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.

 

Building Collapses from Fire in Elizabeth NJ

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
One of the major tenents of " 911 truthism" is that buildings can not collapse from fire alone.

Yet a fire in a building being used as a storage facility caused the structure to collapse


.After more than a day of burning, interior sections of a massive Elizabeth warehouse have begun to collapse under the heat of an eight-alarm fire that continues to blaze.

"We just moved companies away from the building out of the collapse zone because the building is in an extremely weakened condition now," Elizabeth Deputy Chief Lathey Wirkus said. "We’re definitely going to have some catastrophic collapses here."


www.nj.com...

Can see the collapsed section in some of these video from the scene

www.myfoxny.com...




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I don't see this being direct evidence either way because a steel framed warehouse (potentially filled with many flammable goodies) is very different from a steel skyscraper



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Well, you know, except for this:

911research.wtc7.net...


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
if you looked at the pictures that were included with the story, it appears that the building was a traditionally built
brick warehouse. which suggests that it was built using a lumber type framing. tthere could be steel framing to but i bet there was more lumber than steel.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Your logic is flawed...

en.wikipedia.org...

What do you know... A building hit by a plane and burning but still standing to this day.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



.After more than a day of burning


LOL did you miss that part?

The first WTC to collapse did so after less than one hour of fire.

I do hope after all this debating you've been involved in you understand the difference?




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Except the first line from the story you related is .. "After more than a day of burning.."

So....
edit on 22-12-2011 by Dance4Life because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
So this would be the 3rd in history to collapse at free fall speed from fire...

All in NY City. Coincidence?

Or a plan to get the truthers to quiet down?

hmmmm.

Peace



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 
Are you familiar with warehouses? Apparently no? They are wide and long, short, squatty, structures. Not well built steel beam core centered and concrete.

OMG, why do I even reply to folks like this guy? Forget it.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Nice Sig.


But on to the topic of the thread. I didn't see much in the way of structural information or design details in the linked article, so I think it's premature to draw any paralells to 9/11 one way or the other. It might be a steel framed building, and it might not.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
It might be a steel framed building, and it might not.


Doesn't make any difference though does it? The building did not completely collapse in less than an hour, and it wasn't a steel framed 110 story tower.

It's nothing but a complete stretch, an extremely weak attempt at dispelling a fact that can not be dispelled.

Just like the Chicago warehouse fire collapse, not even close. In fact it only further damages your reputation imo. Anyone who thinks these are valid comparisons obvioulsy are clueless about the arguments they're trying to debunk.

What a complete failure.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by jude11
 


Nice Sig.


But on to the topic of the thread. I didn't see much in the way of structural information or design details in the linked article, so I think it's premature to draw any paralells to 9/11 one way or the other. It might be a steel framed building, and it might not.


You're right on that one. We'll have to wait it out.

But it does get the conspiracy pulse racing a little.

BTW, Your avatar creeps me out!


I like it but...still creepy...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
So I have not really looked into the matter of 9/11 and if there is more to it than it seems, but reflecting on the event the way in which the towers both essentially collapsed straight downwards is quite disturbing and not what I would expect at all.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I know you shouldn't post one line replies, but...

Just because a WAREHOUSE that is 2 STORIES HIGH at the most has MINOR ROOF AND INTERIOR WALL COLLAPSING doesn't make it relatable to 2 100 something STORY HIGH builings collapsing....

Geez, get a life...



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Yea, steel buildings dont... brick does.

maybe you can research what "truthism" point you are actually trying to debunk..



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Its quite sad how so many Truthers jumped on this without even taking one second to get an idea of what the point was regarding this thread.

The point is that fire alone helped cause sections of this building collapse, after burning for almost a day. Hmmm which building burned for almost a day and collapsed from fire mostly alone on 9/11? Oh yeah, thats right, WTC7. Just like how the steel only sections of the Windsor Tower began collapsing within 2 hours of fire initiation, but was saved by a large heavy concrete core, something that was lacking in the WTC buildings that collapsed.

WTC1 and 2 not only had fires, but a 767 impacting at very high speed causing severe damage first. Then the fires helped finish them off.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Its quite sad how so many Truthers jumped on this without even taking one second to get an idea of what the point was regarding this thread.


