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: 13
59
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
So... where is the evidence? It is out there.... like the video of WTC7 collapsing. Evidence enough in that alone. The building was structurally sound, period.


The FDNY states the opposite. Do you believe that they:

1) Are in on the conspiracy and lying?

2) Don't know better?




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Totally agree there meant to say explosives, and thermate for that matter, which i agree is not an explosive.

However the fires didn't burn hot enough to allow the metal beams to bend in such a manner that no fracturing or tearing took place espcially on the larger of the steel beams used for the structure.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by phushion
reply to post by pteridine
 

However the fires didn't burn hot enough to allow the metal beams to bend in such a manner that no fracturing or tearing took place espcially on the larger of the steel beams used for the structure.


The fires didn't have to burn all that hot to cause expansion of the beams and failure at the joints. WTC7 was an odd duck of a building, built over a ConEdison Substation that stuck out from under it on one face. The cantilevered construction with few vertical supports resulted in some horizontal beams of 50 foot lengths. At a temperature 500 C above ambient, these beams would have lengthened by 5 inches. They would have been working against parts of the building that were not expanding at the same rate. Note also that the bolts holding the joints together were under an inch in diameter and the shear forces of an expanding beam are significant.

[edit on 2/10/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The cantilevered construction with few vertical supports resulted in some horizontal beams of 50 foot lengths. At a temperature 500 C above ambient, these beams would have lengthened by 5 inches. They would have been working against parts of the building that were not expanding at the same rate. Note also that the bolts holding the joints together were under an inch in diameter and the shear forces of an expanding beam are significant.


So, a 50 foot span will induce a 5 inch thermal expansion, but in a 30 to 60 foot span (the towers) the floors would sag and pull in the exterior columns?

OK.



[edit on 2/10/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
www.nytimes.com...




BEIJING — A fierce fire engulfed one of the Chinese capital’s most architecturally celebrated modern buildings on Monday, the last day of festivities for the lunar new year when the city was ablaze with fireworks. By late evening the blaze was still raging and the cause remained unknown, but it seemed clear that the 34-story structure, not yet completed, had been rendered unusable.









As you can clearly see, we have another Building on Fire far worse than WTC-7. It is not the Building in Madrid So I believe this one is MADE OF STEEL---Guess what? It does not do the 6.5 second global collapse! Guess it would need a CIA office for that one.


You can see more video of it here:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

[edit on 9-2-2009 by talisman]

[edit on 9-2-2009 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mikellmikell
 


You can find some photos of the hotel AFTER the blaze here.

news.ninemsn.com.au...

Just make your way through their little slideshow.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
So... where is the evidence? It is out there.... like the video of WTC7 collapsing. Evidence enough in that alone. The building was structurally sound, period.

The FDNY states the opposite. Do you believe that they:

1) Are in on the conspiracy and lying?

2) Don't know better?

So now you speak for the entire FDNY? Say, for example, FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio?


FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC 7
Reinforcing conviction that Silverstein was referring to demolition with infamous comments on PBS documentary

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Newly uncovered video from 9/11 featuring an interview with FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio on MSNBC confirms that there was a plan to deliberately demolish WTC Building 7, as was originally indicated in Larry Silverstein’s infamous statement on the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds.

In the clip, Rastuccio responds to the host’s statement that “You guys knew this was coming all day,” by stating, “We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own.”

Though Rastuccio expresses his opinion that the building had collapsed without the aid of explosives, he admits that a plan had been in place to deliberately demolish the structure.

This reinforces the fact that when Larry Silverstein infamously told a 2002 PBS documentary that a consideration had been made to “pull it,” which is a demolition industry term for deliberate implosion, he did indeed mean that WTC 7 was considered for deliberate demolition.

This would mean that Silverstein’s later qualification of his comments, that “pull it” simply meant to pull the firefighters out of the building, despite FEMA’s assertion that no firefighting operations even took place inside WTC 7, was an outright lie intended to deflect possible ramifications arising out of the $7 billion dollar payout Silverstein received in insurance after the WTC complex was destroyed.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by talisman

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.




Except that it was supported by reinforced concrete, not steel beams.



