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.

 

One million New Yorkers to see Building 7 fall (AE911truth)

page: 8
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


The stuff I quoted earlier said that it was directly from the fire areas, as well as directly above and below the fire areas.

It also stated that the microstructure of the steel was not affected, and therefore we know that it was not affected by the heat.

There are other documents on ATS that I have posted that show how they test steel. It is called "second pass testing." In other words, they subject steel to intense heat......above 1000 C, for a period of time. Then they rapidly cool it similar to what a fire hose might do. Then they heat it again to similar extreme temperatures, and the steel is required to not lose structural integrity for 12 hours on the second pass.

Those tests are common for normal high rise buildings. They apply special more stringent requirements to extra tall buildings, and/or to buildings in highly populated areas (density). Therefore, we can assume that the tallest building in the country, in the most dense population in the country would have far stricter standards than what I listed above.

Surely we can agree on the strict standards, and the fire codes and "second pass testing" are easily attainable, although I can't get them right now, but I have posted them on ATS before.

So, NIST report says no temperature over 600 C for any significant time. Fire code says minimum of 12 hours at 1000C on a second pass for most basic high rise. Yet, the buildings fell after only a couple of hours?

No way the fire was the cause of the collapse. Seems so easy to me, what am I missing?




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Now wait, are you contending that all the structural steel in the WTC could be heated to 1800 degrees F for 12 hours without any change in its size or loading capacity? And it was not fire alone, there was a lot of uneven damage caused to the structure by the initial impact and explosion of the plane.

And I am sorry I will never buy the idea that there is steel out there that does not expand when heated.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I wish the add was nationwide and not only for New Yorker's, but i do understand running a add on TV can be very expensive and if i had to pick a demographic, New York would probably be my choice also. It's amazing how many people don't know about this building and the explanation given by NIST on why it collapsed. I'm willing to give NIST a pass on WTC 1 & 2 considering the actions of our govenment and the relatively short amount of time after 911, but there is no excuse for WTC 7 considering the time and controvesry surrounding this building.

To write off any other possible reasons for this building to collapse because no loud noises were recorded is irresponsible to say the least, not to mention not interviewing someone who was in the building, Barry Jennings, who had valued information for their report. Hopefully, this will also shed some light on his untimely death that many people don't know about either.



[snip]

Mod Edit - removed off topic portion of post.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by elevatedone]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
There is one FACT....yes i said " Fact" that proves beyond doubt that WTC7 was pre rigged to be demolished. This is very often un-mentioned in debate, but it is evidence that cant be debunked.

What is this evidence??

Namely, the BBc anchor "Jane Standley" stating that WTC7 had fallen as we all watched it still intact behind her !! 20 minutes later it did fall.

Also, the BBC conveniantly lost their tapes !...I quote

" We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that"

An Error !!!! thats not an error...that is Clayervoiyance !!!!!!!


Respects



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 


How does that prove anything? Why would the people who pulled off the attack announce it on TV? What would be the point?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Many believe 9-11 was an orchestrated event that included the media (especially U.S. and UK). to help sell it to the public.

Remember what all this led to; Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Homeland security, the loss of numerous rights, etc. The media was an integral part of all this.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by Paschar0]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Just a friendly heads up on temperatures in the so called "regular office fires":

www.doctorfire.com...

www.drj.com...

It was a startling sight: Six minutes and 55 seconds after a fire ignited in a wastebasket containing typical office trash, flashover occurred and near-ceiling gas temperatures reached a peak of at least 1,600 F. About 90 seconds later, flames filled the entire room and eventually consumed all of its combustible furnishings.
..............

As if that’s not enough cause for concern, consider that even the most basic construction elements of a high-rise can contribute to overall fire damage. Structural steel rapidly loses strength as its temperature exceeds 1,000 F and localized collapse is likely, making adequate fire protection of such structural elements essential.


Also as was mentioned before, it was not just jetfuel burning, but about 10 floors of office, with each floor an acre of space. (This is for the WTC 1+2)

As for WTC7, that was an office building burning for 7 hours nearly. There are not any firecodes for steel that require the fireproofing to last for 7 hours of fire exposure. Could the fuel tanks inside contributed? Maybe?

