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.

 

FOIA WTC-7 Video. No Question: MASSIVE FIRES!

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Not sure what you mean by "external" fires, but if you want day photos, I'm happy to oblige:
...
Windsor, Spain fire:
...
Yep, still no collapses from ANY steel-framed skyscraper fires, day or night.

Uh, you see that mess of tangled blackened rubbish at the top of the picture?

That was the steel framing. The building didn't collapse because it was concrete reinforced.

Nice try though. I also seem to notice none of these buildings seem to have been hit by a plane.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent


Nice try though. I also seem to notice none of these buildings seem to have been hit by a plane.



Nor was building 7...

So...why did it collapse?

Oh...yeah...I forgot, it was THE FIRST AND ONLY, in the history of BOTH fire and buildings- that a steel frame building collapsed due to fire.

So...since it is a thing that has happened only once in history, I do not think this is a subject any of us can just wave a hand at and explain away as if it is common sense...

Fact remains, no steel frame building- but building 7- has ever been reported to collapse due to fire, even though there has been dozens and dozens of steel frames with larger fires within them.

I'm sorry, I'm not a structural engineer or a demolition expert...so you won't find me calling any laymen here an idiot for "not accepting the OS".



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Uh, you see that mess of tangled blackened rubbish at the top of the picture?

That was the steel framing. The building didn't collapse because it was concrete reinforced.

As if the WTC towers weren't reinforced with concrete. I've heard this ridiculous assertion before. Is it some kind of standard debunker script? Tell them it needs to be revised.


Originally posted by exponent
Nice try though. I also seem to notice none of these buildings seem to have been hit by a plane.

Did you also notice that no plane hit WTC 7 (the subject of your thread, in case you've forgotten) and that WTC 1 and 2 were specifically designed and constructed to withstand MULTIPLE jetliner impacts?


A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."


Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001:

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

911research.wtc7.net...

Nice try yourself.


edit on 9/14/2010 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Oh...yeah...I forgot, it was THE FIRST AND ONLY, in the history of BOTH fire and buildings- that a steel frame building collapsed due to fire.

No it wasn't, it was the first high rise steel framed structure to fail due to fire. For a good reason too, WTC7 was hit by debris from the collapse of WTC1 and the fire in it was allowed to burn all day.

Can you find any parallel in history? It's doubtful.


I'm sorry, I'm not a structural engineer or a demolition expert...so you won't find me calling any laymen here an idiot for "not accepting the OS".

I don't believe I did, I just pointed out that the steel framing had already collapsed, and that if steel is so invulnerable to fire, why is it fireproofed?


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
As if the WTC towers weren't reinforced with concrete. I've heard this ridiculous assertion before. Is it some kind of standard debunker script? Tell them it needs to be revised.

This is just embarrassing for you. Do you not know the construction of the WTC? It's been 9 years now, you've had plenty of time to find out. If they were reinforced with concrete, where? The only concrete I know of was the floor slabs, which did not provide any fire protection.


Did you also notice that no plane hit WTC 7 (the subject of your thread, in case you've forgotten) and that WTC 1 and 2 were specifically designed and constructed to withstand MULTIPLE jetliner impacts?

WTC7 was not designed for any plane impacts, and as your own quotes say, the WTC towers were designed for a low speed aircraft. They were also considered to be safe if a plane impacted, but the resultant fire was not considered.

This exactly tallies with the events of the day. The towers survived the initial impact as they were suspected to be capable of, but they did not survive the resultant fire.

Please, if you're going to try and write a comeback, do not make it clear you don't even know the basic construction details of the towers.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
"I also seem to notice none of these buildings seem to have been hit by a plane."

"Nor was building 7..."

Classic! By the way, next time I need some help deciphering what happened on 9/11, I'll make sure to solicit the help of someone who knows simple facts like which planes were allegedly hit by airliners. Thanks for trying to be of service anyway.

"If even a single one of you changed your mind and actually agreed with the facts available. I would consider that a victory."

There are a few debunker types on this site who pretend to be truthers at first and then miraculously jump over to the OS side after they have had an epiphany. You might want to try your luck with them. After all, convincing a fake truther is better than convincing nobody at all.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I'll say it again

I work in a steel factory, more specifically the melt shop

We use an electric arc furnace to melt scrap

Our ladles are about 3 stories big and hold up to 150 ton of liquid steel

I will tell you now it would take an applied fire (meaning the fire is directly on the steel) about 3 hours to melt the kind of steel used in the world trade center

and once that steel had melted it does not justify all the steel losing it's strenth and succumbing to fall down

If anything the top half would fall over leaving half of a building



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I appreciate you taking the time to quote and reply to my post.

