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.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by _BoneZ_
Problem is that most office furnishings are made of synthethic (aka plastics) material.
Almost everything is synthethic - from the computers/monitors to the
desk (particle board bonded with synthethic glue), chairs with urethene
foam (know as solid gasoline). Cubicle dividers are either styrafoam or
urethene sound deadening materials.
Plastics are derived from petroleum - when burned produce some 12,000
to 16,000 btu per lb. This is some 50 - 100 % more heat energy than that
produced by organic (wood, papaer, cloth which generate some 8000 -
8500 btu).
Modern offices have a very heavy fuel load and once ignited is almost
impossible to extinguish
There it is. All the synthetic materials inside the offices made the heat so hot, that it actually melted through the steel and brought down WT7 to nothing more then a bunch of rubble and debris.
HOW DID WE NOT SEE THIS!?
I'll tell you why. Because IF all synthetic materials inside offices did this to buildings, and became this hot, then it would be a VERY unsafe enviroment inside your typical office, don't you think? Yes, it would. SO I Highly doubt that the petroleum inside the plastics, inside WT7, is what brought the building down.
Because if this were the case, then A HELL OF A LOT of office buildings would be falling down. But they're not, and WT7 would be the first, right?
Yeppers
SO.....Pretty sure it wasn't burning office appliances that brought down WT7
[edit on 19 17uSaturday10 20 by vanhippi]
Originally posted by bigyin
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by _BoneZ_
We all know that WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 and fires were started which burned unfought for hours.
Now, as you know, WTC 1 and WTC 7 were not immediately adjacent to each other so I would suggest that no-one could have assumed beforehand that the collapse of WTC 1 would have automatically set fires in WTC 7. It was a matter of happenstance. So what could the perps have had in mind if they rigged WTC 7 for demolition ? That they would just bring it down willy nilly while the world and his wife watched ?
If you eliminate the fires, the firefighters, the leaning and bulging of WTC 7 how on earth could the perps have hoped to cd it without totally exposing themselves ?
Is it possible that Flight 93 was destined for WTC 7 before it got shot down ?
......... 2nd line ...........
Is it possible that Flight 93 was destined for WTC 7 before it got shot down ?
There it is. All the synthetic materials inside the offices made the heat so hot, that it actually melted through the steel and brought down WT7 to nothing more then a bunch of rubble and debris.
HOW DID WE NOT SEE THIS!?
I'll tell you why. Because IF all synthetic materials inside offices did this to buildings, and became this hot, then it would be a VERY unsafe enviroment inside your typical office, don't you think? Yes, it would. SO I Highly doubt that the petroleum inside the plastics, inside WT7, is what brought the building down.
Because if this were the case, then A HELL OF A LOT of office buildings would be falling down. But they're not, and WT7 would be the first, right?
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by jthomas
I'll be happy to discuss your refutation or challenge to the collapse mechanism of WTC 7 once you've read it and can point to specifics with which you disagree
I have read it. I understand it. I do not agree that fires could weaken the structure to total and complete collapse.
Originally posted by jthomas
You have not demonstrated factually that NIST's conclusions and collapse mechanism are incorrect.
Originally posted by jthomas
nor have I seen any CD company disagree with NIST's explanation either
Originally posted by jthomas
The nature of the design.
Originally posted by jthomas
Almost 7 full hours of uncontrolled fire on multiple floors weakening key structural element.
Originally posted by jthomas
It is not possible to extrapolate what happened to WTC 7 to a blanket claim as you have done, bone_z.
In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse
In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse
In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing
Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing
It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours
In 1945, the Empire State Building withstood the impact of a U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 bomber. Fourteen lives were lost, but the steel structure remained standing after the unarmed trainer plane slammed into the building’s 79th floor.
"its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames"
Originally posted by NIcon
So I would pay no mind to opinions from people who obviously have not read the report.
For WTC 7 to have fallen straight down like it did, every single support column had to have been severed at the exact same moment.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
WHEN did this alleged "rigging" occur?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Even in actual, verified known CD, the explosive charges don't remove the key structural members "all at the exact same moment" either.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Be that as it may, however, a VERY important question is constantly dodged, on this topic, by the "Truth" believers. I would to hear the answers, theories, and concepts to solve a simple logical dilemma:
Originally posted by weedwhacker
WHY are there no indications seen, as are seen in every other example of a known CD, of the explosive charges being set off?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
To me, that ties up, with the first two, the illogic of this entire argument.