[edit on 8/13/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Expanding and contracting is accounted for. That is why some beams are bolted with slots, and others are bolted and welded. The top of the world trade center was able to sway quite a bit. I don't have the exact number of feet, but I know a similar building in Chicago sways 5 ft in high winds. The St. Louis Arch sways about 2 ft.

Other than that, the answer is yes. You have to think how common fires in high rises are. They never fall down. NYC firefighters deal with this every day, and they saw no potential of a collapse. They were the experts, they see this type of thing all the time. They even see arson cases with better accelerants, and they knew that there was no chance of collapse.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Paschar0
 


So the BBC are in on it? Just to clarify.

An organisation of what, 30000 people or something?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Just a friendly heads up on temperatures in the so called "regular office fires":

www.doctorfire.com...

www.drj.com...

It was a startling sight: Six minutes and 55 seconds after a fire ignited in a wastebasket containing typical office trash, flashover occurred and near-ceiling gas temperatures reached a peak of at least 1,600 F. About 90 seconds later, flames filled the entire room and eventually consumed all of its combustible furnishings.
..............

As if that’s not enough cause for concern, consider that even the most basic construction elements of a high-rise can contribute to overall fire damage. Structural steel rapidly loses strength as its temperature exceeds 1,000 F and localized collapse is likely, making adequate fire protection of such structural elements essential.


Also as was mentioned before, it was not just jetfuel burning, but about 10 floors of office, with each floor an acre of space. (This is for the WTC 1+2)

As for WTC7, that was an office building burning for 7 hours nearly. There are not any firecodes for steel that require the fireproofing to last for 7 hours of fire exposure. Could the fuel tanks inside contributed? Maybe?

[edit on 8/13/2010 by GenRadek]


Thank you, but doesn't that support the idea that fire did not cause the collapse? Typical office fires burn hotter than the WTC and they don't collapse.

Also, the NIST report said that there was no evidence of temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Paschar0
 


So the BBC are in on it? Just to clarify.

An organisation of what, 30000 people or something?


No, and I am not saying this is the truth, or my own opinion, but the line of reasoning goes like this. There was a prescripted press release by those in the know. Somehow the press release made it to the European affiliates too early and they ran with it.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Paschar0
 


So the BBC are in on it? Just to clarify.

An organisation of what, 30000 people or something?


No, and I am not saying this is the truth, or my own opinion, but the line of reasoning goes like this. There was a prescripted press release by those in the know. Somehow the press release made it to the European affiliates too early and they ran with it.


That's pointless though. Why bother with a press release? Why not just let the building come down and then allow them to report it as normal?

And even if the perpetrators did do something as idiotic as write a press release, is it really plausible that they would send it early?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Just look at how the CIA manipulates governments and media in other countries over the years and you can the idea. "Confessions of an economic hitman" come to mind...unless you believe that's a bunch of lies too.

Take Fox news for example, directives come from the top on how to approach "news", OUTFOXED talked about it. I'm quite sure other networks work the same way. So hard would it really be to plant anything you want. I mean have you SEEN the bobbleheads that just read anything in front of them?

Frankly I'm amazed at anyone that thinks their government DOESN'T lie, cheat and steal.

Through my own personal experience, I've seen first hand how absolutely corrupt government can be, maybe that makes it so easy to accept.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Ok, again as I was saying, on the news during the 9/11 stuff and its aftermath I distinctly remember them showing government workers (firemen, not sure) entering building and placing explosives for controlled demolition.

www.wtc7.net...

That site seems to represent the extent of damage done to building 7. It shows there were chunks of the building missing.

I find it would be logical that if a building could potentially topple that someone would perform a controlled demolition in order to keep from there being more disasters during the cleanup efforts. I honestly don't understand why people find this hard to believe. Chunks of building 1 smashed into building 7.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by captiva
What is this evidence??

Namely, the BBc anchor "Jane Standley" stating that WTC7 had fallen as we all watched it still intact behind her !! 20 minutes later it did fall.

They did find the tape, they had been filed under September 2002 (but I guess that's just part of the conspiracy).

Also, the BBC reporter was reading a news bulletin from Reuters, which stated that WTC7 had just collapsed. Reuters subsequently put out a correction, stating that:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."


All courtesy of www.bbc.co.uk... - so I guess that's just part of the conspiracy anyway..



