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.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 35
34
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Yet you are claiming the WTC Towers had no fireproofing.


Care to repost the claim where I said the WTC Towers had no fireproofing?

What did I just say about reading comprehension, bsbray? Please, repost my exact quote where I supposedly said "the WTC does not have fireproofing?"

Strawman?



(Hoisted by your own petard. Nice job bsbray!
)
edit on 3/29/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



not the ones I mentioned in my own post


all were addressed:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unfortunately for Caracas Tower, it is harder to find the after-fire report on it, and what type of design it was, fireproofing, construction, etc.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Nice picture of it during construction, how about how it looked later on?


What about it? Half a piece of cross-bracing on a truss is exposed in your photo. The rest is still covered in fireproofing. There were also fireproofing upgrades after construction, at least as late as the 1990s or even later as far as I know.

You think that is proof that all the fireproofing came off the WTC Towers when they were impacted? Can you tell me how you define the words "proof" or "evidence" please? Even fireproofing that's not fully up to code in places is not the same as having no fireproofing.
edit on 29-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Yet you are claiming the WTC Towers had no fireproofing.


Care to repost the claim where I said the WTC Towers had no fireproofing?


Oh, my mistake. Then you agree that the WTC Towers had fireproofing.


Strawman?



(Hoisted by your own petard. Nice job bsbray!
)


If that's what you call being hoisted by your own petard, then what do you call twisting my words to say I was implying fire doesn't affect steel structures at all? Something different I guess. And that's still aside from your blatant straw man on the last page. But if you agree that the WTC had fireproofing, then I guess there was no disagreement after all.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


All these statements made by the OS faithful; "no fireproofing", "no concrete core", "KE trumps all", "jet fuel waterfalls down elevator shafts", "jets dunnit", "thousands of eye witnesses", etc. are all central to the lie and need to be constantly reinforced through propaganda; and propaganda takes many forms.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.
The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.

Do you find this plausible?

The 911 commission could not find a specific reason for building 7 to fall in the manner it did. ? ??

Do you find that plausible?

BBC Reported that the 47 story Soloman Building (WTC 7) had collapsed, an hour before it had. And even filmed the report of this in front of a large window that still showed the building standing!




The owner of building seven commented to press that firemen pulled building 7. But no further discussion on this?

Just a few of the many large discrepancies surrounding 911. Building 7 is the KEY to the lies.






posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
Nice picture of it during construction, how about how it looked later on?


What about it? Half a piece of cross-bracing on a truss is exposed in your photo. The rest is still covered in fireproofing. There were also fireproofing upgrades after construction, as late as the 1990s.

You think that is proof that all the fireproofing came off the WTC Towers when they were impacted? Can you tell me how you define the words "proof" or "evidence" please? Even fireproofing that's not fully up to code in places is not the same as having no fireproofing.
edit on 29-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


The picture shows how during inspection, the fireproofing was failing, falling off by itself, etc. I never said it was proof ALL the fireproofing came off the WTC on impact. Just on the floors impacted by the plane, and possibly in areas when the building was reacting from the impact, ie; the torquing of the steel, twisting, swaying etc.

Plus I was hoping you could use some logical thinking to see what I was trying to say. My apologies if I wasnt clear.

There was sufficient evidence before 9/11 that the WTC towers had fireproofing that was substandard, too thin, falling off, or missing. That was the link to Mr. Morse. The picture shows how fireproofing was coming off by itself. That was in order to show how the conditions were prior to 9/11. Yes there was some replacement of fireproofing, including on the floors affected by impact in one tower. However, it was also said that the fireproofing used was never truely tested properly or investigated as mentioned here:

To make matters worse, there were no field tests to determine if fireproofing materials were properly installed until 1977, when the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) published tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density of applied fireproofing. If these tests had existed in the early 1970s, when the towers were built, then the deficiencies outlined below could have been discovered and corrected.
........
These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high. The red circle and date was the Port Authority's response to the missing fireproofing. This resulted because the steel had not been properly prepared at the time of the initial spray application. Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel (photo 4).
Examining the rust, I discovered that cement paste from the fireproofing had run behind flakes of the rust, indicating that the rust existed at the time the fireproofing was applied. The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts. This is a defect that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM adhesion and cohesion quality assurance test, had this standard existed at the time of construction.

