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: 8
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


Let me ask you one more question. If it was demoed why would the east penthouse collapse first. Then there be a few second pause before the rest of the building follows. If it was demoed wouldnt the whole building collapse together. After all you are claiming that explosion were going off. Some even claim there were flashes. Since when did a demo start at the top left of a building, wait a few seconds and then continue to collapse. And why do all the conspiracy people always leave the penthouse collapse out of their video.. Loosechange sure doesnt show it.

East penthouse begins to collapse 8.2 seconds before global collapse ensues. Adding 6.6 seconds (Steven Jones' time) from the start of global collapse gives a total collapse time of at least 14.6 seconds. Note that this does not take into account internal collapses that may have started earlier but are not visible. And keep in mind that the east penthouse collapse is believed to have occurred due to loss of support on lower floors, not near the roof.
wtc7 collapse
Full collapse of WTC7 including penthouse
sure looks like it takes longer then 6.5 seconds.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You need to look at the subway and the common basement they shared unlike the sturctures you are refering too. I wish you guys would stop bringing crap like this up. I dont suppose you guys even think about the people who lost love ones, and have to sit and listen to the rantings of conspiracy theories blaming the very goverment they live in. Its got to hurt them on some level if not make them mad, that a the death of their loved one is being used as proof for some loony conspiracy theory.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


What you fail to understand is the design and construction of the twin towers is what lead to their collapse. Its called pancaking. really thats all it takes is 1 floor to lose its structural integrity and the whole thing collapses.

Each floor was solid concrete weighing several tons, the only thing holding it up were bolts on the external framework. the steel or iron doesnt have to become liquid for it to collapse, just bend a little. How much weight was pressing down on the heated area? How many floor above the fire of solid concrete was gravity exerting on those floors?

The builing you show in the photo didnt collapse because of its girder construction, it sure looks lik its bending over though.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by alienj
 


Quite amazing isn't it? Take a look at my post on the previous page. I so wonder if your right. I mean the damage to WFC 2 must have been catastrophic right? It's right across the street from where WTC 1 was. Man the devastating force of the collapse must have rendered this building unusable...

Oh WAIT, it's still in use today.

[edit on 2/10/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Only after undergoing major structual reconstruction. Dont be so lame.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by alienj
 



You need to look at the subway and the common basement they shared unlike the sturctures you are refering too.


Planes hit the basement?


Its got to hurt them on some level if not make them mad, that a the death of their loved one is being used as proof for some loony conspiracy theory.


Like every politician in or running for major office the last 8 years? And for an excuse for the conflicts both in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Remember the "official story" is a conspiracy theory, it has yet to be proved in a court of law who caused 9/11, until that time the "official story" is a conspiracy theory.

[edit on 2/10/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Omg I will not argue stupidity, can you not understand that tons and tons of debris falling from the twin towers collapsed right into the shared basement of wtc building 7. Can you not even begin to imagine the undue stress and load that was put on everything around it. Have you heard of the "Straw that broke the camels back", if so you know it takes in most catastrophes' a multitude of things going wrong that ends in a disaster. Like I started out saying, you are either arguing for the sake of arguing, bored maybe, or your either not educated enough to fully understand what your discussing. Also by analyzing your talking points I can tell you have gone to like minded websites for your information instead of reading independent engineer's reports of the most probably cause of the collapse. Were are talking decades of knowledge btw several engineers that have no dog in this fight coming to a centralized conclusion. Now, I wont pretend to understand everything they reported but I will say that I can at least read and try to comprehend thier conclusions and then compare your theories and theirs. To say the least I believe there hypothisis has bases in reality and science unlike most of the theories you propose.

Btw, you have the right to reply but I also have the right to end my part in this discussion with you until you become more educated on the subject.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by alienj]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


You have to be joking
wtc 7 collapsed in the middle and straight down
stop the bulls000t it was pulled remember



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Remember the "official story" is a conspiracy theory, it has yet to be proved in a court of law who caused 9/11, until that time the "official story" is a conspiracy theory
That is a rediculous theory. Why would they have to prove it in court. That is like me having to prove I have never killed anyone. Besides Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to helping plan the 2001 terrorist attacks. Also
Five of the most prominent detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they want to plead guilty to plotting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The defendants include Khalid Sheik Mohammed, his nephew Ali Abd al Aziz, who is also known as Ammar al Baluchi, Ramzi bin al Shibh, Walid Muhammad Bin Attash and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi.
The only thing you would possibly be able to bring to court would be if you had any hard evidence that there was some conspiracy. I find it amazing all of you are so sure there was a conspiracy but in 7 years no one has brought the US governement, or whomever you believe was behind it, to trial. I wonder why that is. Maybe it is because there is no proof. All of your evidence is theory.
you would be laughed out of a court room.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Make it clear once again, this building wasnt as tall, as old, as poorly constructed, and didnt have a jetliner with a full gas tank crash into it out how many MPH than exploded at impact thus burning and destroyed the already crappy made support beams.

