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.

 

PBS broadcast of “Solving the Mystery of WTC7″ reaches 2.7 Million Americans

page: 13
71
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I know a little about fires as I have my own company that designs and installs fire suppression systems. In particular fire sprinklers and low/high pressure water mist suppression.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by D8ncer
 


Thank you for posting the video of Windsor. But here is the fact you overlooked:

Windsor Tower had its steel only sections fail from fire alone within 2-3 hours of being engulfed. No planes hit it, no buildings fell on it. It burned, and the steel supported areas collapsed all by themselves. Now why didnt it all collapse? Notice what was left behind. A huge steel-reinforced concrete core and a large heavy mechanical concrete floor. If it wasnt for those two main supports, the entire building would have probably come down just like the WTCs. Or if not for the concrete floor, it would have just stripped off the floors in similar fashion to the Twin Towers, but left the large concrete core standing.

WTC7 had no such core. Neither did the WTC1+2. That is why they collapsed.

Windsor Tower Fire



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
From glens link:




A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1).


So it seems that floors in a steel building can collapse from fire alone!
Would it have lasted 18 hours if a plane had hit it?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by D8ncer
 


Yes, that makes you an expert on the structural integrity of buildings that are on fire. Can you share the link to your publications on this subject?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron
reply to post by samkent
 


Of course the rank and file of NYFD were not in on it. Those heros were the sacrificial lambs. Condolences to the widows and children of those heros. We will not stop until the true murderers of your husband/father are outed.


But Chiefs Hayden and Nigro were?

Also you're definitely implicating some rank and file fire personnel because many of them continue to testify that the collapse was expected, given the condition of the building. They have stuck to that story. So either you are wrong, or they are liars and complicit in murder.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethron
The destruction of WTC7 was so obviously a controlled demolition that it's almost impossible to believe anyone could be stupid enough to genuinely believe it 'just collapsed'.


Most people do not process information for validity as soon as it comes from a reliable source and the opinion is commonly accepted. Especially when it does not have direct impact on person's everyday life.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Same reason why that would happen (if it would happen) when CD is used.


What? No. You obvioulsy have no idea how an 'implosion' demolitions works do you? Or building collapses in general.

First off I'm going to say WTC 7 should never have collapsed in the first place by fire, but it did not just collapse did it?

How can the outer walls wait for the center of the building to collapse before they themselves fall inwards on top, from a natural collapse? It is not physically possible PLB, Mr. Electrical Engineer.

You only have to look at this pic...



To see that the outer wall is lying against the huge rubble pile. Pics from all sides show this...

Why would those outer walls not have been pushed outwards by the rubble that is the rest of the building? There is only ONE way, the center of the building must have been collapsed ahead of the outer walls in such a fashion that it causes a vacuum allowing the walls to fall in that direction, instead of outwards as would normally happen.
That is what an implosion demolition does.

Implosion demolition is the ONLY way that can happen PLB, period.


The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

s8-us2.startpage.com...

We all know it only takes a small mistake for a controlled demolition to go wrong. Yet three buildings on 911 managed to completely collapse, with apparently nothing more than fire and gravity. We know WTC 7 landed mostly in it's own footprint, because of the outer walls on top of the debris (that is the evidence). The collapse was a perfect example of an implosion demolition, the tallest building EVER imploded. Fire has never done that to any building and never will.


edit on 1/18/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Yet three buildings on 911 managed to completely collapse, with apparently nothing more than fire and gravity.


Yes, and as we all know fire and gravity are virtually harmless. I set myself on fire everyday and jump off a twenty story building with virtually no damage!



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
Why miss his point so deliberately? When you set yourself on fire and jump, do you collapse completely and symmetrically into your own footprint, with your insides collapsing at a faster rate than your outsides so your outsides end up on top of your insides?

Nobody's suggesting that fire and gravity can't cause damage.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No, really, he isn't ruining the "truther" argument. He's saying that a Fire might weaken steel, but a fire PLUS explosives would make it easier.



there is no sensible argument that you can produce that says that you need to have a clearly visible amount of explosives to have it done by explosives in addition to the fire, but that fire ALONE could do it no problem.