Fireproofing Inspection by Morse
You can read more about his discoveries in the link.

So how that all ties into the point I was making is, that the fireproofing was suspect, and there is evidence that due to the condition of the fireproofing as observed , there is a very strong possibility that it was knocked off in the impact, due to the direct force of impact, or due to poor adhesion, or flawed application, hastening the destruction of the steel structures. This was the point I was trying to make. The buildings you mentioned that didnt collapse had good fireproofing applications, and active firefighting. This was the whole point i was trying to make.

Ok, bsbray, just to be fair, I think you and I went way OT in this thread, and my apologies to the OP. We can discuss this stuff on another thread that is relevant, or create a new one if you wish (or we can save it for another time), and I do not wish to see you or me getting slammed by the mods for going off topic. Agreed sir?
edit on 3/29/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/29/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
The picture shows how during inspection, the fireproofing was failing, falling off by itself, etc.


So he must have been taking a photo of a particularly bad area huh?


I never said it was proof ALL the fireproofing came off the WTC on impact. Just on the floors impacted by the plane


All of the fireproofing on the floors impacted by the plane? Based on that one photo? Why do you not think that at least some or any of that fireproofing was actually still firmly attached, especially when the vast majority of it in your own photo is still attached?


As far as the OP goes, I don't think whether or not a building can withstand an earthquake is entirely relevant to 9/11 in itself.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
The picture shows how during inspection, the fireproofing was failing, falling off by itself, etc.


So he must have been taking a photo of a particularly bad area huh?


I never said it was proof ALL the fireproofing came off the WTC on impact. Just on the floors impacted by the plane


All of the fireproofing on the floors impacted by the plane? Based on that one photo? Why do you not think that at least some or any of that fireproofing was actually still firmly attached, especially when the vast majority of it in your own photo is still attached?


As far as the OP goes, I don't think whether or not a building can withstand an earthquake is entirely relevant to 9/11 in itself.


One percent of the steel was inspected, and as you said, it was probably the worst sample they could find.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


It wasn't fire alone YOU know that there was damage done to the building(wtc7) and it was on fire for many hours and we now what that can do!
edit on 29-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


If you're talking about WTC 7 the damage had nothing to do with the collapse. I know you OSers like to think it does.

If you want I'll change my point to 'fire, no matter how long it burns, and damage to one side of a building, can not cause it to globally, symmetrically, collapse mostly into its own footprint', is that better? N.B., I didn't say it could not cause it to collapse, pay attention, I said it can not cause it to globally (completely) collapse mostly into its own footprint, as evidenced by the outer walls sitting on top of the collapsed building, in the exact same fashion as an implosion demolition, as explained in this web site (no it's not a damned fool conspiracy site either).

science.howstuffworks.com...

C'mon pick at my posts some more, keep ignoring the actual points I'm making, it just gives me the opportunity to explain in more detail, to be sure you understand my exact point.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So was there in the WTC towers.


No, there most certainly wasn't. Chief Orio got to the 78th floor, and was calling for the guys that were still coming up that two handlines should have been able to knock down the fire on that floor. (Which, BTW< was the lowest floor on fire)

Shortly after, the towers collapsed. He never did get that water.



Originally posted by bsbray11

Just like the WTC.


There were many problems noted pre-911 about the lackluster quality of the SFRM in the WTC. Hence, when a floor was vacant, it was upgraded.

You can read about the SFRM problems here

ETA: Did you miss this photo?

files.abovetopsecret.com...

It's from Roger Moore, who did the inspections on the WTC SFRM. Do you see how big of a chunk is missing?
Do you see the date?

1992. BEFORE the bombing. Can you imagine how much more SFRM was dislodged in the upper floors from that blast?

Jeez, just think how much it would have rattled loose.



Originally posted by bsbray11

You have no proof that all the fireproofing was knocked off by the planes either


It didn't need to be. Compromise a few portions of the SFRM, it all becomes useless. Heat transfer.

edit on 29-3-2011 by FDNY343 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bsbray11
 



not the ones I mentioned in my own post


all were addressed:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unfortunately for Caracas Tower, it is harder to find the after-fire report on it, and what type of design it was, fireproofing, construction, etc.