So? That still doesn't change anything. None of the Steel Buildings that were damaged by the Towers Collapsing on 9/11 had their structural steel fail, except for WTC-7 which had a CIA office amongst ohter things in it of course.

The other two examples are the trade towers, but everyone says they were hit by Jet Planes etc.


The Official Story is Officially Dead.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
The FDNY states the opposite. Do you believe that they:

1) Are in on the conspiracy and lying?

2) Don't know better?


3) Except for a brave few, who know the importance of keeping their mouths shut?

Or are under a gag order?




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
The reason Building seven collapsed is because it was made of cheese wiz and tostitos.
The shock wave from towers 1+2 flew through all the adjacent buildings and ignited the gas tanks in B7. Then a couple floors burned and that melted all the steel in a 45 story building.
NEXT, HONG KONG FUEY accidently karate chopped a villain into the building.
The force of the splattering villain turned on several million hairdryers which inturn melted the tootsie roll rivets throughout B7.





[edit on 11-2-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by jfj123
 


What is your question even meant to accomplish?

Seriously??? OK this is what you wrote:

The invisible hand of the economy did it. The spiritual descendents of the venezian black nobility, the dark sides of the main religions, the old moneybags who hate anyone burgeoise and lower, the zionists, the guys that killed kennedy, among others. The elitist sociopaths did it. Those who would be kings did it. Well, pulled the strings on some very evil people so they would proxy for them.

Is your post listed above meaningless? If not, for you to write this, you must have an idea specifically who within these, for lack of a better phrase, "shadow groups" were behind 9/11. Either this statement was completely made up and baseless or you have a base (ie evidence) to suggest what you're saying is true.
So which is it?
Baseless, meaningless statement?
or
Supportable statement?


It is not intelectually necessary to have proof of planning to be able to at least get a general outline of the people behind it.

I'm not asking for PROOF of planning. I'm not even asking for PROOF.
I'm asking you to support your statement about WHO was behind the planning. Two completely different things.


What are you expecting? A paper trail? It's not that easy so your question is totally out of place.

Well then I guess every question here is out of place. So we might as well close the thread because, based on what you're saying, we will never have anything substantive to discuss.


That said, there is plenty of indicators there, plenty of loose ends that at least ties up the authorship of the 911 psy op to oficial instituitions and organisations as well as some private citizens, like Silverstein and Cheney. Cheney for a stand down order, Silverstein for a "pull it" order.

This is what's known as speculation. That whole "pull it" thing is pretty much a joke. If you actually remove the paranoia and put the "pull it" statement into proper context, Silverstein meant, pull the operation, not pull the building.

Really what you're saying is that the lack of available data means the government is guilty. This just doesn't work in the United States as it's innocent until PROVEN guilty. You can't determine guilt based on a lack of evidence.


So no, the big picture I don't have. Some details, after all these years, are well known to anyone who has more than a passing interest in the subject. Be them a truther or, as others are, ad hoc debunkers.

Do you have an understanding how buildings are built and how loads are transfered? Do you understand the forces applied to the undamaged floors by the damaged floors and how they would have affected the dead loads? Do you know what it takes to rig a building for demolition?
Just curious?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonseeker

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm not gullable enough to believe the bush administration was able to pull off the most diabolical, largest conspiracy in our history yet they're stupid enough to to out of office with an approval rating in the 20's. They can't be smart and stupid at the same time.


I don't think anyone here has suggested Bush was smart enough to do anything on 9/11, except keep well out of the way, hide in a schoolroom pretending to read "My Pet Goat" and then tell some obvious porkies about how he saw the first plane hit the building.


Then who did it according to the "truthers" ?

If nobody in the bush administration did it and al queda didn't do it, who did?


A small group of people in the bush admin..some at pentagon, FAA, NORAD, key posts, in the right places, with a nice assist from the mossad..I won't repost all the stuff on that.. it's all over this site. It's a fallacy that the whole US gov was in on it. just a few key people.


Now is this just another guess/accusation ? or do you actually have any evidence to suggest anything you just said was true?

Let's say what you're saying is true:
So the following people would have been involved:
Personnel at the FAA
Personnel at NORAD
Personnel at Other key posts
The entire NIST investigative group
Port authority
The FBI investigators
The CIA investigators
Israeli special services personnel
If you believe the buildings were rigged for demo then all the personnel required to rig all three buildings.
support personnel
cheney
silverstein
financial support personnel
Special ops personnel
Personnel at the pentagon
etc..
OK notice how long the list is starting to get? I could go on and on with a list of required personnel.

