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: 36
34
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
THERE WAS NO FIRE BELOW THE 78th FLOOR TO FIGHT!!


And in there Meridian Plaza THERE WAS NO FIRE BELOW THE 22ND FLOOR TO FIGHT!!



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


Yeah, I know you hate it when that happens to you. You might want to take down the context on the last page and remind yourself what you were originally talking about.



It went like this:


Originally posted by GenRadek
There was active firefighting going on!!!



Originally posted by bsbray11
So was there in the WTC towers. Guess what? First Interstate Bank burned about twice as long, and there was less steel to heat.



Originally posted by FDNY343

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)



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


How can you tell me that there was "not a drop" of firefighting efforts even started, and then also tell me that they were calling for "two handlines [that] should have been able to knock down the fire on that floor"?
Are you trying to contradict yourself now?

With the other fires, like I said before, I already listed two were they abandoned firefighting attempts, one lasted for over 19 hours and another one over 17 hours. That the WTC Towers apparently couldn't last even 2 hours in fire that didn't look any worse than in the other fires, is pathetic. And don't keep retreating back to the planes because the fire has to do some sort of damage you know!! You could talk about that for a change whenever you're ready, and it's not columns softening.



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


SFRM was failed. Failed SFRM is useless.


I don't know if you could call it totally useless if it was still in the shape Gen showed in his picture. There was one problem area. You say one problem area compromises all of it. I don't think so. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat but not that excellent (as to transfer efficiently across small connections like at the beams or trusses), and it also takes time to wick away heat, especially with the large columns acting as heat sinks, and with the WTC collapses you also don't get a lot of time unfortunately.


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.


Don't get so ahead of yourself. Can you show me the science demonstrating that a truss undergoing thermal expansion can pull a perimeter column inwards? One step at a time please.
edit on 30-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
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.



It hardly matters if you were fighting a fire to begin with when ultimately you let it burn itself out and take over 17 or 19 hours. Just 17 hours is over eight times as long as the WTC Towers lasted before exploding into a million pieces, and that's more than enough to include 2 hours of not being fought at all, plus a lot of pre-existing heating to go along with it.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Don't buy what he's selling bsbray...he's got way too many contradictions to be telling the truth.

All he's recounting is in the public domain, and recall earlier I held his feet to the fire about his claim they were fighting fires in the WTC, when the public record shows otherwise. He chose to ignore that question then, don't let him get away with anything now...

Regardless of the myths being recounted, the official record shows the FDNY had no intent to fight the fires early on. FDNY343 seems to be just recounting the 911 movie, but the movie was wrong:

29a. Damian Van Cleaf (30:18) : "I felt the mood that we were going to put the fire out. Everyone seemed to be confident — I know I was." Apparently nobody told him it had already been decided by the most senior officers running the operation that there would be no firefighting whatever. Chief Hayden, in video testimony to the National (Kean) Commission, 18 May 2004, repeating again what he had said all along : "So we determined, very early on, that this was going to be strictly a rescue mission. We were going to vacate the building, get everybody out, and then we were going to get out." None of his superiors envisaged any attempt to fight the fire in the North Tower, so who told Van Cleaf otherwise ? Why is he giving us this nonsense ? Again, from "FDNY Fire Operations Response on September 11," the McKinsey Report, August 2002 : "The chiefs dispatched units from the lobby of WTC1 to higher floors in two situations : ¶ In response to specific distress calls ... ; ¶ To ensure that floors below the fire had been totally evacuated." Nothing about firefighting.

www.frankresearch.info...
edit on 30-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


WMD, I have been studying the core, and it appears we both may be right.

The plans and the permits were in place before 68 when the building codes changed...this makes sense as to why so many folks wrote about the concrete cores, but why there's so little photographic record of it. They may have started with the concrete cores, but then changed the plans after the building codes changed...it'd be a big money saver.