Caracas tower was concrete framed.

enr.construction.com...



This is the Caracas Tower. Concrete construction.

You can read about the fire and the aftermath of the fire at the link above.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
No, there most certainly wasn't. Chief Orio got to the 78th floor, and was calling for the guys that were still coming up that two handlines should have been able to knock down the fire on that floor. (Which, BTW< was the lowest floor on fire)


How is that different than these other fires, like the First Interstate Bank? Were they not fighting the fires going up the building? It burned for almost 4 hours.



There were many problems noted pre-911 about the lackluster quality of the SFRM in the WTC. Hence, when a floor was vacant, it was upgraded.

You can read about the SFRM problems here


Would you like to sum up what you think the relevance of this is?


It didn't need to be. Compromise a few portions of the SFRM, it all becomes useless. Heat transfer.


If you want to talk heat transfer then you must also want to talk relative masses too. The WTC Towers' columns were a lot larger and would have been heat sinks. Not even NIST is saying that the towers were destroyed because the fire was too intense for the columns. It all goes back to proving that a truss suffering thermal expansion can pull a perimeter column inward.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
No, there most certainly wasn't. Chief Orio got to the 78th floor, and was calling for the guys that were still coming up that two handlines should have been able to knock down the fire on that floor. (Which, BTW< was the lowest floor on fire)


How is that different than these other fires, like the First Interstate Bank? Were they not fighting the fires going up the building? It burned for almost 4 hours.


THERE WAS NO FIRE BELOW THE 78th FLOOR TO FIGHT!!

Holy **** man, reading for comprehension bites you in the rear again.

There was NO firefighting efforts started in the WTC Towers. Not a drop.



Originally posted by bsbray11


There were many problems noted pre-911 about the lackluster quality of the SFRM in the WTC. Hence, when a floor was vacant, it was upgraded.

You can read about the SFRM problems here


Would you like to sum up what you think the relevance of this is?


SFRM was failed. Failed SFRM is useless.



Originally posted by bsbray11

It didn't need to be. Compromise a few portions of the SFRM, it all becomes useless. Heat transfer.


If you want to talk heat transfer then you must also want to talk relative masses too. The WTC Towers' columns were a lot larger and would have been heat sinks. Not even NIST is saying that the towers were destroyed because the fire was too intense for the columns. It all goes back to proving that a truss suffering thermal expansion can pull a perimeter column inward.


Yes, they would have been. However, how much did the splice plates and the angle iron from the floors transfer to somewhere else?

Not enough to make a bit of difference.

Do you understand that the columns were not designed to be pulled out of vertical? Does this concept confuse you?

Here is a simple experiment you can do.

Take a 6' piece of rebar. Strap a weight to the top section of it.

Now, be very carefull, as you don't want that weight to hit you. It will hurt. I know, imagine that....

Anyway, stan the section up vertically.

In it's normal state, it will hold the weight. (Don't put 500 lbs up there. 20 should do the trick.)

Now, have a buddy pull the rebar so that it bends in the middle. What happens? It fails. The weight falls to one side, and the rebar now cannot hold the load vertical. It fails.

This is simmilar to what happens in the WTC Towers.

Please be carefull when doing this experiment. You very well could be severely injured, or even killed. I would seriously hate to hear about that.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   


if we could, i guess we could've asked the original designer of the WTC project Minuro Yamasaki.

but 10 second is fast for a 100+story building to fall. if i had a helicopter an egg and an accelerometer, i'd time the egg in freefall just to see how long it would take, from WTC height. afterall, an egg doesnt have subfloors to bounce off of on it's descent.
edit on 29-3-2011 by ahmonrarh because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahmonrarh


if we could, i guess we could've asked the original designer of the WTC project Minuro Yamasaki.

but 10 second is fast for a 100+story building to fall. if i had a helicopter an egg and an accelerometer, i'd time the egg in freefall just to see how long it would take, from WTC height. afterall, an egg doesnt have subfloors to bounce off of on it's descent.
edit on 29-3-2011 by ahmonrarh because: (no reason given)


Loose Change?? LOL!!! Go get a video of the collapse from beginning to end, and a watch.