There is a saying: "The larger the perceived conspiracy, the less likely it is true". Too many people and someone will make a mistake. Someone will slip and say the wrong thing. Someone will get a guilty conscience and talk.

The bush administration was loaded with half wit thugs and couldn't have pulled off a conspiracy of this magnitude so who did it?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I thought I had explained this before folks...here we go again:


No no no...just because there are several visible "squib" pops on the WTC 1&2 towers as they fall is not a tell-tale sign of controlled demolition! It is simple, and explainable...

It's the light from Alpha Centauri refracting off of the swamp gas on Venus being focalized on the high density carbon being used in the lenses of the cameras picking up over-tonal harmonics being sent out from the windows of the WTC towers. This happens when planes hit a building that is sitting on top of gold reserves, and backed up by 45 degree pre-cut structure bearing steel covered in thermite...

Very simply put "The snozzberries taste like snozzberries"!

Why would Chewbacca live on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks...It simply does not make sense! ***Blabbering Blatherskite*** (roll away quickly)


Now in regards to WTC 7, let us NOT forget the Chuck Norris Factor! On that particular day, due to the events aforementioned, Chuck was so distraught he was needing to release his angst... so he went outside his home dojo and Karate chopped his adamantium reinforced steel blocks. Due to the heightened level of emotion he tore a seam in the space-time fabric, altering natural law and physics...that is the true reason these 3 buildings fell like they did...

This is as plausible as the Popular Mechanics, NIST, and 9/11 Commision reports.

In accordance with the prophecy!

OP- that is a feasible correlation between the building in China, and TWC 7...excluding the Chuck Norris Factor of course



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

But isn't it true there's no amount of evidence that would persuade you?

Actually no it's not true.


Seriously, how could anyone ignore the veritable mountain of highly incriminating evidence that's been uncovered in the last 7 years?


What evidence?
I've seen people write about, "in their opinion"......
and I've seen people misquote what was written.
I've seen people make up imaginary situations and pretend they were real.
etc...
But I haven't actually seen any evidence. Please post some. I'd love to see it.



Wow. If you haven't seen any evidence by now, especially with all the time you spend on ATS, then I can only say, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to look."


OK so far in the video, all I'm hearing about secondary explosions. Is that so surprising in a burning building? Doesn't it seem likely that there are a lot of flammable items in a building that size that when heated, might explode? A professionally rigged building would have systematic explosions, not just random explosions.
I keep hearing the word "possibly" being bantered around a lot. We all know that initial news reports can and usually are highly inaccurate and these poor fire fighters and police were under incredible stress. We were all waiting for the next shoe to drop so why is it so hard to believe they were too?

Here is what a real building implosion looks like. Notice the sequential explosions? Not the random secondary explosions?



So tell me, is this video of 9/11 news clips just "my opinion?"

I'm sure there were explosions. I'd be shocked if there weren't. Your opinion comes in with regard to the interpretation of what caused the explosions.


Was anyone or anything in the video misrepresented or misquoted?

Not that I'm aware of.


Were these "secondary explosions" heard by FDNY firefighters and the "secondary devices" discovered by the bomb squad just imaginary objects or situations?

Did they "think" they found a "device" or did they find a device? What was the report that described the device?


Were the firefighters, witnesses and WTC building workers who heard explosions in the basement sub-levels before, during and after the planes impacted the towers simply imagining this?

I doubt they were imagining it but what were the explosions? Specifically what caused the explosions? Do you know?


Do you really believe Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark could've meant anything but demolish WTC 7?

Yes. When you actually understand it in the context it was stated, you will understand that he meant pull the operation and not pull the building. Does Silverstein have a background in demolition to know the supposed terminology?


When every network news anchor and reporter personally witnesses and reports numerous "secondary explosions" throughout the day on 9/11, but nothing is ever mentioned again, how does your mind justify this? How can it?

You have a massive building and many flammable substances throughout the entire building. Can you honestly say that these secondary explosives can't simply be those items igniting from either heat or flame?


