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.

 

Lets say the OS was that the buildings had been taken down by explosives.....

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
so how can you have both , a fire proof inner core and a fire that makes steel melt and results in a collapse,


(sigh) and the damned fool conspiracy web sites found another victim in their con game. Where in the NIST report does it ever say the fires melted the steel? Please, point out the page to me.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
the circular reasoning goes as follows ,

the core structure failed due to fires which according to nist resulted in a pancake collapse ,

but the central core of the towers where insulated with asbestos ,

and the asbestos was not removed , they where still struggeling in court till may of 2001 to get funds to remove it. ,

so how can you have both , a fire proof inner core and a fire that makes steel melt and results in a collapse,

Well, it's important to note a couple things here

1. The actual fireproofing in the areas of fire was exclusively called SFRM or Sprayed Fire Resistive Material. It was not asbestos as that was not installed above a certain floor iirc.
2. The material was only lightly adhered to the steel, and would easily be separated by just brushing against it.
3. The office fires did not directly melt any steel that we are aware of.

NIST tested their hypothesis including the removal of fireproofing, and found that such a removal was required for their theory to work. They conducted experiments with steel components and shot fired at representative samples of the fireproofing and found that the aircraft hitting the building would dislodge the fireproofing very effectively. Often in fact the vibration in the steel would cause the whole block of SFRM to dislodge.

In fact, NIST devoted an entire 326 page paper to the passive fire protection available in the towers and how it would survive the impacts and subsequent fires: wtc.nist.gov...

If you want to skip to the bit about the spray on fireproofing impact tests, it is located in Appendix C on page 263 (PDF page 315). I hope this is the sort of thing you are looking for.


edit on 14-9-2010 by exponent because: Forgot to mention no steel melting



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Skinon
I mean at the end of the day. If it happened exactly how they said it did, then ALL of these discrepinsies wouldnt exist right? I mean come on, really? People really actually believe in their hearts without a doubt that the OS was exactly what happened? Morons. Plain and simple.

Really? I have examined all of the evidence and remain convinced of the 'official story'. Am I a moron? Would you care to challenge me to a formal debate on any topic?

The rationalisation of any opponents of your position to be idiots is a comforting one. However, by claiming that, you're calling thousands of well respected, cited, educated and experienced scientists morons. Which is pretty arrogant, so if you are so smart and I am so dumb. Challenge me to a debate on any topic you like.


im sure that any well respected, cited, educated experienced scientists are on some sort of payroll or under threat to say the OS is correct...its the ones who arent interested in money or dont listen to government threats who are EQUALLY as respected, educated and experienced who say the OS is BS

considering the evidence piling up against the OS is more logical, makes more sense and is beginning to out weigh evidence for the OS id say ur in complete denial to believe the OS



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   



9/11 was the largest crime in American History, it has never received a proper criminal investigation, and anyone trying to get in the way of this ongoing independent investigation should have their motives seriously questioned. This information is shared for free, via the internet. No on is getting rich on 9/11 Truth, try looking at some of these connections instead: drug smuggling, money laundering, banking, Military Industry, Who's making the real money here?


www.YouTube.com...

Kevin Ryan exposes more CIA connections to 9/11:
911blogger.com...

Center for International Studies releases 3 Terabytes of data:
911blogger.com...

Jonathan Cole's Explosive Connections:
911blogger.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

findarticles.com...

Securacomm Consulting Inc. v. Securacom Incorporated, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 20, 1999, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1444; 166 F.3d 182, altlaw.org...

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.




edit on 14/9/2010 by Mirthful Me because: EX Tags.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo
im sure that any well respected, cited, educated experienced scientists are on some sort of payroll or under threat to say the OS is correct...its the ones who arent interested in money or dont listen to government threats who are EQUALLY as respected, educated and experienced who say the OS is BS

So there are tens of thousands of scientists, all being paid by the government to lie about the 'official story'. But you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this? Not a single scientist producing a payslip from some government affiliated company in exchange for keeping quiet.

Then you tell me that I am a fool for not believing in the evidence you present. Is it any surprise I don't believe you when you make such silly claims as the above?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   






edit on 14-9-2010 by KIZZZY because: ADD



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by KIZZZY
 


Please do not spam threads. Your links don't even work, you're just trying to bury the discussion here. I've reported your post so that the moderators can take appropriate action.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by KIZZZY
 


Please do not spam threads. Your links don't even work, you're just trying to bury the discussion here. I've reported your post so that the moderators can take appropriate action.


This is an open forum. I am not off topic here and if I am, there are Moderators to take care of it.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by zerbot565
so how can you have both , a fire proof inner core and a fire that makes steel melt and results in a collapse,


(sigh) and the damned fool conspiracy web sites found another victim in their con game. Where in the NIST report does it ever say the fires melted the steel? Please, point out the page to me.


then enlighten me as to how the nist collapse happened



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
then enlighten me as to how the nist collapse happened

Do you really think that is fair? The NIST report covers more than 10,000 pages of experimentation and analysis. Why don't you start by reading the summary report?

You can find it here: wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 


They had enough time to get in there to rig the place!




"Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate "power-down" on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. -- a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton -- this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York's Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC's computer bandwidth. However, there seems to be no logical reason why the electricity need be shut down in order to upgrade computer bandwidth.

The Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC's first occupants after it was erected, and a "power-down" had never been initiated prior to this occasion. Forbes also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) -- approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC's security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors. Forbes states that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out."



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by KIZZZY
and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York's Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up.


