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.

 

Until 911 - Fire has never collapsed a skyscraper

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Valhall
 


And that cannot be lies?


I think the whole report is a worthless pile of fire-starter. But that's all we've got, right? That's been my point for several years now.




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


It is all we've got. But I am inclined to believe particularly the parts about materials are lies.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Valhall
 


It is all we've got. But I am inclined to believe particularly the parts about materials are lies.


Well, good for you! Unless you can produce some real evidence, it's about as concrete a theory as hologram planes.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


This is correct, they were built to code but the problem is, what code?

As an interstate agency, the Port Authority was not subject to local laws and regulations of the City of New York including building codes. Nonetheless, the structural engineers of the World Trade Center ended up following draft versions of the new 1968 building codes.

Another thing I found strange is this. Now, if you have ever been in the WTC or worked there you would know that those things would 'sway'. It was not a solid concrete structure. So...

One of the chief engineers Leslie Robertson worked with Canadian engineer Alan G. Davenport to develop viscoelastic dampers to absorb some of the sway. These viscoelastic dampers, used throughout the structures at the joints between floor trusses and perimeter columns along with some other structural modifications, reduced the building sway to an acceptable level

I wonder if these viscoelastic dampers had anything to do with the collapse also.

The thing I hate to see is the fact that they built it in about 5 years including excavation and we still do not have a building there 8 years later.

Also, NIST was bought in to make sure this does not happen again, just like the Commission was bought in to make sure another attack did not happen. This was not to find blame in anyway. In fact, WTC 7, the new one, was built to code provided by the NIST report for safety.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
we still do not have a building there 8 years later.


Maybe because it was a crime scene for a period of time and the clean up operation?

You are literally clutching straws if you honestly think the building was built on the cheap. It if was, the car bomb attack of 1993 would have created more damage to the structure.

And to think a federal agency, which monitor regulations of skyscrapers, would deliberately ignore safety concerns is hilarious. Are we honestly suggesting the conspiracy started before the building was even built?!



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I will add that not long before 9/11 I did see a program on some cable channel specifically talking about a steel-framed building that had collapsed and the cause was supposedly due to fire and lack of spinklers. I have no recollection of what channel or what building but I do remember remembering that program on 9/11 thinking, "It is going to be just like the building in that program I watched not long ago, isn't it?"

Lo and behold.

It seemed like rather serendipitious timing for the show (a few months at most). I hadn't caught it being played again since the Sept. 11.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Correct me if I am wrong ma'am. But doesn't that applies to your comments about the NIST as well?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 



And to think a federal agency, which monitor regulations of skyscrapers, would deliberately ignore safety concerns is hilarious.


It's happend before.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Valhall
 


Correct me if I am wrong ma'am. But doesn't that applies to your comments about the NIST as well?


Oh no, no it doesn't. Because my comment has evidence to support it. It's in the NIST report. My comment was toward the lies they admitted in their own report. I wasn't talking about some evidence yet to be found.

They presented data and then formed conclusions in an official report that are contradictory to the data they presented in the same report. That's called "lying". They also ADMITTEDLY ran models at conditions that their own report states they did not have data to support and when they FINALLY (FALLACIOUSLY) got the model to indicate LOCAL collapse INITIATION. Said - SEE! the planes and the fire made the buildings fall.

Voila.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Ma'am, I think perhaps I should drop this but I will say one more thing. All of those statements where statements of fact without proof. Rather like my comment.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Here is an interesting paper. I doubt it will make any difference though.

Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire


The Scope of Work consisted of three separate Tasks, one of which was to conduct a survey of historical information on fire occurrences in multi-story buildings, which resulted in full or partial structural collapse. The results of this individual Task are the subject of this paper.



The historical search for catastrophic multi-story fires included incidents dating back to the 1950’s, or earlier, with emphasis on those which occurred in North America. In addition, similar events that occurred throughout the world were also solicited and captured as available.



