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.

 

A New Fire Challenge!

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


What the hell were you doing on 9/11/01? I, myself, watched the thing burn on TV. Are you seriously suggesting that the building never burned because YOU can't find a picture on the internet?

You also realize that when one connection fails, it overloads the other connections and when one of those fails the others are then overloaded by an expotentially increasing percentage of their capacity until all remaining connections are critical and the whole unit fails and that this process can be measured in fractions of a second, don't you? Gravity is not like steam pressure, it doesn't take hours to build up, its demands are constant and instantaneous.




posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
And you've dodged my question.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by turbofan
 


What the hell were you doing on 9/11/01? I, myself, watched the thing burn on TV. Are you seriously suggesting that the building never burned because YOU can't find a picture on the internet?

You also realize that when one connection fails, it overloads the other connections and when one of those fails the others are then overloaded by an expotentially increasing percentage of their capacity until all remaining connections are critical and the whole unit fails and that this process can be measured in fractions of a second, don't you? Gravity is not like steam pressure, it doesn't take hours to build up, its demands are constant and instantaneous.


You actually do believe Bush science and NIST theorycraft don`t you?, meanwhile back in the world of steel structures withstanding what they are designed to withstand - load bearing shifting collapses fails miserably...



And a real fire 18-20 hours worth.......



And before you reply with `Yes but it was a......`, this is about load bearing shifting, nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


The Windsor Tower gives us two comparisons we can use. You went the wrong way on this one though.

The Windsor shows us how steel can fail within two hours when exposed to fire. If you'd like I can post the timeline for the Windsor Tower fire and what time the steel collapses occurred. They occurred quite rapidly after initiation.

Now the Windsor Tower had a large concrete and steel re-enforced core. THIS is what gave the tower its stability and load bearing ability. It did have redundancy structures that would keep it from totally collapsing. However the main reason why it didnt totally collapse: The solid concrete and steel re-enforced core and columns. WTC7 did NOT have these designs or redundancies built in. Unless you can show me in the blueprints where they had steel re-enforced concrete columns with concrete floors. And let us not forget the substation WTC7 was built over.

But a better way is to show you this site:
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I'm going camping this weekend,


This is the only thing of interest I can see in the thread.

Why would anyone go camping this weekend?

It'll be a madhouse anywhere you go.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


General, when a building is designed and engineered to withstand fire and planes and both, it does just that, load bearing shifts are a huge part of this especially when designed to tackle with hurricanes, now if these three buildings done as is the OS, the Architects, Structural Engineers, and everyone else would be charged with gross negligence resulting in the loss of human life, now you`ve seen the explosion of WTC2, there is no way on earth that punch was jet fuel.

I have a new video clip of the rear it is outrageously OTT for jet fuel the debris is everywhere, it also shows a lot of white smoke and flames, pure white a lot of freaky stuff going on also, especially the bit when a helicopter comes in then the Jet hits, then the chopper leaves, and there is some weird white light stuff going on.

That explosion at it`s peak was over 200 metres long and 120 metres in height, 34 cubic metres of jet fuel did not cause that.

/cheers

I`ll upload the video later, it`s best to watch it then watch it again through virtual dub, or you will miss a lot, oops drifted me bad, ah I just remembered where I d/l it from, the Caroline Dries one, just before impact 2 look out for the chopper...

www.history.com...#/nyu-dorms/

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
What the hell were you doing on 9/11/01? I, myself, watched the thing burn on TV. Are you seriously suggesting that the building never burned because YOU can't find a picture on the internet?


Ummm...noo...


Try more like:

I can find many photos and video of WTC 7 up until the point of collapse
and NONE of them show fire that can explain a symmetrical destruction.

NONE of them warrant a building to fall period.

As a matter of fact, I cannot see any massive flame in the upper portion
of the building that would be hot enough to take down the penthouse,
let alone the building.

Care to find me a picture / video that shows fire just before the building
falls?

As you can see, many of us in the truth movement can find pictures of
buildings with fire. Seventh posted a couple. Do you see the flames in
his presentation? I certainly can see the fire.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by hooper
What the hell were you doing on 9/11/01? I, myself, watched the thing burn on TV. Are you seriously suggesting that the building never burned because YOU can't find a picture on the internet?


Ummm...noo...


Try more like:

I can find many photos and video of WTC 7 up until the point of collapse
and NONE of them show fire that can explain a symmetrical destruction.

