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: 28
59
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


This is the last time I'm responding to you.

It's reasonable to admit; I haven't re-researched EVERYTHING I've learned.

When people have experience in life -- such as, they learn that objects fall when dropped. They often don't go back and check on it. Sure, we might find that tomorrow, some heavy objects don't fall.

That was in regards to those "faxed" documents that allegedly show the Hijackers names on the flight manifests. Of course, no independent verification -- just a show trial.

Ignoring the nonsense trial of Mussoui -- I wasn't aware of these "documents." You clearly, ignore points I make, and argue minutiae.

You achieve high marks for being an annoying distraction. Not so good on the content.

-- please don't reply.




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
It´s incredible. How can these people make SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS and expect to be taken seriously? I can´t believe it!!! We could be discussing the roll of aliens on 9/11 as well.

Talking about “bomb damage” to the steal beams? Where do you get that from?
Holograms? Please!!

TOO MANY assumptions without offering the tiniest bit of proof on anything. Just “hunches” and personal appreciations. Amazing!!!
If you can´t explain it, make up a conspiracy on it.
That´s why experts and engineers should be the ones giving us the explanations on the events of 9/11.
This is exactly what NIST does. And it´s the best we have so far.



This is a great example of someone responding to the guy in the parade wearing the Pink Tutu. If you don't care about truth, and want to derail a topic -- you feed the trolls and start talking about the nonsense. Who knows if the nonsense poster was there to derail it in the first place?

Science should be judged by the most supportable evidence and best logic -- not by the ramblings of the person without the PhD.

The "Truth" about 9/11, isn't subject to whether or not someone talks about Holograms. The burden of proof should be on the people claiming that steel buildings fall due to fire -- especially building 7 that did not get hit by a jet.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to djeminy
 


Actually, you'd be more like the hired stone thrower. The provocateur.

I'm sure in the future, I will have to debate an anti-truther saying; "Truthers think that it was done with holograms -- LOL."

It isn't the strength of the strongest argument used, it is pointing to the weakest argument. This is the difference between reason and propaganda.

If you think that Truthers are idiots and fools -- you might be thinking about someone much like yourself, helping to throw rocks and make the protest look like a riot.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by VitriolAndAngst]




I'm truly surprised you can get yourself to write such unbelievable nonsense as above,
and same goes for your previous post addressed to me also.

Not surprising then, that you seems to have formed a warm close relationship with the
hapless 123!

You both 'conveniently' failed to acknowledge the clarification I came with, namely:

"This of course is but pure speculation at this point....".

Instead you Went on with the vitriol, in your eagerness to show the world how brilliant
and learned you both consider yourself to be. What vanity!

It will serve no good for me to respond to the various points you both came up with,
as I'm sure it will receive no intelligent and thoughtful hearing.

I obviously planted a seed in your mind, and in others too I hope.
I have no doubt that sooner or later it will germinate, judging from your responses, and
a little sprout will start to grow bigger and bigger.
You will naturally deny this, but to no avail I fear.

That's all folks!


>> Nothing personal here -- I'm talking TACTICS. 123 seems to be trying to tell you the same thing.

But I'm not sure if even DISCUSSING this isn't "feeding the troll."

There is a likelihood that a small nuke or exotic weapon was used -- that might explain molten steel weeks later -- or that very same thing, could have been the result of a burning gas main, and we are looking at some wood burning (not likely, but I'm making a point).

If YOU WANT JUSTICE, you LOWER THE BAR for what you have to prove. The burden of figuring out what happened, shouldn't be on people on the web, poking through grainy, lousy, unverified photographs. It's a damn trap.

It's like trying to figure out what hit the Pentagon from the 5 frames of crappy video the Pentagon released. THEY GAVE US NONSENSE. It could be a series of photoshopped files so any speculation or THEORY you base on that, is based on nonsense.