But, I must say, until you start showing me some credentials proving that you are professionally educated/trained in these areas, then your testimony can only be logged in my mind as "guess work, conjecture and regurgitation"

Not being rude... basically I can say the same about my own thoughts on this subject...I'm not a professional anything, never mind engineer or Demo-expert.

But, I can say a thing for my own opinion on this matter.

The story doesn't fit...not just buildings, not just fires or planes. The ENTIRE STORY reads "to me" like a farce. Knowing full well that our very own government has had its hand in many criminal activities (including false flag attacks and murdering its own people for sinister agendas), I am not willing to lay down and accept your opinion over my own.

Alls I ask for is this-

New investigation....answers I can handle (I'm not that dumb, I can accept a story that makes sense), and for people to stop making this a 911/truther thing.

In short...I'm sorry...in truth me and you are just echoing things we have heard online and off... neither of us are decorated scientists, steel frame building engineers or bomb/fire experts.

Sadly, I base my theories much upon the weight of those exact people telling ME (the uneducated bystander) that there is 100% NO CHANCE this happened the way the OS says it did.

Am I screaming inside job? Nope...

Am I saying Bush and the devil work hand in hand with the illuminated eye people? Nope...

I'm saying that your "opinions based on regurgitated information outside your field of expertise" can never contend with the reports and statements of the hundreds of engineers already out and screaming "THE OS IS A HOAX".

Never mind the fact that even without those engineers, I am still able to see dozens of oddities within the OS that my rational mind deems "impossible"

Heck...a plastic passport fell from the explosion "after" the plane hit...and tumbled to the ground, and landed at the feet of government agents...really?

Yeah...sorry...there is too much to just wave away as a laymen while acting more superior/informed then the next guy.

If you can not understand why this story is being questioned by so many "intelligent" folks that is fine.

Just know that in a court of law, your words would not invoke the wrath of the "verdict gods" on the simple minded people like me, questioning endless anomalies in logic and circumstance.

Graduate MIT with a degree and then show me some evidence and I will put your words up there with the rest of the experts on both sides...

For now, I just think "you are being close minded to something that is easy to see".

Whoever is right...this thread will prove nothing...and neither of us are valid speakers on the subject.

MM











edit on 14-9-2010 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
WTC7 was not designed for any plane impacts, and as your own quotes say, the WTC towers were designed for a low speed aircraft.

Might want to brush up on your reading comprehension:


"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."


Originally posted by exponent
They were also considered to be safe if a plane impacted, but the resultant fire was not considered.

Oh, I see -- WTC architects and engineers factored in the effects of a jetliner impact, but failed to consider the resulting fuel fires?!

Is there anything you won't distort or fabricate?


John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

Dewd, you're something else. You should've quit while you were ahead. Wait, that would've meant not starting this ridiculous thread.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Another ridiculous strawman argument to ovoid the facts.

It doesn't matter how big the fires were, a natural collapse cannot land in its own footprint.

There is no argument that WTC 7 landed mostly in its own footprint.

You won't get anywhere with this line of argument, nor the 'free-fall' argument.

The only thing you have left is to prove that a natural collapse can somehow land in its own footprint. Take note that buildings as tall as WTC7 are not normally imploded, as it is very difficult, so to expect it to happen naturally is completely ludicrous. If you really believe it then I have good news for you, I have real estate on the Moon you can have very cheap, a bit cold but the views are nice, let me know...

www.infoplease.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Another ridiculous strawman argument to ovoid the facts.



ANOK... didn't you make the claim that the massive amounts of smoke were not from WTC-7... but from dust?

Yup... that was you:


Originally posted by ANOKBut the one I want you to focus on is the last one, the famous pic that de-bunkers claim is smoke from the WTC7 fires.
This series of pics shows you that the 'smoke' is in fact obviously the dust from the second towers collapse.


then you went on and said this:


Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmmmm where are all you de-bunkers now? I can't believe you've got nothing to say on this? C'mon, try telling me now that that is smoke from WTC 7.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, clearly after looking at this video, you have been proven wrong about you claiming that all the smoke pouring out of WTC 7 is dust. Again go to 5:15 of the video and tell me that that is dust billowing out of the 12+ floors.





You make your claims that the building could not have fallen the way it did, yet you have not been able to find one professional to agree with you through the proper review process.