Check this discussion:

letsrollforums.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I would have photos to back up what you're saying, but I lost them when the image library I use to maintain went down because no one was paying the bill for the website. It used to host an image though that clearly showed a concrete box structure inside the core, in the basements, about the size and place where the main freight elevator would have been. It wasn't anything like the whole core encased in concrete, but it was striking to me because I wasn't expecting to see any concrete structure within the towers.


And then there are photos like this one that make me wonder even more:




posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Cool...in the discussion I linked, it is also speculated that this might account for the extreme explosiveness of the demolition...the bombers were expecting a lot more concrete.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Think about 'the spire' also, it looks far more like the corner of a concrete and rebar wall than steel collapsing. It would explain why it went straight down and appeared to turn to dust.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


The Port Authorithy as a government agency was EXEMPT from local Fire codes, though the agency pledged
to follow the local codes

This allowed the agency to skimp on the fire protection of the building - original coating on the steel was only
1/2 inch as decreed by one of the engineers .Was ungraded later to 1 1/2 inches by later building engineer

The Port Authorithy never tested the floor trusses and associated fire proofing . This meant would not have to
do an extensive redesign of the floor truss and fire proofing systems saving large amounts of money

Reference "CITY IN THE SKY" - pages 325-326 if want to check

As for concrete core - the only heavy concrete structure was the basement slurry wall or "bathtub" which
formed the foundation of the site. It was about 3 ft wide and surrounded the site forming the base of Towers 1
and 2.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


What demolition?

Was not ramming jet planes loaded with fuel through the building enough "demolition" .......?



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

How can you tell me that there was "not a drop" of firefighting efforts even started, and then also tell me that they were calling for "two handlines [that] should have been able to knock down the fire on that floor"?
Are you trying to contradict yourself now?


Who was Chief Orio talking to? He did not have any handlines with water. Here is his exact radio transmission. I will bold the important parts for you.

[EX]Bat.7 Alpha
Chief Palmer reports on the 78th floor, numerous 10-45 Code Ones, we got isolated pockets of fire, we need at least two handlines up there



Bat.7 Chief Orio Palmer
I'm going to need two of your firefighters, Adam stairway, to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could get some water on it, knock it down, K.
Lad.15
Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you
[/EX]

en.wikisource.org...

Do you understand now what he is saying? He is asking the firefighters from Lad 15 to coninue up to his location, so they can get some handlines with water in them going to try to fight the fire.

Sadly, this never occured, because at ~9:58, the tower collapses. He never did get that water.


Originally posted by bsbray11

With the other fires, like I said before, I already listed two were they abandoned firefighting attempts, one lasted for over 19 hours and another one over 17 hours.


Wonderful. Did they have any kind of external firefighting efforts? Oh, right, they did.


Originally posted by bsbray11
That the WTC Towers apparently couldn't last even 2 hours in fire that didn't look any worse than in the other fires, is pathetic. And don't keep retreating back to the planes because the fire has to do some sort of damage you know!! You could talk about that for a change whenever you're ready, and it's not columns softening.


Argument from personal incredulity noted.



Originally posted by bsbray11

I don't know if you could call it totally useless if it was still in the shape Gen showed in his picture. There was one problem area. You say one problem area compromises all of it. I don't think so. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat but not that excellent (as to transfer efficiently across small connections like at the beams or trusses), and it also takes time to wick away heat, especially with the large columns acting as heat sinks, and with the WTC collapses you also don't get a lot of time unfortunately.


No, it wasn't one problem area. If you had read the link to Roger Morse's account of the ****** fireproofing, you would understand that this was common, on every single floor, in every area of the building.

Yes, if a patch is missing in a critical area (Like say, a floor truss) it is going to allow the heat to get to the steel. Once the steel starts to heat, it is going to continue to heat. The insulation on it becomes useless.