Way more than 10 seconds will elapse from start to finish.

Do it. Don't believe me. Do it for yourself.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Before you get all exited and think you're winning the debate, the collapse times are pretty much irrelevant anyway.

Even if the collapse of the towers had taken two minutes, the post collapse debris field proves that the collapses could not have been a progressive/pancake collapse, as previously explained. Collapse time has nothing to do with their claim that SAGGING trusses pulled in columns.

As for WTC 7, again no matter how long it took it could not have fallen into its own footprint from fire and damage to one side, no matter how destructive the damage was. Even though NIST themselves did admit to free-fall, you can't keep ignoring that...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(unfortunately the video was removed)

The collapse times does help the CD argument but it's not essential, that point could be thrown out and it wouldn't even dent the case for CD. You have a lot more work to do for that, 9 years and you have yet to even get close mate.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
TWC were build in luxury style made to resist ANYTHING


As was the Titanic....and we all know what happened there. Or was that a cover up too? You are comparing two unrelated and irrelevant situations and conditions.

Depending upon zoning laws (within the U.S.) will determine the amount of engineering that goes into a building of significant size in regards to prevailing possible disasters of an area.

The WTC buildings were not made to resist "anything"[sic] everything as the amount of time and money to engineer for every possible scenario would be astronomical. There are give and takes when it comes to designing and engineering a building or even something as small as a house. Usually the banter is back and forth between the architect & engineer. The architect wants X and tell the engineer make it happen. The engineer says X won't work because of Y and Z. And round the merry-go-round they go until they reach a compromise between aesthetics/functionality and safety/engineering.

Most modern buildings have dampers engineered into them to handle winds at such altitudes. In earthquake zones such as Japan or even California, the damper systems are quite an engineering feat. Take for instance the impressive Cathedral of Our Lady Los Angeles. It is a mixture of architecture but also engineering amazement. I do recommend anyone in that area to tour the building.


One of the most challenging requirements is for the new Cathedral to withstand the test of time. The project team utilized advanced strategies to achieve a lifespan of no less than 500 years for the structure and building systems. The building has been designed to withstand an 8.4 point Richter scale earthquake.


But I guess people will connect what they want to connect and see what they want to see.
edit on 30-3-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Before you get all exited and think you're winning the debate, the collapse times are pretty much irrelevant anyway.

Even if the collapse of the towers had taken two minutes, the post collapse debris field proves that the collapses could not have been a progressive/pancake collapse, as previously explained.


You do realize that the meteorite is in fact a chunk of compressed floors, right? You can even see pieces of rebar and floor pans sticking out of it.

Also, did you expect to see a stack of floors somewhere? Did you check the basement?




Originally posted by ANOK
Collapse time has nothing to do with their claim that SAGGING trusses pulled in columns.


Good thing I wasn't discussing the trusses pulling in the columns.


Originally posted by ANOK
As for WTC 7, again no matter how long it took it could not have fallen into its own footprint


That's good, because it didn't. It hit 3 other buildings. One on it's roof.



Originally posted by ANOK
from fire and damage to one side, no matter how destructive the damage was. Even though NIST themselves did admit to free-fall, you can't keep ignoring that...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(unfortunately the video was removed)


Yes, NIST admitted freefall. Correct. HOWEVER, it was 2.25 seconds, and it did not encompass the entire building, it was a PORTION of the north face above a section of buckled columns.




Originally posted by ANOK
The collapse times does help the CD argument but it's not essential, that point could be thrown out and it wouldn't even dent the case for CD. You have a lot more work to do for that, 9 years and you have yet to even get close mate.


It sure seems to be brought up quite often though. Sure seems like a pivital part of the 9/11 Truther story.

Which, BTW, do you have a complete narriative of the day's events? I have yet to see any member whatsoever present a complete theory. Maybe you will be the first? I mean, it's only been 9 years......



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There was no water put on any of the WTC buildings. Never. The only water I saw being poured on the WTC is when they all collapsed. Never before.

Every building fire you mentioned had some sort of firefighting effort going, involving water being poured into the fire, or sprinklers activated. WTC had none of that.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join