YOU MAY BE RIGHT. But since you cannot prove holograms, it doesn't help. Explosives CAN be proved -- IF we gather enough responders at the site and interview them, and acquire some steel samples (though that's probably hard to come by now).

But your points get to be a distraction. Attack the premise that the Bush Government put forth. Limit theories of what happened unless you just are having fun speculating.

But so far, I haven't seen any reason to advance the hologram theory -- because we had fire and debris around the area -- it doesn't matter if it was a real or fake plane. If you can prove that a plane could not have brought down the WTC -- then a fake plane could not bring it down either.

So stick with what is easy, because the anti-truther's demand that we have every fact BEFORE we can have a trial. That's almost impossible as it is.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by verbal_assassin
The core beam was encased in CONCRETE. CONCRETE doesn't retain heat


My concrete pizza stone disagrees with you.


I agree with you about the concrete. But of course, this means that the concrete would insulate the beam.

If the beam gets heated -- then it transmits heat to the metal it is connected to. So there isn't going to be EXTRA heat by concrete insulation -- you have a HUGE connection of metal.

Since the fire blasted off the insulation and concrete (according to theory), then of course, we saw that millions of tons of debris fly out the other side (we didn't).

The theoretical heat of the fire, may have been intense in TEMPERATURE, but the duration of time is also critical, and there was not enough HEAT LOAD. 15 minutes of Jet Fuel burning followed by 45 minutes of a normal office fire, doesn't give it enough time to actually weaken -- because metal transmits heat.

If you want to CUT metal with a torch -- it needs to be many times hotter than melting temperature for the metal, because it needs to OVERLOAD the area being heated before that metal can transmit the heat away. A good engineer might be able to tell you how much time and how much you have to go OVER the melting point, to actually weaken the steel. This nonsense of 250 degrees Celsius, might only work inside a kiln, where the heat load does not let the steel transmit away any heat. Such a test would be totally bogus for a real fire. But the calculations involved are NOT trivial.

Look at the building in China on fire. THAT obviously, didn't have enough HEAT LOAD to cause it to collapse. It probably had a hot enough temperature, to weaken the metal.

The NIST data should be called into question, because they have been caught fudging facts. Possibly, another BushCo crony is involved -- as seems to be the case in EVERY group, that BushCo put in charge of investigating things.

The White House actually sent the "experts" who proved the documents were forged in the Dan Rather report on Bush being AWOL. I'm sure their findings were a foregone conclusion. The Media, didn't report that there was NO INDEPENDENT investigation. This is how we get manipulated all the time. We argue facts, as if we were told the facts.

No, I expect that most of the data that the Bush administration released -- and then changed and re-released, was inaccurate where it mattered.

So I think that if we look at other buildings -- we get a better story of whether they can collapse due to fire. That is kind of REAL WORLD MODELING. Not subject to coverups and NIST cronies.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by verbal_assassin
The core beam was encased in CONCRETE. CONCRETE doesn't retain heat and therefore, no way in hell would it be hot enough to melt and weaken. Besides, if the FIRE WERE SO HOT, why did we see 20 different people waving their arm out the window? Wouldn't they burn to death? The initial explosion took care of most of the fuel. The building collapsed, all 3 of them due an implosion.

Which explains why people heard several explosion b4 the building collapsed into complete dust. Concrete turning into DUST in mid air = explosives.

Building crumbing and tipping over to the side, = weakening structure.

How did all 3 building collapse? I thought so. End of story. Inside job.



I disagree that concrete is not an insulator. Well, to be accurate -- it's a "HEAT MASS." It doesn't have a great R-Factor to insulate my home at all, but if you add heat, then it will store it for some time. Water is the same way -- and nobody would call it an insulator.