Originally posted by bsbray11

Don't get so ahead of yourself. Can you show me the science demonstrating that a truss undergoing thermal expansion can pull a perimeter column inwards? One step at a time please.
edit on 30-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


Did you understand my simple experiment? Do you understand the process of thermal expansion?

Please, go research that for a few minutes, then come back.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Don't buy what he's selling bsbray...he's got way too many contradictions to be telling the truth.

All he's recounting is in the public domain, and recall earlier I held his feet to the fire about his claim they were fighting fires in the WTC, when the public record shows otherwise. He chose to ignore that question then, don't let him get away with anything now...

Regardless of the myths being recounted, the official record shows the FDNY had no intent to fight the fires early on. FDNY343 seems to be just recounting the 911 movie, but the movie was wrong:

29a. Damian Van Cleaf (30:18) : "I felt the mood that we were going to put the fire out. Everyone seemed to be confident — I know I was." Apparently nobody told him it had already been decided by the most senior officers running the operation that there would be no firefighting whatever. Chief Hayden, in video testimony to the National (Kean) Commission, 18 May 2004, repeating again what he had said all along : "So we determined, very early on, that this was going to be strictly a rescue mission. We were going to vacate the building, get everybody out, and then we were going to get out." None of his superiors envisaged any attempt to fight the fire in the North Tower, so who told Van Cleaf otherwise ? Why is he giving us this nonsense ? Again, from "FDNY Fire Operations Response on September 11," the McKinsey Report, August 2002 : "The chiefs dispatched units from the lobby of WTC1 to higher floors in two situations : ¶ In response to specific distress calls ... ; ¶ To ensure that floors below the fire had been totally evacuated." Nothing about firefighting.

www.frankresearch.info...
edit on 30-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



I ignored it because it is an argument from personal ignorance.

How else are firefighters going to get through the fire floors to rescue people trapped above?

The gear we wear is not magic. It will in fact burn.

Hence, why Chief Palmer was asking for firefighters to come to his location with hoses. To get past that area to rescue people.

Keep running your mouth though about stuff you know nothing about.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Sadly, this never occured, because at ~9:58, the tower collapses. He never did get that water.


It's tragic, but it doesn't pin the WTC Tower fires as being unfought for any period of time longer than other skyscraper fires I've posted.




Wonderful. Did they have any kind of external firefighting efforts? Oh, right, they did.


No, they abandoned all efforts in the One Meridian Plaza at least and let it burn itself out. That's the one that lasted over 19 hours, with no exploding building.

There were photos taken of the interior of that building. Steel beams/trusses spanning between columns sagged, but apparently did not move the exterior structure significantly in any direction. That is why they sagged in the first place, otherwise the thermal expansion that causes the sagging would have been pushing the exterior outwards.




Originally posted by bsbray11
That the WTC Towers apparently couldn't last even 2 hours in fire that didn't look any worse than in the other fires, is pathetic. And don't keep retreating back to the planes because the fire has to do some sort of damage you know!! You could talk about that for a change whenever you're ready, and it's not columns softening.


Argument from personal incredulity noted.


I hope you also noted the part about columns softening having nothing to do with NIST's hypothesized initiation mechanism.



No, it wasn't one problem area.


I didn't say one problem area in the whole building, I was talking about the photo posting. Don't tell me he was taking pictures of the parts of the building that looked the nicest and ignored the worst ones. He was taking pictures of these problem areas you are talking about. And it doesn't reflect the horror story you are trying to sell us here.


Once the steel starts to heat, it is going to continue to heat. The insulation on it becomes useless.


There has to be fire in the immediate vicinity of the missing fireproofing. Otherwise all the other insulation is still relevant for obvious reasons. And like I said, even if fire were all over the area with missing fireproofing, heat conduction is a science that is subject to several formulas, not least of which involves the contacting surface areas of steel across which heat is being transferred. When you come to a connection or a thin piece of truss, heat is NOT going to transfer as efficiently across it whether there is any fireproofing attached to it or not.