It's quite sad that you fail to understand the building did not completely collapse ejecting rubble in a 360d arc.

Or collapse and land mostly in its own footprint.


The point is that fire alone helped cause sections of this building collapse, after burning for almost a day. Hmmm which building burned for almost a day and collapsed from fire mostly alone on 9/11? Oh yeah, thats right, WTC7. Just like how the steel only sections of the Windsor Tower began collapsing within 2 hours of fire initiation, but was saved by a large heavy concrete core, something that was lacking in the WTC buildings that collapsed.


WTC 2 burned for less than an hour, the plane did not cause the collapse, sagging trusses from heat did, remember?

Windsor tower did not completely collapse into its footprint.


WTC1 and 2 not only had fires, but a 767 impacting at very high speed causing severe damage first. Then the fires helped finish them off.


Again according to NIST sagging trusses cause the failure, not the planes. All the planes did was put a hole in the mesh that did not cause the collapse.

All this does is prove you OS supporters have no clue what the real arguments against the OS are. There is more to it than simply planes, fire, collapse. These fires you use for comparison are not towers completely collapsing, they are partial collapses. No one has said fire can not cause steel to fail, fire for less than an hour yes, but your buildings were on fire for hours, and yet they did not completely collapse.

Windsor tower post collapse...




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


It's quite sad that you fail to understand the building did not completely collapse ejecting rubble in a 360d arc.



So, can you please explain what type of explosives can be used that cause this?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


It's quite sad that you fail to understand the building did not completely collapse ejecting rubble in a 360d arc.

Or collapse and land mostly in its own footprint.


ANOK, it has been nearly half a year, and I have yet to see any evidence of floors or anything being ejected outside the footprint.

What was "ejected" outside the footprint? I cannot believe you still dont know what happened. The exterior columns are what fell over outside the footprint. That and the aluminum cladding. No explosives were needed to throw exterior columns outside the footprint. Please update your facts ANOK. It is getting embarrassing.
It happened when the building peeled open during collapse. But since you are insinuating that some sor of explosives were used, then please tell us just how much would be needed to that and where they needed to be planted to achieve such results.




WTC 2 burned for less than an hour, the plane did not cause the collapse, sagging trusses from heat did, remember?


Now this is a "derp" moment. Let me savor this for one second.................... K.

This is unbelievable. You actually believe that the plane impact had no bearing on the WTC collapse?
I honestly cannot take you seriously anymore ANOK. Surely you are joking? Boy why is it so easy for Truthers to create make-believe connections and made up scenarios to explain things way over their heads, and have all of these intricate Rube-Goldberg styles of making things fit a conspiracy, and in the same breath forget key facts about what happened and forget that certain things occurred from a combination of events. Case in point, the planes, impact, fires and the collapse. Why are you ignoring the impact damage and fires started by the planes? Its like you are purposely leaving things out.



Windsor tower did not completely collapse into its footprint.


But its steel only sections did from fire alone within TWO hours of initiation. What saved it was its massive concrete and steel core, which was LACKING in all THREE WTC buildings. duh?





Again according to NIST sagging trusses cause the failure, not the planes. All the planes did was put a hole in the mesh that did not cause the collapse.


Oh so the planes didnt do anything?
ANOK, you are a laugh riot. This deserves a Facepalm.



All this does is prove you OS supporters have no clue what the real arguments against the OS are. There is more to it than simply planes, fire, collapse. These fires you use for comparison are not towers completely collapsing, they are partial collapses. No one has said fire can not cause steel to fail, fire for less than an hour yes, but your buildings were on fire for hours, and yet they did not completely collapse.

Windsor tower post collapse...



But the steel only sections of the Windsor failed RAPIDLY and was only saved by the massive core. Something that neither WTC buildings had. Boy oh boy ANOK, are you not catching on. Did the WTC Towers or WTC7 have a core comparable to Windsor's?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
So, can you please explain what type of explosives can be used that cause this?


Why do I need to do that?

Can you tell me how it could do that from gravity?

Are you saying rubble wasn't ejected in a 360d arc? Better take that up with FEMA then...





top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join