Hiding explosives seems a lot easier than making a fire on TWO or THREE floors collapse a whole building. You still have the problem of a collapse with no resistance. This was a traditional steel box frame construction, like a million other high rise buildings and there is no way it can fall without resistance from a fire.

There is NOT enough heat in a normal office fire to weaken steel, unless that steel is defective or made out of dirt. Fire codes and engineering manuals would have to be entirely re-written if this were the case.

>> There is no prior incident to justify assuming that anything but explosives could bring down a steel building that fast -- much less at all, by fire. These fires didn't even have the excuse of jet fuel (which doesn't burn any hotter than normal debris in a fire but might add more heat for about 15 minutes).



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by hooper
 
Why miss his point so deliberately? When you set yourself on fire and jump, do you collapse completely and symmetrically into your own footprint, with your insides collapsing at a faster rate than your outsides so your outsides end up on top of your insides?

Nobody's suggesting that fire and gravity can't cause damage.



Because its not the first time in this forum that someone attempted to dismiss the destructive forces of fire and gravity. I also purposely ignored the posters attempts to interject facts without evidence - that is to say there is no evidence to support the contentions of symmetry or "footprinting". These are adjectives that someone is attempting to pose as facts. The buildings did not collapse in their own foortprints as can easliy be observed by reviewing any of the thousands of photos from Ground Zero and there is no offered definition of "symmetry" so anyone's support of that notion is simply opinion.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hey ANOK looK!



LooK! Fire and gravity cause a cell phone tower to fall!



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Yes, and as we all know fire and gravity are virtually harmless. I set myself on fire everyday and jump off a twenty story building with virtually no damage!




Oh dear PLB.

Did I say there would be no damage? WTC was not just damaged was it. There is a huge difference between 'damage', and a building completely collapsing into its own footprint.

You know exactly what I'm saying though don't you? You are just acting ignorant as usual, because you know I'm right and you have no counter argument.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
LooK! Fire and gravity cause a cell phone tower to fall!


OMG you are hilarious.

In what way on gods earth does that have anything to do with buildings?

Another typical irrelevant post from GenRadek that completely misses the point.

Did you miss the part where I said no building can ever collapse into its own footprint from fire and gravity?

That is both GenRadek and PLB completely missing the point, purposely I suppose, I find it hard to believe someone could be that dense.




edit on 1/18/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
From dictionary.com:

sym·me·try [sim-i-tree]
1. the correspondence in size, form, and arrangement of parts on opposite sides of a plane, line, or point; regularity of form or arrangement in terms of like, reciprocal, or corresponding parts.
[snip]
5. Physics . a property of a physical system that is unaffected by certain mathematical transformations as, for example, the work done by gravity on an object, which is not affected by any change in the position from which the potential energy of the object is measured.

I see evidence that fits both of these definitions in the photos and videos of WTC 7's collapse I've looked at. Same with the opinion that it fell (virtually; maybe not completely) into its own footprint.

I've also noticed that ANOK, among others, consistently provides photos and diagrams to support his opinion. If you know of evidence that refutes his claim, I've never seen it. And I've looked at the FEMA and NIST reports, 911myths, etc... I'm not fully convinced of controlled demolition, but I am convinced of what I see: an almost perfect symmetrical collapse, mostly into the building's footprint, with near free-fall acceleration for portions of the collapse. I think it's possible for asymmetrical fire damage to create those conditions, but extremely unlikely - especially three times in a row. If your intention is to convince someone like me that my perception / opinion is wrong, you'd have better success providing evidence or analysis rather than ridiculing one specific point while ignoring all others.

By the way - did you ever get an answer to your question earlier in this thread asking for confirmation of the PBS broadcast? This has been a great discussion on this thread, but I'm still curious as to whether the original story was actually true.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 
Causing it to fall to the side, into the path of least resistance, rather than straight down into its own structure. Weird.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by GenRadek
 
Causing it to fall to the side, into the path of least resistance, rather than straight down into its own structure. Weird.