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paschar0
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Just look at how the CIA manipulates governments and media in other countries over the years and you can the idea. "Confessions of an economic hitman" come to mind...unless you believe that's a bunch of lies too.

Take Fox news for example, directives come from the top on how to approach "news", OUTFOXED talked about it. I'm quite sure other networks work the same way. So hard would it really be to plant anything you want. I mean have you SEEN the bobbleheads that just read anything in front of them?

Frankly I'm amazed at anyone that thinks their government DOESN'T lie, cheat and steal.

Through my own personal experience, I've seen first hand how absolutely corrupt government can be, maybe that makes it so easy to accept.


I agree with the thrust of what you're saying. But my question is specific. If you were blowing up a building, why announce it on the news? What's the point?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


What’s the point?

They don’t care any more about 9/11 than they do for the Alamo.
Sure there has been an effort by many to hide things and spread lies but its not needed anymore, America stopped caring a long time ago.

The average American is more concerned with war, plastic junk from China and 99 cent double cheeseburgers; they do not have the ability or desire to understand 9/11

Even if they somehow figure it out, it means nothing to them.

Today’s America is not the same America from 50 years ago, the only people who care either way are the Truthers and those who are paid to care, I lost 7 years of my life trying to get answers only to finally understand that people forget, lose interest and are only concerned with their own lives and comforts.

It’s why the NWO will win, we are a failed species.

Before anyone thinks to give me crap for my defeatist attitude, understand that I have been living with 9/11 since 9/11, only recently was I able to get it out of my head and life, I will not lose any more of my life to this.

P.S Larry Silverstein is a grade A scumbag who enjoyed letting his Guards freeze in the Wintertime in front of Riverplace, even when it was – 10 degrees out, it is well known among his staff that he is one evil son of bitch; I have no trouble believing he was in on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


But did you overlook this little tid-bit?


As if that’s not enough cause for concern, consider that even the most basic construction elements of a high-rise can contribute to overall fire damage. Structural steel rapidly loses strength as its temperature exceeds 1,000 F and localized collapse is likely, making adequate fire protection of such structural elements essential.


Also NIST did say that temperatures inside the fires reached 1,000C.

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

wtc.nist.gov...

The main problems were the floor trusses for the Twin Towers. Light steel trusses are very dangerous in fires, especially when left unexposed, as it was after the impact of the airliner knocked off the fireproofing. Light floor trusses fail very quickly once exposed to fires. The upper air temperatures and the flames would have an adverse effect on them. It is widely known in the firefighting community and fire safety groups that light steel truss supported roofs or structures that utilize steel light steel trusses are death traps during a fire, and firefighters are not allowed to go in for fears of roof collapse, which usually happen. The McCormick Place fire in Chicago had a large heavy steel truss roof that collapsed from fire alone rapidly after the onset of the fire.

Now to head off any tangents or chances of exploits, it must be said that NO: the "pancake theory" was NOT the initializer of collapse. It was the sagging of the trusses that pulled in the exterior columns causing the structural failure. Pancaking ocurred AFTER that, as its common sense that where else are the floors going to go? They went down, pancaking on top of each other, sheering off the connections between the exterior and interior columns, leaving a free standing exterior tube that seconds later peeled apart and away from the force of the collapsing debris above.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I am sorry, I have to disagree with you here. Expansion and contraction are considered, however you could not accomodate the expansion that results from exposing a beam to in excess of 1000F. And fires are not common in high rises, particularly the type and magnitude we had on 9/11. Until 9/11 there was no high rise building ever exposed to fire that resulted from a huge jetliner suddenly being parked in the middle of the office space and set ablaze.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
While you're at it, be sure to remind all the New Yorkers that the planes they saw hitting the towers were all holograms and the WTC was really brought down by nukes in the basement. After all, if you're going to (cough cough) educate people on "material they don't know" then you might as well educate them on all the material you conspiracy people have.

Or, are you going to invoke censorship and only allow New Yorkers to know the material you yourself want them to know?


Its funny that you should mention the invocation of censorship about something that has already clearly been censored. Make no mistake it has been censored the way you want it to be, everyone here knows this.

And honestly, "we" don't have to educate people on the material presented by "truthers", "we" merely have to illustrate the lack of evidence that the US government and MSM are have produced in 9 years.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by jprophet420]




top topics



 
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join