What this video also proves is at least 19 floors of this building were on fire. Please tell me how the thermite, thermate, nano thermate, det cords, radio controlled detonators, cutter charges, TNT orC4,...and thousands of pounds of debris from a falling burning skyscraper...etc... could have survived obviously such intense heat and destruction.






edit on 14-9-2010 by Six Sigma because: video



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADUB77
I'll say it again

I work in a steel factory, more specifically the melt shop

We use an electric arc furnace to melt scrap

Our ladles are about 3 stories big and hold up to 150 ton of liquid steel

I will tell you now it would take an applied fire (meaning the fire is directly on the steel) about 3 hours to melt the kind of steel used in the world trade center

and once that steel had melted it does not justify all the steel losing it's strenth and succumbing to fall down

If anything the top half would fall over leaving half of a building







Thank you for taking the time to post here. I appreciate hearing from someone who actually works and knows what he is talking about instead of what he has read in reports on the internet and using that to debunk.
I just know only the melting points of steel and the flash points of jet fuel (kerosene) do not add up. Period. Nobody can explain that away.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
You might want to try your luck with them. After all, convincing a fake truther is better than convincing nobody at all.

Well, I believe that the information is out there to convince those who are willing to be convinced. I doubt too many are.


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Might want to brush up on your reading comprehension:

I said designed. Right back at ya



Oh, I see -- WTC architects and engineers factored in the effects of a jetliner impact, but failed to consider the resulting fuel fires?!

Is there anything you won't distort or fabricate?

The capability to evaluate the fires with modern techniques did not exist. Perhaps you should talk to Leslie Robertson.


Dewd, you're something else. You should've quit while you were ahead. Wait, that would've meant not starting this ridiculous thread.

I didn't start this thread.


Originally posted by Mr Mask
I appreciate you taking the time to quote and reply to my post.

Thanks, I may have come across a little bit harsh, and you seem to be speaking from the heart so I will be polite.


But, I must say, until you start showing me some credentials proving that you are professionally educated/trained in these areas, then your testimony can only be logged in my mind as "guess work, conjecture and regurgitation"

Whatever my qualifications, they are irrelevant. The only areas I claim authority in are in certain types of analysis, and even then I try not to use my specific knowledge as some sort of club to beat people with. I truly believe that if you are willing to be convinced, the evidence is out there to convince you. I know it convinced me.


The story doesn't fit...not just buildings, not just fires or planes. The ENTIRE STORY reads "to me" like a farce. Knowing full well that our very own government has had its hand in many criminal activities (including false flag attacks and murdering its own people for sinister agendas), I am not willing to lay down and accept your opinion over my own.

I'm certainly not asking you to, but I want to make one thing quite clear, and this may come off as offensive so I hope you take it in the spirit it was intended, as a friendly chat.

Many conspiracy theorists do not actually know what the 'official story' is. This is because they have learned most of what they know about 911 from pro-conspiracy theory sites. These sites often omit vital information, either intentionally or accidentally. Because of this, a lot of people go away with the idea that the 'official story' is some horrible farce with no information to back it up and just a lot of propaganda. This could not be further from the truth.


Alls I ask for is this-

New investigation....answers I can handle (I'm not that dumb, I can accept a story that makes sense), and for people to stop making this a 911/truther thing.

How sure are you that a new investigation is needed? I mean, I have nothing against more investigation, but one thing I have noticed in my years of debating this is that 'just asking questions' is a common crutch. Instead of going out and actually researching questions that people have, a large number of truthers (not saying anyone particularly) seem to feel that it's ok to just claim that potential problems with the theory are fatal holes, and that only a new investigation will fix it.


Never mind the fact that even without those engineers, I am still able to see dozens of oddities within the OS that my rational mind deems "impossible"

Perhaps we could set up a thread primarily for a two person discussion about these issues, I would be happy to spend time explaining my perspective on these events for you. For example:


Heck...a plastic passport fell from the explosion "after" the plane hit...and tumbled to the ground, and landed at the feet of government agents...really?

Not quite. A passport did get ejected from the building and was recovered, but it did not land at the feet of government agents, it was actually handed to a police officer by a passerby. Not only this but it was ejected in the initial collision, it did not have to survive any long fires or the collapse. There are many things other than the passport though that survived not only the impact, but the collapse as well. Membership cards, personal effects etc. You may have been told that the government just magically produced it, but I can even tell you the name of the detective it was handed to, you could potentially call the guy and ask him yourself.


If you can not understand why this story is being questioned by so many "intelligent" folks that is fine.

Oh I can understand why intelligent people question events. There's nothing wrong at all with questioning. I was brought into this whole debacle by a good friend of mine who I consider to be quite intelligent, who had his own doubts. Hell I was not very convinced about Flight 93 and the Pentagon until I actually spent time looking hard for evidence to verify what occurred.

One final point I want to make is this: What is the alternative theory?

