It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 04:20 AM

Originally posted by GenRadek
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.

How many times have we been over this. No proof? Where is the proof most of the mass stayed in 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.

Like you do know what happened?

All this is nothing but your opinion.

How much explosives? Well probably not much eh? Seeing as you think it didn't need any.

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?

LOL on all you want. What did the planes do?

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.

Whatever man I don't care what you take seriously, was I even talking to you?

I am making up nothing. That is what the NIST report did.

Can you explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns they are attached to?

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?

No massive box columns collapsed. What evidence do you have of major steel component collapsing? What proof do you have it was only the concrete that kept it from collapsing?

Regardless that is not evidence that sagging trusses can pull in columns. It is not proof the core could have heated up to failure.

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

They had no effect on the collapse, only the initiation of the collapse. Laugh on as you, as usual, fail in the details.

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?

No they failed over a period of time, not instantly as in the WTC towers. It's not even close to the WTC completely collapsing after less than an hour of fire. The claim that it was all because of the fires does not address the problem of the fact that most of the building was not on fire, and thus should not have collapsed.

All this 'fire caused sagging trusses', was an hypothesis for the initiation, not the whole collapse. Fire can not explain the lack of resistance due to undamaged building, as you know we have been over hundreds of time. No one has yet sufficiently explained how the collapses didn't slow from the loss of Ke to deformation, heat, sound etc. And please I don't need to hear your explanation again, I already know what you're going to say.

It's obvious that all you've done is read this...

Just someone else's opinion not facts. It's lies from the start...

The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC

There is no evidence fires reached those temps for any significant length of time. Even if they did in a fire lasting less than an hour those temps would have been very sporadic and in the last minutes before collapse. Simply not enough time to heat up enough steel to cause complete failure. The steel that failed on the Windsor tower wasn't the massive steel components used in the WTC towers.

edit on 12/24/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by thedman
One of the major tenents of " 911 truthism" is that buildings can not collapse from fire alone.

No the 911Truth folks have correctly cited evidence for the fact that the structural steel used in modern sky-skrapers like the WTC has a melting point way beyond the highest temp conventional flames produce. Your post in no way refutes that. Sorry

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 07:13 AM
Didn't anyone notice the black smoke, which indicates an oxygen starved fire?

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 10:12 AM
Hey, OP, please explain what is dripping and squirting from the end of the steel beam which sticks out of the WTC rubble? Don't tell me it's aluminum, please.

Forget warehouses and low-rises. Check the Mandarin Hotel fire in Beijing and then talk about building being ON FIRE.
edit on 25-12-2011 by dayzee because: Embedding error?

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:39 PM

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:01 PM
Does anybody know if these burning skyscrapers in VietNam collapsed into their own footprint? This fire was "news" for less than one day, and there don't seem to be any articles about it after 12/16/11.

Nhan Dan – A massive fire broke out at the Electricity of Vietnam (EVN) operation centre in Hanoi about 4pm yesterday.

The nearly completed twin towers, one 29 and the other 33 storeys, were quickly smothered in thick black smoke as the fire started in the basement of the 33-storey building and flames and smoke rapidly spread to the upper floors.

Around 40 workers trapped in the towers had to race to the top floor to wait for firefighters and rescuers.

Dozens of fire trucks along with hundreds of firefighters, policemen, and soldiers were mobilised at the scene.

The blaze was completely put out by 8.50pm and everyone trapped in the towers was rescued safely. Twenty four people suffering from smoke inhalation and light burns were taken to hospital, but no deaths have been reported.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Mkoll
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

I don't understand...the two towers were designed very differntly from every other steel skyscraper (which directly impacted how the structure would react when hit by a plane and on fire), but the conspiracy pople religiously ignor the differences in design and construction by consistantly playing the "steel skyscraper" card. Now h=that we have another steel structure you're keep to point out that the buiding reacted differently becuase they were designed differently.

Does the design of the structure make a diference on how it would collapse or doesn't it?

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:14 AM
Are people really still trying to convince us the towers fell due to fire?

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:49 PM
So if fires cannot cause steel structures to fail, what happened to the floors inside WTC5?

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by thedman
One of the major tenents of " 911 truthism" is that buildings can not collapse from fire alone.

Yeppers chuck "fire" and "thermite" in the garbage. Insert "static field" and "directed energy weapon" then say THANK YOU for the bravery of one Dr. Judy Wood.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:09 PM
so , were rolling into 2012 , and people STILL believe the OS ? even though its the OSers that start the arguements when they know theyre cornered , its the OSers that rattle on about trivial stuff to throw the debate off track, and not one OSer has put forward a sensible explaination as to what actually happened from impact to collapse ........... and WERE crazy for thinking there was bombs ? , ok , OSers , it might seem hard for you to think for youreslves but try it , for once , and explain to us in full detail what exactly happened , what failed , why , how , we want every thing from the weight applied , to the heat of the superdooper kerosene mix that melts steel in under an hour.

oh , and yes ............. the steel WAS melting , i think that`s clear to you by now , if not ..... just...just go back to bed.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:28 PM
Since when are "warehouses" built like skyscrapers?

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:42 PM
was it 10$ you got for making this thread?

60min vs 1440 minutes?

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by notonsamepage
was it 10$ you got for making this thread?

60min vs 1440 minutes?

$10? Are you kidding me, it's our tax money that pays him, so probably closer to $100+

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:54 PM
Either they're really clever, or we're really stupid. I wonder which it is?

If the government insisted that we essentially keep a detailed diary of our moods, activities, hopes and dreams, and make it available to both them and the world at large, insisted that we post regular photos of our activities, outlining who is in the photos and where they were taken, and regularly take part in games designed to test our awareness, intelligence and response times, and listed a series of likes and dislikes, we'd (hopefully) revolt.

If you went back 20 years ago and said to people that not only would we be doing that, but we'd do it voluntarily and consider anyone who didn't as being a bit odd and very silly, you'd likely be laughed at.

And yet, so many of us do.

I think we have to seriously consider that the majority of us are really very stupid and easily led. Even I have an old Facebook profile that I can't delete. It hasn't been updated in years, but it's still there, so I must be stupid too.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by tw0330

rofl ! yeah you may be right >P

how is 33 doing for you/?

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:11 PM
I'm not even going to give this more than the 5-seconds it deserves.

We didn't say a building that is burning for an entire day WON'T collapse ...............we said a burning concrete and steel building CAN'T collapse in an hour!!!!

Not to mention how a lone building (WTC 7) with no added accelerant 'fuel' SHOULDN'T have collapsed in 7 hours either.

Please get your10 year old facts straight before presenting a futile argument.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:20 PM
I like the verse...
You been living like a little girl
in the middle of your little world!

edit on 28-12-2011 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:46 PM
24 individuals poster think the OP is full of it.
3 individuals poster believe it relevant.
3 neutral.

Do i need to say more, make it 25 here.
Dont loose your time, Dave is troll btw.
Heck even the OP is long gone.
Anyway how you compare a skyscraper to warehouse.
I mean CMON MAN, you really need that money huh?

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:55 PM
The government took the advise of...

Women are advised that if your are attacked
it is better to yell Fire then Rape.

These little Girls that believe the OS scream Fire
instead of

Planes have Penetrated the Building.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in