscure the real issues in these threads. I cannot help suspecting that's the intention of some posters.

The web is stuffed with debates about damage to WTC7, and many so-called "debunking" sites give it great prominence. That's because it was, until recently, the last remaining crumbly strut that held up the official story on WTC7. Now it has been demolished. It is gone forever and should not have been resurrected here. NIST themselves have demolished it by categorically stating it played no part in the implosion.

With it, the whole edifice of the official story is teetering at an absurd angle.


Closer shot of Mandarin Oriental Hotel aftermath





[edit on 10-2-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
I've read a few posts about people raving about airplanes, and how this dosen't prove anything, but sorry, it does.

Nowhere in the official reports about 911 does it say the planes made the buildings collapse. They come to a conclusion that what made it collapes was "thermal expansion" of the steel, weakening it. This despite the fact that we see buildings burn all around the world and not fall down. The madrid skyscraper fire a few years ago was very similar to the WTC towers in topology. This current fire in Beijing was similar to WTC 7, and orders of magnitude more severe.


This is what the NIST says caused the buildings to collapse.
Hopefully this helps.
For WTC 1&2


The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.



the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else,



The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot

Just look up the manhatten project....



You're kidding, right?

Stalin knew about it before Truman did.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Zepherian
I've read a few posts about people raving about airplanes, and how this dosen't prove anything, but sorry, it does.

Nowhere in the official reports about 911 does it say the planes made the buildings collapse. They come to a conclusion that what made it collapes was "thermal expansion" of the steel, weakening it. This despite the fact that we see buildings burn all around the world and not fall down. The madrid skyscraper fire a few years ago was very similar to the WTC towers in topology. This current fire in Beijing was similar to WTC 7, and orders of magnitude more severe.


This is what the NIST says caused the buildings to collapse.
Hopefully this helps.
For WTC 1&2


The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.



the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else,



The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.


Ok, if that's a legitimate quote, and I accept it probably is, I stand corrected. It's still bs, but I stand corrected. Please do link an external source though, not just a cut and paste quote, for review. I guess I got confused with thermal expansion for WTC 7...

God, that report has so much bs it's contagious. My apologies for the error, however the overall criticism of the NIST's totally unaplicable report, imo, still stands.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Just all speculation

Due to the quarantined sites shuffling evidence over seas for recycling?

I remember once roasting a marshmallow and, not paying attention, it slid off my stick at freefall speed. and landed perfectly in it's own footprint (were it born of fire).

When my Bro was murdered in an arson fire..(wood building), the fire raged and the building did fall into it's footprint. Not at freefall speed, but over about a 6 hour period while being hosed at multiple locations.

Later, talking with a retired firefighter, I was told that the safety inspector that night, whom he, (the story teller) was familiar with as an idiot that should have been fired over a decade earlier, should not only have been fired back then, but should not even be put in a position as a crosswalk flagger at a grade school.

Everyone knows that a timber building will outlast any red metal structure before it collapses.

Maybe the three buildings at ground zero should have been constructed of wood?

still, without all supporting joints failing, there is no way a freefall footprint collapse will occur.
No, I am not an expert, but have spoken to more than most here.
You are believing rheteric penned on paper?

Is that your idea of "expert" info?

give me a picture of the ugliest chick in the world and about 10 minutes with PSP--(I hate photoshop), and I too can convince you she is a stereotypical "hottie".

Pay or threaten me properly, and I'll tell you it is real.

To make a long story short,

My point is, read Isaiah 29:18



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Haven't seen any images of the aftermath in the thread yet so here you go:








posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Well Craig, the Chinese building had at least one significant advantage over WTC 7.

It wasn't owned by Larry Silverstein.



Originally posted by tide88
Maybe someday someone with blow the whistle on the conspiracy. Hell there had to be hundreds if not thousands involved in it. You would think that at some point someone will come forward, or at least some real hard substantial evidence will come about.

Haven't you heard?

How much "real hard substantial evidence" do you need, anyway?


reply to post by jfj123
 

I can't believe how much time and effort you spend supporting the official 9/11 story and denying the truth. Don't you understand the meaning and significance of your signature?

"Those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both."

Indeed -- thanks to ignorance, gullibility and legislation like the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act.



[edit on 10-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


Absence of 1 photo doesnt prove anything. If that is the case show me show hard evidence that explosive were used to bring down wtc7. There had to be residue from those explosives or even casings. There has to be hard proof that there were explosive used to bring down the building. Or are all those firefighters and clean up crew in on it too. Funny, there were no spike in seismic reading before the collapse either, which would show bombs going off if it was demoed. So you proof is youtube videos and speculation. And the because they have not produced this photo, if it even exists, it proves WTC7 was demoed.



If you look at other websites that dont go out of their way to debunk the theories presented by the "truthers" you will find that there is seismic data which shows events of some sort took place both just before and after the plane crashes and just before the actual collapse of the buildings 1 & 2, also if you watch the collapse of the buildings including WTC7 theres clear evidence of explosive or destructive devices being used of some sort:

Smolten metal pouring out of the sides of the two towers, squibs on the sides of the buildings below the collapse zones in what appears to be crucial places of the external structure and with that the TESTAMONY of firefighters and police who where there that BOMBS were going off

If were to bring the pankake effect into this as ive seen mentioned then surely the central columns would still be standing a good 50 or so stories high, yet there not there, and to DEBUNK the BS about there being no central columns just look at the videos of the buildings (1&2) being constructed, we can quite clearly see the building was built from the inside out using the CENTRAL columns as the main support structure for the rest of the building to be fixed to with the external structure going on last, and trust me this is a general way of building as ive worked on plenty as either a scaffolder or labourer so ive had plenty of time to watch a building being constructed.

How do we go about explaining the fact that 1000's of tons of concrete simply disintergrated into dust? DUST along with micro particles of steel and such in the dust, how does this happen when the building simply COLLAPSED due to fires and structural damage, damage which like WTC 7 was uneven and should have led to and un even collapse, thus taking out half of manhattan whith it.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join