I ask because (whether you know it or not yet), the 'official story' (meaning reports by FEMA, NIST, and simulations carried out by various affiliated and non affiliated bodies) provides a pretty high detail narrative of basically every major event that happened that day. For a couple of years now many debunkers and I have been asking every 'truther' we can to come up with or help to develop a coherent narrative which deviates from the 'official story' using the evidence they believe to prove controlled demolition.

This is something that has wholeheartedly not happened. For example the current most popular theory appears to be Steven Jones' nanothermite theory. However nothing has been improved on the original research here, we have no clue of application method, detonation speed, energy release etc. We don't know where it was supposedly planted in the towers, when it was set off. We don't know how to resolve claims of explosive demolition sounds with the fact that thermite typically combusts etc.

There are a lot of holes needing to be filled in before we can even start to discuss complete theories, and this is another thing which strongly convinces me the 'official story' is currently the most accurate. In order to challenge a theory, you have to explain events of the day better than that existing theory, and currently even the most basic questions about controlled demolition cannot be answered with any certainty.

Anyway I'm sorry for the somewhat rambling response, and for potentially being a bit rude. I hope I have shown you why I believe in the 'official story', and that I am not just some slavering sycophant. I am actually not even a US citizen, and I certainly have no love for Bush and his cronies. I am a Liberal Democrat voting British Citizen and quite proud of it



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADUB77
and once that steel had melted it does not justify all the steel losing it's strenth and succumbing to fall down

This is not what the 'official story' says happened in the towers. The steel wasn't heated to melting point, just enough to cause it to soften significantly.


If anything the top half would fall over leaving half of a building

The design of the WTC makes this impossible. The outer walls held 50% of the building's weight, so as the top begins to topple they cannot possibly support it, it results in it crashing down and being funneled into the building by the weak floor slabs. I can show you floor plans to explain it if you like.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADUB77
I'll say it again

I work in a steel factory, more specifically the melt shop

We use an electric arc furnace to melt scrap

Our ladles are about 3 stories big and hold up to 150 ton of liquid steel

I will tell you now it would take an applied fire (meaning the fire is directly on the steel) about 3 hours to melt the kind of steel used in the world trade center


WTC-7 Collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon.

Here is a photograph from the FEMA report on WTC 4, 5, and 6, page 15.:



Oh, and no one stated that the metal needed to melt to cause the collapse.




If anything the top half would fall over leaving half of a building


LMFAO.... yeah, if it were a tree.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I watched the footage and those oxygen starved fires could not have not have brought down the building and I am not convinced that debris from the towers started those fires.All of the official explainations of 9/11 have not been convincing to say the least.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
What this video also proves is at least 19 floors of this building were on fire.

Please list which floors were on fire, and the duration that each floor was on fire.

Please show where your claim is confirmed in the NIST report on WTC 7.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
I watched the footage and those oxygen starved fires could not have not have brought down the building and I am not convinced that debris from the towers started those fires.All of the official explainations of 9/11 have not been convincing to say the least.

Have you read the NIST report? A good place to start is here: wtc.nist.gov...

There's an awful lot of reading to do, but through the report they basically prove the way the fires worked, how quickly they moved, how much heat they put out. They support their theory with real world experiments, simulations and photos from the day.

Give at least the first report an in-depth read before you make your decision, it might surprise you.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Duration.. no. But how about the professionals that were there?


We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors.
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco


...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down.
–FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn


I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
–FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti


When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.

–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers


Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring.
–FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.


Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable.
–PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade


At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything
. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman


7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable.
–Firefighter Steve Modica


So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.

–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I am actually not even a US citizen, and I certainly have no love for Bush and his cronies. I am a Liberal Democrat voting British Citizen and quite proud of it

Perhaps you can explain why, as a Liberal Democrat Brit, every one of your last 250 posts is a passionate defense of a very implausible official story? It seems that's how you spend most of your time.

A bit obsessed with 9/11, wouldn't you say?

BTW, what sort of "analysis" are you involved in that requires intimate knowledge of obscure 9/11 details and the 9/11 Commission Report?




edit on 9/14/2010 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Six Sigma, thanks for your partial reply.

Firstly, please list the floors, by number, that were on fire. You claim that there were at least 19 floors on fire, but you have not listed any, by number.

Secondly, when I asked you to list the duration of the fires on each floor, you conceded that you could not do so. Thanks for that.

I requested you to link to the NIST report on WTC 7 to substantiate your claim about fires being on at least 19 floors. Instead you listed unsourced quotes from people, none of whom were able to list the floors, by number, that were on fire.

Please find a way to substantiate your claim that there were at least 19 floors on fire, if you want it to be taken seriously.


edit on 14-9-2010 by tezzajw because: grammar




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join