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.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 78
17
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So in other words, the figures say that ......widespread areas within WTC 7 had been baking at 1000 degrees celcius for hours.


The figures from the NIST shills say no such thing. They say that the fires had only affected areas between floors 6 and 8 and 11 and 13, which is a sneaky way of saying that two fires on 7 and 12 had compromised 6 floors. Even so, that still leaves 41 floors that didn't burn, so the steel wasn't weakened at all. And yet, the entire building collapsed like a house of cards.

And of course ALL OF THIS makes the WIndsor fire in Madrid and many others like it our best witnesses to testify that all of you OS'ers are residing on the Planet of Delusion.

You and your entire line of BS are EPIC FAIL.
edit on 16-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet


Fine. Show me a comparable non-controlled building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition and I will admit to being wrong. But you can't, now can you?


First of all you need to know that not a single CD expert thinks that the collapses of towers 1 & 2 looked like a controlled demolition. Even CD Expert Danny Jowenko who believed that WTC-7 looked like a CD, said that 1& 2 didn't.



And the other two WTC buildings don't count. To my knowledge these have been the only 3 "non-controlled" collapses to look exactly like a controlled demolition. What a coincidence that it all happened in the same day and place. You don't know of any others do you?


First we have to compare apple to apples... right?

So, you need to find the following:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) which had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

(you wont be able to)

Again, you fail. your opinions are only that. You opinion is not shared with any professionals in the world. Are we to believe that ALL the professionals in the world are wrong, and you are right? Are they all afraid to come forward?

The Windsor Tower fire clearly shows that steel fails and fails rapidly! 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began there were collapses. The steel failed. The concrete didn't.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ask yourself a couple simple questions:

1. Why is there a building code requirement that all structural steel be encased in fireproofing?

2. If you were on the 5th floor of a 50 story skyscraper and there was a large fire on the 30th floor. Would you stay in the building?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 



Fine. Show me a comparable non-controlled building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition and I will admit to being wrong. But you can't, now can you?


Delft University School of Technology - May 2008

One wing collapsed from fire

www.liveleak.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by coyotepoet
 



Fine. Show me a comparable non-controlled building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition and I will admit to being wrong. But you can't, now can you?


Delft University School of Technology - May 2008

One wing collapsed from fire

www.liveleak.com...

This is an excellent example of how the top of a building doesn't collapse the floors below it just from falling on them. This appeared to be a 14 or 15 story building. Only a section of the top half was burning, and when it collapsed, you can see that the lower floors were still intact (along with the entire rest of the building) if you wait until the smoke clears at the very end of the video.

We just love evidence of what happens in the real world, and that the events of 911 are only possible in some other dimension of some other reality of some other universe, or in the dazed and confused minds of OS'ers.

edit on 16-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

The Windsor Tower fire clearly shows that steel fails and fails rapidly! 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began there were collapses. The steel failed. The concrete didn't.


Exactly. 2 hours and 30 minutes of burning like a freaking Roman Candle, encased from top to bottom in an inferno from hell, and more than 20 hours later, it was STILL STANDING AND SUPPORTING A CRANE ON THE ROOF!!! What utter nonsense you OS'ers spout. Compare that to small localized fires that were oxygen starved and nearly out, as per the radio communications of firemen ON THE SCENE, and that had been burning for less than 45 minutes. Not to mention that most of the jet fuel burned up within the first minute.

Desperately grasping at straws to support the untenable, as usual. EPIC FAIL.
edit on 16-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Really? Because in that video I only see the part of the building that was on fire collapse, not the whole thing. You can clearly see the building through the smoke.



Watch this again and then go back to your video. Notice how in both WTC7 and the CD the roofline stays relatively straight when it collapses and the whole roofline collapses. Very clearly in your video that doesn't happen

www.liveleak.com...

Nice try though.


edit on 16-4-2012 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 





You see unless you control the mass so that it is equal you don't need F (frame) BUT most mass is unbalanced. Weighty on one side or the other. So without relief being a total distribution under a mass , the acceleration will not be EVEN (balanced) Therefore, there is not one of the three WTC buildings that could have fallen straight down. The relief damage was always off center. Hence the non damaged portion of the frame would remain stationary while IF a sufficient void is created to initiate MOMENTUM (plane building #1, plane building #2, corner damage on SEVEN) in another portion of the FRAME,


So what you are saying is that, in the video comparison directly above your post, there is no way physics would allow a non-controlled demolition to look exactly like a controlled demolition?
edit on 15-4-2012 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)


Hi coyo,
I am not much on videos but what I said a few pages back might clear this up.
added by ljb
This formula changes drastically with BOMBS C4 and other explosives.