[edit on 11-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Without O2 jet fuel,kerosene,won't even burn.The engine meters the fuel/O2 ratio by fine atomization of the fuel,which is turbo charged,mixing the two even more.Full fuel tanks merely splash unmixed fuel onto and into the carpets and etc which,when ignited merely burn.As evidenced by the dark smokey fire,even the second strike which was outside the building,in the mostly nitrogen atmosphere.Fire is a chemical reaction.We're not even talking about the two towers,but I thought to clear that up.
Reinforced concrete absolutely crumbles in a fire as hot as in China,the H2O bound in the mix(concrete curing is another chemical reaction)expands and ruins the structure.Not to the point of rendering it into a fine (nano sized)dust as was found all over lower Manhattan,NYC.Including atomized steel.There is your proof.Consider that dust along with the unburned paper and there is but one conclusion.
Nuclear powered box cutters!My pet goat was in on it too.The code is found only when the book is read upside down.Give me PROOF



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by jfj123
Nazi's strongly believed that Hitler was a good man. It doesn't mean they were right.

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth then lies" -Nietzsche-



Just like some Americans strongly believe that a rogue cabal within their own government couldn't murder several thousand citizens due to an insane grab for oil, empire-building and obscene war profits.

I really like those "truther" catch phrases and words

cabal
false flag
etc..
In any case, the Bush administration made it very clear that they did not care at all about public perception so why bother going to the trouble of engineering 9/11 so they could get into iraq? Makes no sense.


Just like some Americans still don't believe that FDR knew every detail of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor weeks in advance.

Interesting. Do you have evidence to support this?


"Operation Northwoods"

And how did we all find out about this?


[edit on 11-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by phushion

Originally posted by jfj123
...they could not verify it in writing as they were not able to locate the documentation.



Such a convenience, a bit like the photos of the 1/3rd damage caused to WTC7 that the nypd have owner ship of the photos of and will only allow NIST to view, how very convenient sir, hmm suits you sir.

See mine and a good few hundred thousand or ten fold more peoples points of view (sos slightly enebriated)



I was responding to someone about this information. I didn't give my opinion about it. Since you don't know me, you don't know what suites me. DO YOU?

If it were up to me, I'd like to see every bit of evidence released for public review that is not currently being used for ongoing investigations so everyone would shut up about it. Of course if that ever happened, the "truthers" would just say it's all false info anyway



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88

Originally posted by mpriebe81
wow, talk about a raging inferno!!!

of course there are those who will mention the fact that an airplane didn't crash into this building

You act like planes crashing into a building is no big deal. Or that huge chucks of a building collapsing onto wtc7 wouldnt have a huge effect on the building structure. People need to stop trying to find similarities in burning buildings that dont have two 757's crashing into them. And as another poster mentioned, although sarcastically, I doubt those buildings were structurally built the same way. Whether or not it was finished I guarentee that this building was built more soundly then the WTC.


Dont forget: You are talking to people who say project northwoods is a piece of evidence because it features a plane. Be glad we dont get millions of threads about trees that withstood a lightning stroke.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
reply to post by jfj123
 



Listen, dude.... you're being very ignorant... maybe you're just acting ignorant on purpose.

Interesting. Your argument is so persuasive, you must start it with a personal attack.


I don't know why anyone would still continue to rabidly post on a 9/11 conspiracy forum just to disagree and constantly ask for evidence, like nobody is trying to please you and give you evidence.

Because I have the right to just like you have the right to believe however you like.


Names and blueprints and pictures of the guys pushing the buttons and copies of documents that say "We did it! Here's documentation!" is just flat out the dumbest kind of incriminating thing to do. Of course there would be no satisfiable evidence for you.

Of course there would. Again, I'm not asking for proof. I'm simply asking to see evidence which I still haven't seen. I have seen opinion only.


You're asking for highly overtly incriminating evidence, and obviously any group involved in this would have gone to great lengths to erase all incriminating connections.

With all the people that must be involved in this supposed conspiracy and not one person screwed up and left evidence behind? DOUBTFUL.


So... where is the evidence? It is out there.... like the video of WTC7 collapsing. Evidence enough in that alone. The building was structurally sound, period.