NONE of them warrant a building to fall period.

As a matter of fact, I cannot see any massive flame in the upper portion
of the building that would be hot enough to take down the penthouse,
let alone the building.

Care to find me a picture / video that shows fire just before the building
falls?

As you can see, many of us in the truth movement can find pictures of
buildings with fire. Seventh posted a couple. Do you see the flames in
his presentation? I certainly can see the fire.


Turbo, watch that video I linked, preferably via virtualdub, the helicopter bit is just wtf??????, also you will see some strange activities going on at the top of WTC2, and see some guys on a roof, and some weird black thing on the corner of WTC1, in fact there`s a few good videos in that lot
.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by hooper
What the hell were you doing on 9/11/01? I, myself, watched the thing burn on TV. Are you seriously suggesting that the building never burned because YOU can't find a picture on the internet?


Ummm...noo...


Try more like:

I can find many photos and video of WTC 7 up until the point of collapse
and NONE of them show fire that can explain a symmetrical destruction.

NONE of them warrant a building to fall period.

As a matter of fact, I cannot see any massive flame in the upper portion
of the building that would be hot enough to take down the penthouse,
let alone the building.

Care to find me a picture / video that shows fire just before the building
falls?

As you can see, many of us in the truth movement can find pictures of
buildings with fire. Seventh posted a couple. Do you see the flames in
his presentation? I certainly can see the fire.


So you know the building was consumed in fire but have decided that those fires were not suficient to cause the damage that resulted in the collapse. That's your call. History tells us otherwise. To spin a conspiracy around personal incredulity does not serve the truth.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
What are you talking about? There is NO fire visible.

FIND me a picture that shows flames any time during the day that you
consider "big enough" to cause the Penthouse to fall, or the building to
fall symmeterically.

COme on, show me you have some proof instead of blindly believing the stupid OCT.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
What are you talking about? There is NO fire visible.

FIND me a picture that shows flames any time during the day that you
consider "big enough" to cause the Penthouse to fall, or the building to
fall symmeterically.

COme on, show me you have some proof instead of blindly believing the stupid OCT.


Sorry, if you haven't seen all the videos and photos by this late date you either a) don't want to see them or b) saw them but prefer the comfort of your fantasy.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Fantasy?

Well, here's something right out of NIST's book. Have a gander at these
pictures taken just a few moments before collapse.

Contradiction?


www.youtube.com...

Yup, those tiny little flames brought down WTC 7 just about 30 minutes later.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Fantasy?

Well, here's something right out of NIST's book. Have a gander at these
pictures taken just a few moments before collapse.

Contradiction?


www.youtube.com...

Yup, those tiny little flames brought down WTC 7 just about 30 minutes later.



Yep, they did. And they also managed to produce a cloud of smoke the size of the entire building. So maybe basing your whole thesis on just one photo may be a little misleading. Just maybe.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Oh wow, smoke! I can fill my entire house with smoke using some burnt
dinner...and believe me, it's not that hot!


Let me know when you, or anyone else can find raging pictures/video of fire
just before the collapse that NIST couldn't produce.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by hooper
 


Oh wow, smoke! I can fill my entire house with smoke using some burnt
dinner...and believe me, it's not that hot!


Let me know when you, or anyone else can find raging pictures/video of fire
just before the collapse that NIST couldn't produce.


Really? You can produce a plume of smoke the size of your house just from burning your dinner?

Either
A) Your "dinner" consist of a chord wet pine
B) Your house is the size of a pup tent.

WTC 7 was consumed by fire.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooperWTC 7 was consumed by fire.


Consumed by smoke (on one side) maybe.

I'll be waiting for the pics of the inferno



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by hooperWTC 7 was consumed by fire.


Consumed by smoke (on one side) maybe.

I'll be waiting for the pics of the inferno


Yeah you're right - there was only smoke - no fire. And the source of that smoke was (fill in blank - any word but "fire").

So at least you admit that one whole side of the building was enveloped in smoke but you still don't think there was any fire.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I've been away for ages. And you still haven't answered my question Turbo.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


What's that question Trick?

Anyone care to answer my question, or will those go 69+ pages like the
"other" thread?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by turbofan
I didn't state it as fact, NIST is the organization that made the claim.


Okay. You point me to the bit where NIST claims that a fire burning at a constant temperature of 800 degrees was the sole reason the building fell.


Hope the camping was fun anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join