MORE INFO

Fire
Due to its low thermal conductivity, a layer of concrete is frequently used for fireproofing of steel structures. However, concrete itself may be damaged by fire.
Up to about 300 °C, the concrete undergoes normal thermal expansion. Above that temperature, shrinkage occurs due to water loss; however, the aggregate continues expanding, which causes internal stresses. Up to about 500 °C, the major structural changes are carbonation and coarsening of pores. At 573 °C, quartz undergoes rapid expansion due to Phase transition, and at 900 °C calcite starts shrinking due to decomposition. At 450-550 °C the cement hydrate decomposes, yielding calcium oxide. Calcium carbonate decomposes at about 600 °C. Rehydration of the calcium oxide on cooling of the structure causes expansion, which can cause damage to material which withstood fire without falling apart. Concrete in buildings that experienced a fire and were left standing for several years shows extensive degree of carbonation.
Concrete exposed to up to 100 °C is normally considered as healthy. The parts of a concrete structure that is exposed to temperatures above approximately 300 °C (dependent of water/cement ratio) will most likely get a pink color. Over approximately 600 °C the concrete will turn light grey, and over approximately 1000 °C it turns yellow-brown.[20] One rule of thumb is to consider all pink colored concrete as damaged that should be removed.
Fire will expose the concrete to gases and liquids that can be harmful to the concrete, among other salts and acids that occur when gasses produced by fire come into contact with water.


>>However, the concrete used in WTC was probably a bit more hardy, and it expanding at the same rate as steel. So a matrix of the two -- as far as I know, doesn't cause one or the other to explode or break.

The concrete in this fire would definitely be damaged. It would not, however, totally decompose or cause too much damage unless it catches fire.

Concrete would reduce the heat going to the steel, but would NOT allow it to build up too much in the short term, because it would be absorbing the heat. So, short term, it probably provides some protection to the steel from fire -- not that steel really needs it.

>> Your points about the concrete dust -- yes, the "Pyroclastic dust" seems to indicate explosives. The entire top 20 stories of the North Tower turned to pyroclastic dust in midair -- not likely from thermal expansion, since it wasn't even hot. The pulling in of the curtain wall, while trumpeted as examples of the failure of the structure -- is also exactly what would happen in a demolition implosion. The buckling and failing of the floors -- were we see then bowed down, I can't explain that with heat. Those floors, while mostly like a bridge suspended over the floor above, are buttressed by I-Beams. The floors should not be buckling ANYWHERE, because there is steel and in the concrete. There isn't enough TIME to transfer the energy and make it buckle, while everything is falling at free-Fall.

>> And again, even if you believe these far-fetched and unproven theories on the North and South tower, NONE of that explains Building 7. Even Guilliani's idiotic addition of a 6,000 gallon fuel tank to power his emergency bunker doesn't explain that. Nope, a traditional fire, that should not be bringing down a fire. Sure would be nice to have had that investigated.

>> It would be REALLY nice, to see samples of he concrete near the core that was subjected to fire at the WTC. But of course, the investigation seemed to not be interested in investigating such things. Another Bush Crime Family situation, where it looks like a coverup, and those who want justice get ridiculed for daring to question their integrity. I don't think the integrity of the Bush administration is in doubt; we've all concluded they have none.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
LOL.

It wasn't but an hour after posting "We can't depend upon arguing on the evidence, because things like the Pentagon video could all be Photoshopped nonsense" that we now have someone posting that the Pentagon video was forged

You know, the Anti-Truthers can poke holes or cast doubt, in individual theories that we've put forth. But when you look at the colossal weight of ALL THE EVIDENCE, and the huge number of bogus bits of data and outright lies from the Bush administration (and the NIST is it's crony), how can you trust that YOU KNOW ANYTHING.

IN the absence of concrete proof -- I think it is always best to distrust those who are putting out the bad data, and who are doing the botched investigations.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Just for the record, WTC did have a concrete reinforced core. According to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Technology and Innovation in 1992, the core was concrete reinforced. There is more to suggest this, but I'm too tired to post anymore of it. A search led me to another thread on ATS from 2006 that covered this possibility and there seems to be a lot of literature describing the towers as having a concrete reinforced core. Not surprisingly, some of those links are dead now but the excerpts remain.