In summary, a total of 22 cases from 1970-2002 are presented in Table 1, with 15 from the US and two from Canada. The number of fire-induced collapse events can be categorized by building construction material as follows:
• Concrete: 7
• Structural steel: 6
• Brick/masonry: 5
• Unknown: 2
• Wood: 2


EnlightenUp.
What is this? I have just read through a so called "paper" which has no "references" or "Bibleography" section so basically it is not worth the paper it is written on, however since you took the time to post it, I have took the time to read it.
If you had bothered to read it before attaching it as some kind of evidence against the OP title statementyou would see that out of the 20 cases it cites, only 6 are of 21 floors or more and therefore considered to be "skyscrapers" and 4 of these are actually the WTC buildings themselves.
So where does that leave us? The remaining 2 are:

Jackson street Apartments in Canada - 21 floors which suffered some "partial" cieling & floor collapse due to fire

and

No 1 New York Plaza - 50 floors which suffered Connection bolts sheared during fire, causing several steel filler beams on the 33-34th floors to fall and rest on the bottom flanges of their supporting girders. I would hardly call this a collapse.

So I will stand by my original title claim that until 911 - Fire has not caused any skyscrapers to collapse. This is a serious attempt by you sir to de-rail this thread with dis-info.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Valhall
 


Ma'am, I think perhaps I should drop this but I will say one more thing. All of those statements where statements of fact without proof. Rather like my comment.


No they are not and why would you drop it? Every statement I just made is IN THE NIST REPORT. There is nothing I've said that is not in a U.S. TAXPAYER FUNDED OFFICIAL REPORT. It's there. And has been discussed (by me) on this board with copy paste, quotes, pictures, references and links enough times over several years that you will have no problem finding all the supporting evidence you need.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Considering I tend to ignore the NIST. *shrugs* You didn't show where it contradicts itself you merely said it did. But I will now respectfully bow out. Have a good day.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


So, judging by your theory, safety problems were deliberately ignored during construction (1966 - 1973) in order for it to be easily destroyed in 2001.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905

Originally posted by Dramey
its also absolutely shocking everyone forgets the empire state building incident

thats probably never been covered in the news when speaking of 911


There is zero comparison to the two impacts. The B-25 was a tiny aircraft compared to the 737(?) that hit the towers. It was an accident at a slow speed not a deliberate act at full speed loaded with fuel.

The construction of the two buildings is also too different to draw any comparisons.


The WTC buildings were NOT hit by 737's at full speed (far from it) and they were not fully loaded with fuel either.
The B 25 is a smaller aircraft but then the ESB was a much smaller building too.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


No. That end part I ever even infer sir or ma'am.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
So I will stand by my original title claim that until 911 - Fire has not caused any skyscrapers to collapse.


I brought it in as something to look at related to the topic. Review it. Look at it. Do what ever you like with it.

HAI Fire Protection


Hughes Associates, Inc. (HAI) is a global company leading the fire protection engineering field with highly trained consultants, engineers, and fire investigators specializing in fire testing, fire modeling, and fire protection design.



This is a serious attempt by you sir to de-rail this thread with dis-info.


Watch the mouth, mmmkay?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Yes they were. They had not to long ago taken off.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
This is a serious attempt by you sir to de-rail this thread with dis-info.

PEACE,
RK


That's pretty much uncalled for and not okay in this forum. If you reject the reference he provides, you are well within your rights. But you don't have the right to accuse him of that simply because he is opposed to your views.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
That's pretty much uncalled for and not okay in this forum. If you reject the reference he provides, you are well within your rights. But you don't have the right to accuse him of that simply because he is opposed to your views.


Thank you.

My views aren't really in opposition per se. I find the apparent dearth of comparable catastrophic incidents worthy of note and it has me thinking more about the matter. I wanted to just leave it to the reader. I find the same thing a bit curious even thought I had heard of such an incident in the media just before 9-11-- almost a little too close to 9-11. It almost seemed like a preconditioning if I let suspicion be my guide.

My personal position is actually held steadfastly neutral in the matter for now.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join