Because that is the only way I know that you can provide a total void beneath the mass of a tower in order to intimate acceleration. (velocity) So there is no need to equate that with FRAME momentum.
The videos are good examples of repetitive void creation.
Visuals (and audio) can help describe physics.cheers ljb



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma



First of all you need to know that not a single CD expert thinks that the collapses of towers 1 & 2 looked like a controlled demolition. Even CD Expert Danny Jowenko who believed that WTC-7 looked like a CD, said that 1& 2 didn't.





Hi sig
Quite CORRECT!!! All we are working on here is why SEVEN went DOWN,
when Larry said PULL IT.
thanks for the enlightenment.
cheers ljb



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


Once again, you ignored my question. Why is that? Is that such a hard thing to ask? I am not asking about how a building collapse should look like.

I am asking, if as ANOK and other truthers adamantly claim that steel cannot heat up rapidly enough to fail in a "regular" fire, then why did the heavy steel trussed roof collapse from fire alone within 30 minutes?

Simple question. Quit dodging it and quit trying to change the subject.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Exactly. 2 hours and 30 minutes of burning like a freaking Roman Candle, encased from top to bottom in an inferno from hell, and more than 20 hours later, it was STILL STANDING AND SUPPORTING A CRANE ON THE ROOF!!! What utter nonsense you OS'ers spout. Compare that to small localized fires that were oxygen starved and nearly out, as per the radio communications of firemen ON THE SCENE, and that had been burning for less than 45 minutes. Not to mention that most of the jet fuel burned up within the first minute.

Desperately grasping at straws to support the untenable, as usual. EPIC FAIL.
edit on 16-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


Excuse me, what happened to the STEEL ONLY supported sections of Windsor Tower in the fire and what survived? Good Lord, I have not seen such ignorance since watching Loose Change.

Its like you completely ignore the fact that the steel only sections failed within 2 and 1/2 hours, and all that was left standing was the massive CONCRETE CORE which neither WTC1,2 or 7 had. Also Windsor had massive concrete technical floors that were part of the main CONCRETE core.

Deny ignorance. Why do truthers prefer to wallow in it and spread it everywhere?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Hi coyo,
I am not much on videos but what I said a few pages back might clear this up.
added by ljb
This formula changes drastically with BOMBS C4 and other explosives.

Because that is the only way I know that you can provide a total void beneath the mass of a tower in order to intimate acceleration. (velocity) So there is no need to equate that with FRAME momentum.
The videos are good examples of repetitive void creation.
Visuals (and audio) can help describe physics.cheers ljb


Are you remotely aware of how WTC7 was designed? Have you heard of the ConEd substation at the base? Have you heard about the large transfer trusses needed to go over it? You mention a void was needed at the base. Take a good look at the design of WTC7. Then start taking note of the facts and stop with the ignorance.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
all that was left standing was the massive CONCRETE CORE which neither WTC1,2 or 7 had.

Not that you have any credibility left anyway, but I see a little bit more than a concrete core in this photo....




Keep up the good work!



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches


Hi sig
Quite CORRECT!!! All we are working on here is why SEVEN went DOWN,
when Larry said PULL IT.
thanks for the enlightenment.
cheers ljb


Larry is not, never was, never will be a demolition expert.

There never was any proof that "pull it" was used as a lingo term for blowing up a building. Even Danny Jowenko stated no such thing. It has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that pulling referred to the firefighting operations around WTC7, and that the New York Fire Dept is not in the controlled demolition business. The only pulling done was with cables, and it involved physically pulling down WTC6 remains. This "pull it = explosive demolition" only appeard in 2004 on truther sites with ZERO evidence to back it up. Once again, truthers making crap up. No surprise there.

This ignorance will stop NOW. DENY IGNORANCE.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by GenRadek
all that was left standing was the massive CONCRETE CORE which neither WTC1,2 or 7 had.

Not that you have any credibility left anyway, but I see a little bit more than a concrete core in this photo....




Keep up the good work!


Thanks for the insult but, what you see in your picture is the concrete core standing. What happened to the steel sections? I thought fire cannot affect steel rapidly enough to cause any sort of failure. Thank you for your picture showing what happens to steel when exposed to nearly 2 1/2 hours of fire.

You may be interested in some facts about Windsor:
Windsor Tower FACTS


Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.



The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction

The building featured two heavily reinforced concrete transfer structures (technical floors) between the 2nd and 3rd Floors, and between the 16th and 17th Floors respectively. The original cladding system was fixed to the steel perimeter columns and the floor slabs. The perimeter columns were supported by the transfer structures at the 17th and 3rd Floor levels.