So, considering the WTC cores seem to have been reinforced with concrete, it can no longer be said that the building in Bejiing was different due to concrete being used in the core.

Edited for wording

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Kratos1220]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kratos1220

So, considering the WTC cores seem to have been reinforced with concrete, it can no longer be said that the building in Bejiing was different due to concrete being used in the core.



There's a reason that V and A rails against posts like this - it's because they're just so wrong that it discredits the TM. And he's right.

The core steel was fire insulated with mainly gypsum board and something they called cementious boards, with a few areas with spray-on (
) insulation.

No serious TM'er that tries to maintain respectability even bothers to claim what you just did anymore.

The only poured cement was the floors, the "bathtub", and (IIRC) around the core columns in the basement.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Well, that's apparently what the Oxford Encyclopedia from 1992 says unless encyclopedias are unreliable sources of information.



The building's design was standard in the 1960s, when construction began on what was then the world's tallest building. At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall. All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete. The building had to be tough enough to withstand not just the impact of a plane - and the previous bomb attack in 1993 - but also of the enormous structural pressures created by strong winds.


World Trade Center Disaster Information



And that is from a site claiming the fire burned hot enough to melt the steel, not a conspiracy site.



I'm just saying, there was a lot of powdered concrete and what appears to be rebar in the rubble.

Edited to link the silhouette from a different site because it wasn't loading right.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Kratos1220]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kratos1220

Well, that's apparently what the Oxford Encyclopedia from 1992 says unless encyclopedias are unreliable sources of information.



Wow, yes it does. Apologies then. But the fact remains is that it's wrong.

This is from a Truther site. Many others confirm this.

911research.wtc7.net...

"The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed. "


With all due respect, I think you should do more research.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Touche.

Doesn't surprise me, I guess. Varying sources and experts can't agree on anything else that happened surrounding those buildings and 9/11 either.

There were other sources for this same information (concrete reinforced core), but much of it is nowhere to be found anymore. I did research, it just so happens much of it is no longer on the net. Just because you can find an opposing source doesn't mean I did no research. The contents of an encyclopedia should count for something and so should the other source.

At any rate, debating on this is exhausting and I'm out of gas. Suppose that's why I never got involved in one of these threads before.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Kratos1220]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mpriebe81
 

No it may not of had an airplane fly into it but it is completely engulfed in flames and did not collapse.The wtc weren't and collapsed. Then look at bldg 7



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Oh my...

How embarrasing to those who think fire brought down WTC7...



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Not according to Leslie Robertson.

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

/ag6rqn
and a poster claiming to be Leslie again at physforum.com:

Christophera is correct in stating that the Twin Towers were constructed with a concrete core. Although in my original design the core was to be a steel framed one that decision was overridden by Minoru Yamasaki the architect.

It would be nice to try and get ahold of Leslie to verify that he did, in fact, make this statement. If so, it would expose NIST's fraud even further and those(probably Silverstein) who supplied blueprints that misrepresented the tower's true construction. Also the Port Authority or Giulliani or who ever held/holds copies of the real plans.
Or the whole concrete core thing could be complete disinfo put out by controlled opposition, but I tend to think not as there seems to be evidence of the concrete core found in videos of the demolition:
I can't get this to embed, if somebody could fix it that would be great.
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 20-2-2009 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
So if the above I posted is truly Leslie, then it would not be a stretch of the imagination by any standards to assume that the plans that NIST was given was of the original design that Leslie had planned(AND NOT OF THE AS-BUILT DESIGN). That would probably set NIST up for plausible deniability as they based their reports on what was given to them, but doesn't completely clear them because it is their job to obtain the as-constructed documentation from Port Authority or whomever has it.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Wow, yes it does. Apologies then. But the fact remains is that it's wrong.


How do you know for a fact that this is wrong? Have you seen the original as-built documentation? How about the design documentation? Nothing? Only what NIST has told you?