And once again, the idea that columns being heated and softened has anything to do with this, is an idea that flies in the face of the entire NIST report. So if you don't agree with the NIST report then you should already be wanting a better investigation yourself, since you obviously don't share the same opinions as the people who wrote that report.





Originally posted by bsbray11
Don't get so ahead of yourself. Can you show me the science demonstrating that a truss undergoing thermal expansion can pull a perimeter column inwards? One step at a time please.
edit on 30-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


Did you understand my simple experiment? Do you understand the process of thermal expansion?

Please, go research that for a few minutes, then come back.


Oh no, I do.

I don't understand how expansion turns into a "pulling" force that pulls the perimeter columns inward. The whole reason a beam sags in the first place is because when it tries to expand, it's restrained on the ends and has nowhere else to deform but in the middle where it is not restrained. It isn't because the steel has become a wet noodle and gravity is affecting it any more than usual. This is all explained in the Cardington tests if you want to read real scientific literature about this.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Fair enough, and I was ready to come to blows over the concrete core just a couple days ago, but there should be a record of the couple hundred acres of concrete poured just for the floors somewhere. If I was a concrete contractor who was involved with building the WTC, I'd have pictures all over my bid sheets...I'd be pretty proud of that and I'd make sure there was a record of it.

Among all the construction photos, where are all the concrete buckets and trucks? Where are the concrete mixing silos? Who were the contractors who did the pours?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Cartoon planes don't disintegrate buildings.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Spare us all the suspense and tell us how it felt to see that big ol' jet slide into the building spreading plane parts all around those thousands of other eye witnesses.

You're just as convincing as the OS itself.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


WMD, I have been studying the core, and it appears we both may be right.

The plans and the permits were in place before 68 when the building codes changed...this makes sense as to why so many folks wrote about the concrete cores, but why there's so little photographic record of it. They may have started with the concrete cores, but then changed the plans after the building codes changed...it'd be a big money saver.

Check this discussion:

letsrollforums.com...




Reads post and almost falls off seat, already looked at a few different sites re this, thats the problem when people read statements that they think should be 100% correct you know things like I didn't see a plane or sounded like a rocket or an explosion etc etc!!

No pictures during construction show any shutter or formwork round core steel as it's being built also comments like the spire looks like concrete because of how it seems to collapse, this is due again to the fact the video is not high resolution and its the same with the plane impacts.

Jim Fetzer tried to claim he could analyse video shot by joe public etc at 30 fps and see exactly what happens thats what gives your claimed cartoon effect to the plane impacts. If we had video at 100's or 1000's of frames per second we would see what happened to the planes as they struck the steel and we would see what happened to the steel also.

People seem to forget planes have to withstand all the forces generated by their own weight, luggage,passengers the fuel and all the stresses when banking etc at a few hundred miles per hour they are not tin cans as some like to claim. If anyone thinks that make a plane like that and lets see them fly in it, because I would pmsl as they crash and burn!

Also on many reports they talk about the wings the fuel and the engines but one of the most solid parts of the aircraft get forgotten about the LANDING GEAR very heavy and very hard pieces of metal.

Think about the North Tower impact, mid elevation what would the landing gear hit!


edit on 31-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: layout



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Cartoons don't drop skyscrapers, concrete cores or not.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




No, they abandoned all efforts in the One Meridian Plaza at least and let it burn itself out. That's the one that lasted over 19 hours, with no exploding building.




So what exactly are they doing above?
Also, they abandoned firefighting efforts 11 hours later. The fire was stopped by sprinklers on the 30th floor.


There were photos taken of the interior of that building. Steel beams/trusses spanning between columns sagged, but apparently did not move the exterior structure significantly in any direction. That is why they sagged in the first place, otherwise the thermal expansion that causes the sagging would have been pushing the exterior outwards.


As you can see, steel I-beams are far more robust than trusses in a fire. There is a reason firefighters say: Never trust a truss.