Case closed!



HAHAahahaaa Hahaahaaa *Cough*
Excuse me please. Sorry.

Peace!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by alienj
 


Hey, don't get mad, It's alright.

WTC 1 & 2 may have in fact collapsed due to the fact that two large aircraft were slammed into them at high speed. (even though reportedly they were designed with this contingency in mind)

What I am arguing is that Building 7 is further away than the buildings across the street. Building 7 according to your argument had severe structural damage to its foundation. It's understandable to think this concidering that the entire mass of WTC 1 & 2 came straight down into the sub levels.

Yep, working for years in construction, I guess I don't know anything about this.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnnyrobbo
reply to post by tide88
 


You have to be joking
wtc 7 collapsed in the middle and straight down
stop the bulls000t it was pulled remember

read the implosion world article I posted a few pages back. These people are in that business. Demo business that is. It explains why the building collapsed the way they did, they are constructed to do so. It also explain that they, nor any other demo company have ever heard or used the term pull it before. It is amazing at the lack of research people do when they respond to these threads. I have looked at both sides extensively. You should too. Stop watching loose change and believing everthing they tell you. Talk about sheep.. Every fact you think you have has been debunked over and over again. That is why the so called truthers always resort to their theories, i.e. wtc7 fell at free fall speed. Wrong. It took a total of 13.5 second for the whole building to collapse. Dont know why I even bother responding to some of you when it is obvious you have not looked at both sides of the story.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Five of the most prominent detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they want to plead guilty to plotting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


I wonder, is there confession due to guilt or coercion? Torture can make even an innocent man confess to things he has not done.


The only thing you would possibly be able to bring to court would be if you had any hard evidence that there was some conspiracy. I find it amazing all of you are so sure there was a conspiracy but in 7 years no one has brought the US governement, or whomever you believe was behind it, to trial. I wonder why that is. Maybe it is because there is no proof. All of your evidence is theory.


Does the government have hard evidence? From what I understand all of the evidence at the scene was hauled away almost immediately after the collapse. No real investigation was conducted on the collapse, the only thing the government has is hearsay evidence, confessions that could be argued were brought about by coercion and a conspiracy theory of their own.


you would be laughed out of a court room.


I guess I would. I don't doubt you for that.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by EvilAxis
This puts nothing to bed.


Yes it does. It puts to bed your argument that structural damage played a role in WTC7.


Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by EvilAxis
Absence of 1 photo doesnt prove anything.


Yes it does. It proves both Popular Mechanics and NIST were lying. And it was claimed there were photos - plural.


Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by EvilAxis
Let me ask you one more question.


Hold it there! I notice instead of answering the questions I posed for you, you prefer to fire new questions at me. That is a classic diversionary ruse. When I answer those points, you will again ignore my answers and fire off new questions.

So, for the third time:

1. Why did Popular Mechanics and NIST both state that there were photographs showing the structural damage to WTC7 that we had not seen yet?

2. Why did they not appear in NIST's final report on WTC7?

3. Why did they lie to us?

4. Do you reconsider your position now you know NIST admit damage had no causal relevance in WTC7?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Does anybody on this thread know if the building in Bejing was constructed of reinforced concrete and steel or the like the very unusual tube-steel frame design used in the WTC.

From the pictures it appears to be concrete and steel so would unlikely to collapse from fire.

Buildings such as the WTC which are built of steel frames and trusses collapse all the time when they burn. See any large warehouse fire. (Never trust a truss when its hot.)

And my two cents, it is sad we are still, eight years later, debating this, frankly silly, idea that anything but two large jets with many tons of jet fuel set fire to the WTC causing the steel frame to weaken and, in particular those trusses not already damaged by impact, to fail and thereby fatally compromise the load bearing capacity of the tube steel frame. Once that failed at any level there was only one possible outcome, that which we saw.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


It is an ongoing investigation. Not all the evidence has been released. There does that answer your question. Where are these statements that say they have photos? The only thing I can find is they do state that 25% was scooped out but I cannot find them claiming to have photos? Please provide a link, thanks.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by tide88]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Another small point about controlled demolition. Every comment I see on that, and the controlled demolitions I see on TV refer to reinforced concrete buildings, which are hard to destroy neatly.

A tube-steel framed building like the WTC on the other would only require one take out the internal trusses connecting the outer wall to the inner tube. If they did use controlled demolition they wasted a lot of time setting unnecessary charges.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


It is an ongoing investigation. Not all the evidence has been released. There does that answer your question.


Well I grant you it's an answer - and if it satisfies you... well what can I say.

After 7 years the final report into WTC7 has been published, so I'm not sure in what sense it is ongoing. Do you mean it's being discussed at ATS?


You haven't explained in your own words why you think they refused to show us the photographs they said they had of the damage in their final report. Have a stab at that please.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Here is a video of the building, the morning after.



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



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join