Then it didn't collapse and it's still there.


WTC1 and 2 did not fall directly on top of WTC 7. Debris was shot out and some damaged the side of the building moderately at most, but it is interesting to note that WTC 3,4, 6 (I dunno if thwere was a number 5 offhand) had the building LITERALLY fall right on top of it.... and yet they all survived with much of their frames intact, sans global collapse... and these were ALL engulfed in flames and melting pools of steel and all sorts of hellfire and brimstone.... yet they had to still be pulled down after the fact.

Wait, they were demo'd after the fact? If WTC 1, 2 and 7 were all rigged to implode, why not rig those as well? They had to come down anyway like you said and that would have made an even bigger impact.


But then you'll pull out some other methods of either denial or just plain suversion of common sense, depending on your motives, and the argument will perpetually continue forever because of people such as yourselves who create a believeable wit about them enough fotr ignorant people to cling onto and create a blanket of plausible deniability.

I find it amusing that people make statements as facts when in fact they have no facts to back up their statements.


If it sounds good, sure I guess you could deny it because a new study comes out that finds that thousands of walruses gathering on the top floors weakened the support beams enough to where the relatively small fires would weaken them just enough to cause global collapse. That's ridiculous, but then so is your denial of self-evidence in favor of someone to hold your hand and show you why there is sufficient data to suggest something other than what you believe happened.

Or maybe those making these accusations simply don't have an understanding of what they're looking at. This site is loaded with wanna be's who think they know more then an entire team of advanced degree investigators.
Are you familiar with construction and structural loads?
Are you familiar with how the trade towers were really built? I don't mean what the blue prints showed but how they were really built because I am positive there were differences between the blue prints and the actual building.
Are you familiar with the ACTUAL strength of the structural beams and posts in the buildings?
Are you familiar with how the loads would have transfered through the buildings?
Are you familiar with how those buildings would need to be rigged with charges to bring them down if you're claiming that is how they fell?
Are you familiar with what type of damage could be caused by the plane impacts?
ETC...
ETC...
ETC...
So before you call me ignorant, you may want to understand what you think you know and what you really know.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

So... where is the evidence? It is out there.... like the video of WTC7 collapsing. Evidence enough in that alone. The building was structurally sound, period.
The FDNY states the opposite. Do you believe that they:

1) Are in on the conspiracy and lying?

2) Don't know better?
So now you speak for the entire FDNY? Say, for example, FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio?


FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC 7
Reinforcing conviction that Silverstein was referring to demolition with infamous comments on PBS documentary

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Newly uncovered video from 9/11 featuring an interview with FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio on MSNBC confirms that there was a plan to deliberately demolish WTC Building 7, as was originally indicated in Larry Silverstein’s infamous statement on the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds.

In the clip, Rastuccio responds to the host’s statement that “You guys knew this was coming all day,” by stating, “We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own.”

Though Rastuccio expresses his opinion that the building had collapsed without the aid of explosives, he admits that a plan had been in place to deliberately demolish the structure.

This reinforces the fact that when Larry Silverstein infamously told a 2002 PBS documentary that a consideration had been made to “pull it,” which is a demolition industry term for deliberate implosion, he did indeed mean that WTC 7 was considered for deliberate demolition.

This would mean that Silverstein’s later qualification of his comments, that “pull it” simply meant to pull the firefighters out of the building, despite FEMA’s assertion that no firefighting operations even took place inside WTC 7, was an outright lie intended to deflect possible ramifications arising out of the $7 billion dollar payout Silverstein received in insurance after the WTC complex was destroyed.

Seriously?
Do you get that the context of this conversation was that AFTER it was damaged, if it didn't fall down on it's own, they would need to demolish it? And how were they planning on demolishing it? Did he say? Was it going to be a hand demo or with charges? If the building was so unsafe that they thought it might collapse on it's own, surely they wouldn't have put demolitions teams in the building to rig it.
Sounds like the conversation was simply about the fact that the building was shot and they were wondering if it would fall itself or if they had to demolish it. This doesn't indicate prior knowledge at all.
And do you have any evidence to suggest silverstein has any background in explosives demolition that would give him knowledge about supposed trade language?

[edit on 11-2-2009 by jfj123]



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join