I hope you also noted the part about columns softening having nothing to do with NIST's hypothesized initiation mechanism.


Oh really? You actually think that? Because I have the report in front of me, and I can tell you didnt even read it!
wtc.nist.gov...

In fact, they talk a LOT about plastic strains, and plastic creep, due to the fires, as well as thermal expansion. Also look at "Figure E-11 WTC Probable Collapse Sequence" page 69 on the pdf.

wtc.nist.gov...

In fact all I have to do is type in "creep" "Plastic" "softening" and i get a lot of information about how it all helped in creating the collapse. I'm surprised you missed all this. NIST doesnt just go, "well there was damage, fire, then all of sudden it collapsed." They explain in full detail how the WTC behaved during the fires, the observed creep and strain, and the start of collapse. In fact, thermally induced creep and plasticity are major players mentioned in the causes of the WTC collapses. I am really surprised you did not know this.


And once again, the idea that columns being heated and softened has anything to do with this, is an idea that flies in the face of the entire NIST report. So if you don't agree with the NIST report then you should already be wanting a better investigation yourself, since you obviously don't share the same opinions as the people who wrote that report.


Yep just as I suspected, you never did read NIST's report fully, or even glanced through it. According to their final report, thermally induced plasticity and creep are what caused the columns, floor trusses and external columns to sag, expand, and ultimately fail and initiate collapse. Where on Earth did you read or hear that columns being heated and softened flies in the face of the entire NIST report???
Dont you think that repeat mentions of "plasticity" and "creep" and "thermal expansion" have something to do with the steel "softening" from heat?


Oh no, I do.

I don't understand how expansion turns into a "pulling" force that pulls the perimeter columns inward. The whole reason a beam sags in the first place is because when it tries to expand, it's restrained on the ends and has nowhere else to deform but in the middle where it is not restrained. It isn't because the steel has become a wet noodle and gravity is affecting it any more than usual. This is all explained in the Cardington tests if you want to read real scientific literature about this.


Let's see what NIST says about the exterior columns being pulled in, in a nutshell from the FAQ:

14. The collapse sequence for WTC 1 proposed by NIST includes, aircraft impact, core weakening, floor sagging and disconnection, inward bowing of the south wall, and collapse initiation. If the floors are disconnecting from the south wall, how were the floors able to exert forces on the exterior walls to cause the inward bowing?

Analyses of the composite floor system under fire exposures determined from fire dynamics simulations and thermal analyses, predicted sagging subsequent to truss web diagonal buckling and failure of some seated connections (see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). However, the vast majority of the connections remained intact. Further, the shear studs that attached the floor slab to the spandrel, and the diagonal steel struts that connected the truss top chord to the intermediate columns were also capable of transferring inward pull forces. Thus, the sagging floors were capable of exerting an inward pull on the exterior columns and spandrel beams.
www.nist.gov...

Hmm, so I guess it didnt confuse them, or make them not believe it, but according to their tests, it was entirely possible and did happen. Unless you can think of a better explanation how the exterior columns were pulled? Silent vacuum bombs? Teams of stealth ninjas in fireproof cloths all pulling at the same time with heavy chains?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I have another nice video .. MAKING THE OBVIOUS REALLY OBVIOUS

Video Link

Even the lifters at the top swaying like hell dont fall down

by believing the official version .. you conclude :

The WTC were made by amateurs hillbillies ... with cheap materials that make them totally fragile to any plane impact or earthquakes
the result would be a devastating colapse of a 1500 ft skyscraper in minutes
if an earthquake or a plane were to hit them

the 2 most important skyscrapers in new york and in the world were build like that ?
yeah right

this question is for people believing the official story

this conclusion is simply ILLOGICAL to me
both tower hit differently = same result at the end .. yeah right again

only a controlled demolition make result like that




edit on 3/31/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
So your comparing towers that are design to sway, to towers that aren't? good logic




top topics



 
34
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join