Not really. Are you aware that WTC7 was built over a ConEd substation? Also, during collapse, it fell towards the south, the direction in which it was tilting due to creep and damage done. Nothing weird about it, only to those that are unaware of the facts and the conditions at the time.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
LooK! Fire and gravity cause a cell phone tower to fall!


OMG you are hilarious.

In what way on gods earth does that have anything to do with buildings?

Another typical irrelevant post from GenRadek that completely misses the point.

Did you miss the part where I said no building can ever collapse into its own footprint from fire and gravity?

That is both GenRadek and PLB completely missing the point, purposely I suppose, I find it hard to believe someone could be that dense.




edit on 1/18/2012 by ANOK because: typo


You just said that fire and gravity cannot cause anything to collapse.
A simple cell phone tower managed to collapse from that alone.

But I would like for you to provide us with a video with real audio of WTC7 collapsing where we can actually hear demolition charges going off in sequence prior to collapse. I will also accept actual eyewitness accounts where they specifically heard series of detonations prior to collapse. Remember, in a CD, you hear explosions in series FIRST. Then the building begins to move. Not the other way around.

I know I am going to wait a very long time for you to actually give me an answer, just like how I am still waiting into the new year for you to provide evidence that the majority of the mass from the WTC was magically ejected outside the footprint.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 



I see evidence that fits both of these definitions in the photos and videos of WTC 7's collapse I've looked at. Same with the opinion that it fell (virtually; maybe not completely) into its own footprint.

WTC 7 fell down. That's not evidence of controlled demolition, thats evidence of gravity. Symmetry? To what definition? And if it didn't all fall "in its footprint" then all if did was fall down near where it stood - evidence again of the existance of gravity.

I've also noticed that ANOK, among others, consistently provides photos and diagrams to support his opinion.

No, he provides his opinions and adjectives and expects everyone to accept them as fact.

If you know of evidence that refutes his claim, I've never seen it.

See- that's the problem - he's made no claim except to claim everyone else is wrong and therefore something else must be right. He must first present proof for his negative claim - that fire did not cause the collapse. Now, since we can't really prove a negative than it is beholden upon him to present evidence in the affirmative, that is to say "here is the direct evidence of the use of explosives in the controlled demolition of WTC 7" or something to that effect.

And I've looked at the FEMA and NIST reports, 911myths, etc... I'm not fully convinced of controlled demolition, but I am convinced of what I see: an almost perfect symmetrical collapse, mostly into the building's footprint, with near free-fall acceleration for portions of the collapse.

And? Do you see evidence of explosives? Because unless you do then all you are convinced of is your own bias.

I think it's possible for asymmetrical fire damage to create those conditions, but extremely unlikely - especially three times in a row.

Why? If its possible once and the same condition exist again why is it unlikely for the results to be the same?

If your intention is to convince someone like me that my perception / opinion is wrong, you'd have better success providing evidence or analysis rather than ridiculing one specific point while ignoring all others.

There are no other "points". Incredulity and opinion are not points. You can't prove the negative - "fire didn't cause the collapse" so you are therefore burdened to prove the affirmative "________ caused the collaps" And ______ must be something other than "I don't like what you think because it denies my bias with regards to conspiracies".

By the way - did you ever get an answer to your question earlier in this thread asking for confirmation of the PBS broadcast? This has been a great discussion on this thread, but I'm still curious as to whether the original story was actually true.

No, thanks for asking - I never got anyone to point to any independent evidence that this video was ever broadcast anywhere on any PBS station. I am not saying that just because I didn't see it that it did not happen - just somewhere you would think there would be a link to something other than a conspiracy site that mentions the broadcast. Also, and this is just my opinion, but I think if PBS, which is under constant scrutiny by a number of political organizations, broadcast some pro 9/11 government conspiracy videos then we probably would have heard about in the media.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 





especially three times in a row.

Wtc 1&2 ground themselves down to street level. 1&2 looked different to 7.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join