Funny how no one else knew about this so called "power down", only 1 person in 1 tower made the claim.... there is no record of any such power down anywhere else!



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


come on, dont you have any of your OWN words to describe what happened in the nist rapport ?

cant be that hard to re tell something you know is "empiric , factual and true" ,



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So fire can accomplish something that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt?
Fire can do what timed explosives are normally needed to accomplish?
If you were as smart as you think you are, why are you not using this profound discovery to put Demolition Inc., out of business and make millions? I bet ya never thought of that huh? Let me know how your new business does...


Actually, since this is a "lets turn things around" thread, let us turn this one around:
If burning buildings never ever collapse: Why put them out in the first place? Wouldnt it be a lot easier to just let the fire run out of fuel, and then replace the damaged furniture, than have 1000s of people on call, and risk their lifes to send them in, and extinguish burning buildings?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
come on, dont you have any of your OWN words to describe what happened in the nist rapport ?

cant be that hard to re tell something you know is "empiric , factual and true" ,

It's quite hard to fit everything they did into a simple sentence, plus I've already done this a bunch of times. I'll do a one paragraph explanation for you as a gesture of good faith. I'll just cover the two towers in this, but I really encourage you to read the report I linked. It's about 300 pages long, but you can skip quite a bit of that I suspect if you're only interested in the impacts, fires and failure.

I think we can both agree that planes crashed into the towers. When this occured they destroyed a number of columns on the side they impacted, and did some damage to the core structures. In WTC1 the impact was quite straight and aimed at the centre, wheras in WTC2 the plane hit to one side, and so missed more of the core and made it more of the way through the building (resulting in an engine being ejected at high speed). This impact also destroyed a lot of the fireproofing around the core and knocked a lot of the sprayed on foam off the beams. The fires that followed slowly heated the structure, and as they exhausted the fuel available, they moved through the building consuming fresh fuel. Eventually they heated up the floor trusses from the floors immediately above each fire enough that they began to sag. This sagging and the cooling of some of the damaged floor trusses pulled inwards on the exterior wall of the towers. Eventually, this exterior wall failed and caused the upper block to begin to fall and tilt towards this failure. This caused the rest of the supports on that level to fail in a zipper like fashion. This failure lead to the upper block collapsing to the next floor. Gaining enough energy due to gravity to destroy that floor, and the process repeated itself from there.

It's quite a difficult thing to explain quickly, as you can see, but I will be happy to point you to the points in the reports that deal with each section, should you require it. Let me know.


edit on 15-9-2010 by exponent because: Grammar/spelling



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
come on, dont you have any of your OWN words to describe what happened in the nist rapport ?

cant be that hard to re tell something you know is "empiric , factual and true" ,


Noone has ever said the NIST findings are, "empiric, factual, and true", not even NIST. They openly state it's an estimate based upon available evidence. In a nutshell-

1) WTC 1 collapsed and dumped wreckage down onto WTC 7. The wreckage damaged the building, destroyed the power grid and water supplies from the street, and started fires on or around the 5th floor.

2) the fires burned out of control due to the water being cut off, and it spread to the 13th floor. This floor is where the structural supports for the upper sections of the building came together to channel the weight down to the bottom, like the base of a tree.

3) uncontrolled fires caused uneven heating on the steel supports. One section of steel was heated to a higher temperature than another location, and it caused thermal expansion on a critical vertical support and it buckled. When it buckled, it pushed a connecting girder sideways and caused other vertical supports to buckle. The weight of the upper section sitting on the buckled supports caused the building to sag and bulge between the 5th and 14th floors.

4) Somewhere along the line, enough vertical supports were damaged and the penthouse collapsed into the interior. This collapse fatally destroyed the remaining supports keeping it up, and ten seconds later, the whole thing collapsed.

There are other scenarios out there, like the University of Edinborough who says the wreckage impact from WTC 1 caused more damage to WTC 7 than anyone realized, and NIST fire expert James Quintiere who says the buildings didn't have enough fire proofing to begin with, that are plausible, mainly becuase a) they fit all the independent facts and b) they don't require anyone to invent any cartoon plots to make it work, like armies of secret disinformation agents and sinister gov't ninjas sneaking into an occupied building and planting secret demolitons without anyone noticing. I doubt we'll ever know for sure.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo
im sure that any well respected, cited, educated experienced scientists are on some sort of payroll or under threat to say the OS is correct...its the ones who arent interested in money or dont listen to government threats who are EQUALLY as respected, educated and experienced who say the OS is BS

So there are tens of thousands of scientists, all being paid by the government to lie about the 'official story'. But you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this? Not a single scientist producing a payslip from some government affiliated company in exchange for keeping quiet.

Then you tell me that I am a fool for not believing in the evidence you present. Is it any surprise I don't believe you when you make such silly claims as the above?


If 99% of all respected scientists don't believe in ufos and aliens, while 1% does, does that make the 99% correct and the 1% wrong? Or perhaps the opposite is true....

If 90% of the global population hates zionism while 10% does'nt, does that mean 90% are correct and the 10% are wrong? Or perhaps the opposite is true...

If 99.99999999% of the american population thinks that the Federal Reserve Bank of America is a government institution rather than a semi-private INDEPENDANT bank, does that mean the 99.999999999% are correct and the 0.0000001% are wrong? Or perhaps the opposite is true...

My friend, sometimes quality and quantity DO NOT directly correlate, particulary if the truth is too important for everyone to know. I hope you sense the deep irony and sarcasm of my post but at the same time its nothing to take personal!




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join