The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. 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). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.



On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.


Now please show me where either WTC 1,2 or 7 had similar redundant designs with the core. Your picture shows me concrete surviving fire.
edit on 4/16/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Six Sigma

The Windsor Tower fire clearly shows that steel fails and fails rapidly! 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began there were collapses. The steel failed. The concrete didn't.


Exactly. 2 hours and 30 minutes of burning like a freaking Roman Candle, encased from top to bottom in an inferno from hell, and more than 20 hours later, it was STILL STANDING AND SUPPORTING A CRANE ON THE ROOF!!! What utter nonsense you OS'ers spout. Compare that to small localized fires that were oxygen starved and nearly out, as per the radio communications of firemen ON THE SCENE, and that had been burning for less than 45 minutes. Not to mention that most of the jet fuel burned up within the first minute.


Desperately grasping at straws to support the untenable, as usual. EPIC FAIL.


Since the General already handed you your hat with what was left standing - I will refrain from offering you the information that you will more than likely ignore.

Let's address the remainder of your post. First of all, I assumed this discussion was surrounding WTC-7. You are clearly speaking of the Tower 1 & 2. That's fine. Regarding that radio communication, you are either ignorant to the facts surrounding that, or you are intentionally trying to deceive people.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and educate you on the "two isolated pockets of fire".

Please look at the picture below and notice where floor 78 is. That is the location of where the late Orio Palmer made that radio transmission:

i190.photobucket.com...

i190.photobucket.com...

If you can find some other communications from the FDNY regarding small fires, please feel free to post them.


EDIT TO ADD:

"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." (deaths)

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."


My naive hope is that you will learn from this..... and maybe research where in the tower he was. You will get many answers if you are looking for "the truth"
edit on 16-4-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Yes it does matter. ANOK and other truthers say that steel cannot be affected by fire fast enough to cause any sort of failure.


I'm only wrong because you simply don't understand how this works.

You are wrong, because you fail to understand the argument and take it all out of context, and miss the big picture. No one is saying steel cannot be affected by fire fast enough to cause failure.

What we are saying is fire cannot cause the effects we see on the three WTC buildings, i.e. complete collapse with no signs of resistance, or cause trusses to pull in columns.

A roof collapse is not a building collapse. Sagging or collapsing roof trusses do not pull in the buildings walls, and cause complete collapse of the rest of the building.

Just look at the size of the floor assemblies compared with the columns...



How can you even imagine those trusses pulling in those columns, let alone the much more massive core columns that were braced together essentially forming a free-standing structure. You are stretching some facts, and leaving other out, in order to make an argument.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



How can you even imagine those trusses pulling in those columns....

Because those trusses were designed to act as a unit with almost an acre of concrete floor. See those little knuckles sticking up above the deck pans? They were then incorporated into the floor making the floor and the trusses one unit.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



How can you even imagine those trusses pulling in those columns....

Because those trusses were designed to act as a unit with almost an acre of concrete floor. See those little knuckles sticking up above the deck pans? They were then incorporated into the floor making the floor and the trusses one unit.


That doesn't explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns!

Yes the floors were one complete assembly, including the steel deck pans and concrete, did that all sag also?

Do I have to explain the physics of expanding materials again? Sagging trusses cannot put a pulling force on the columns, period.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



That doesn't explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns!

Yes it does, you just don't understand the concept of turning individual elements into a construction and design unit.

Yes the floors were one complete assembly, including the steel deck pans and concrete, did that all sag also?

And the trusses. Yes, it all sagged.

Do I have to explain the physics of expanding materials again?

No, you have to understand them first.

Sagging trusses cannot put a pulling force on the columns, period.

Floors and trusses sagged, they're connected to the columns, the columns were pulled until the capacity of the connections between the floor SYSTEM and the columns was exceeded. But when that happened it was too late.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Once again, you ignored my question. Why is that? Is that such a hard thing to ask? I am not asking about how a building collapse should look like. am asking, if as ANOK and other truthers adamantly claim that steel cannot heat up rapidly enough to fail in a "regular" fire, then why did the heavy steel trussed roof collapse from fire alone within 30 minutes? Simple question. Quit dodging it and quit trying to change the subject.


Direct answer: because steel weakens. No mystery. No dodging. I've never claimed steel cannot heat up rapidly enough in a regular fire. However, that one element is not enough to prove the OS on the issue.

My question that you keep dodging is still pertinent. Find me a video/example of a total non-controlled building collapse that looks exactly like a CD. But you won't because you can't. Far from trying to change the subject, that idea is precisely at the heart of the subject.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join