This is from a Truther site. Many others confirm this.

911research.wtc7.net...

"The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed. "


A structure can be 100% steel framed and still be covered by concrete (cement). Remember, you even admitted that the fireproofing was "cementitious".


ce⋅men⋅ti⋅tious
   /ˌsimənˈtɪʃəs, -mɛn-, ˌsɛmən-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [see-muhn-tish-uhs, -men-, sem-uhn-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
having the properties of a cement.


dictionary.reference.com...


ce⋅ment
   /sɪˈmɛnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [si-ment] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. any of various calcined mixtures of clay and limestone, usually mixed with water and sand, gravel, etc., to form concrete, that are used as a building material.
2. any of various soft, sticky substances that dry hard or stonelike, used esp. for mending broken objects or for making things adhere.


dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kratos1220
There were other sources for this same information (concrete reinforced core), but much of it is nowhere to be found anymore. I did research, it just so happens much of it is no longer on the net.


It's funny how nearly everything pre-9/11 describes the cores as "concrete reinforced" but post 9/11 they were just steel columns with flimsy spray-on fireproofing eh?


Just because you can find an opposing source doesn't mean I did no research. The contents of an encyclopedia should count for something and so should the other source.


This is Seymour's MO.

And for someone who had to be taught that the fireproofing was more than just spray-on to sarcastically recommend someone else do research is totally hypocritical if you ask me. Yes, Seymour, you had to school me that the outer column thickness tapered also, but I'm not going around telling people to do their research like I'm Mr. Smarty-pants either.


At any rate, debating on this is exhausting and I'm out of gas. Suppose that's why I never got involved in one of these threads before.


Another reason for the "debunkers" in here. To tire us out arguing and then claim the TM is dying for lack of website hits.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
That would probably set NIST up for plausible deniability as they based their reports on what was given to them, but doesn't completely clear them because it is their job to obtain the as-constructed documentation from Port Authority or whomever has it.


NIST had subpoena power that it didn't use. So, IMO, there is no plausible deniability because, as you said, they were taxed with finding the correct construction.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
About I beams and structural steel.Straightening bent I beams is educational and saves money as they go cheap.A beam with a twist is heated to forging temperature(1800+F) in a wood fire,right on the ground,about three to five feet in diamater.This heats a portion of the beam amounting to less than half the mass of the section,no more.This takes about a half hour in a good hot fire with plenty of air to fan the flames.I prefer corn on the cob as it burns really hot and introduces no sulfur and it consumes the oxygen so as not to burn the steel.When rolled out of the fire,the surrounding cold(ish)steel is rigid and "upsets" the hot portion,which,when it cools contracts to straighten.First time I saw this,I coulden't believe how well it works.The steel transmits heat,but very slowly.You can handle the beam pretty close to the hot zone right away and after an hour the whole thing is moderately hot.The more nickel,the greater the resistance to electron flow and heat.Bent I beams are straightened a bit differently,as I use another beam,a chain and a jack.The hot zone is greater and the leverage is provided by the jack,not the surrounding metal,but the "upset'' effect still plays a role and so must be accounted for,easy to overdo and a pain as it takes so long each step.When you hear of the WTC steel "sagging" from heat try not to visualize spaghetti noodles,but rather it would be more like the grate in an overheated wood stove.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

How do you know for a fact that this is wrong?





Ok, sure thing.

You're kidding yourself if you think it was.

That's ONE source that says that. I'm sure there's a few more available too that say the same thing.

Any engineering article I've read say that it was steel only, as does your hero Richard "box boy" Gage, and other TMerz that seek media attention.

But hey, carry on and do like you do and try and raise doubts about these things, even though it means nothing. Actually, it just makes the TM seem even stupider and more loony than others already perceive it to already be when people read this sort of garbage.

I thought that a credo of SE's was to help educate people?

You have failed.....




new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join