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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 15
46
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

So why didn't it collapse then?


Cuz it didn't catch fire and the damage is not extensive.


Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7


lie


therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.


lie
edit on 25-5-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
So why didn't it collapse then? Apparently OS'ers believe the debris from WTC 1 brought down WTC 7, therefore, the Fiterman Hall building should have suffered the same fate.


Seriously, what is wrong with you? Most of the buildings surrounding the WTC complex didn't collapse. They sustained damage, but the varying designs led to varying results. Are you trying to say that it's a conspiracy that the buildings were considered unsafe and had to be deconstructed one floor at a time due to damage?


So what you are saying is that many buildings suffered damage and the only one that collapsed without an airplane striking it was WTC7?


No, Building 3 also collapsed, and many other buildings suffered partial collapses. The firefighters were watching Building 7 ALL DAY because they knew it was damaged too far and would collapse. How do you consistently forget that?



You mean this Building 3;



Building 3 is piggy in the middle between WTC 1 and 2

So what is the sticky up stuff after the "collapse"? A few floors seems to have survived.




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


You think you're the first one to realize and spot this out? The location of WTC 7 has always been a bone of contention but how do you argue with 'flying' debris?

Listen, we all know it was imploded. On purpose. With intent and by explosives!
Until you can come up with a photo of Mission Control and the control panel showing where they were calling the shots...this is all old news.

And what the HELL is up with your avatar? What is THAT? That's going to give me nightmares tonight for sure!


I stand humbled by your well put argument. While you may have been switched on to the 9/11 crime for a while, I have only started to be aware of this atrocity in the last couple years and only begun reading about in detail since October last year.

As for my avatar...what can I say? How about my mom loves me and thinks I am adorable...ainsi que ce soit mon ami



.
edit on 24-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


I think you're beautiful, and I love you, too.

I do get nightmares from looking at ritalin sniffer strelnikov. To the final battle, eh, comrade. The dust hasn't settled just yet. A beam from this monstrosity has made it's way to the front of a local firehouse. They simply must insure we all get a little piece of the rock, because eventually, we will be picked off, unless we awaken to the handful in charge of this black mass.

I hang on your every word, because I know you are a seeker of truth, setting us free. There will never be another one like you.
edit on 25-5-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Based on your assertion, any subsequent discussion would be a confrontation between belief systems and not facts. Accordingly, I see no profit in engaging with you. To do so would be an irrational act on my part in light of your above statement.


It was an honest observation made by me through reading your back and forth replies with other posters and myself. It isn't meant to be about belief system, just noting that any evidence it seems that is brought forward you dismiss; albeit, you refute and counter most of the time with your own theory. I recognized that fact. Why the push back for a neutral person trying to get information?



BTW, Column bulking calcs - critical loads, would be done during the design process only as an exercise to examine possibilities. To pass building code inspections/controls, they would have to use more complex methods. Structural engineers compensate for sudden loss of columns or members in their belts and braces calculations to cover their asses.


Yes I understand that but you don't think there could have been a critical failure at all? That there possible was a design flaw (for lack of a better word as it wasn't really a flaw under normal circumstances)?
edit on 25-5-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


Ah, so a tiny corner of the building survives, and that labels it as "not" a collapse? Funny how that works.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


Ah, so a tiny corner of the building survives, and that labels it as "not" a collapse? Funny how that works.


What are the differences between these collapses?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


Ah, so a tiny corner of the building survives, and that labels it as "not" a collapse? Funny how that works.


What are the differences between these collapses?


Different building designs, different circumstances, and different time periods.

Do you not see now how stupid the argument is about the other buildings not collapsing? I bet that if another building had collapsed, you would be calling that one a conspiracy too. It's just how your brain works.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidmann

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


You think you're the first one to realize and spot this out? The location of WTC 7 has always been a bone of contention but how do you argue with 'flying' debris?

Listen, we all know it was imploded. On purpose. With intent and by explosives!
Until you can come up with a photo of Mission Control and the control panel showing where they were calling the shots...this is all old news.

And what the HELL is up with your avatar? What is THAT? That's going to give me nightmares tonight for sure!


I stand humbled by your well put argument. While you may have been switched on to the 9/11 crime for a while, I have only started to be aware of this atrocity in the last couple years and only begun reading about in detail since October last year.

As for my avatar...what can I say? How about my mom loves me and thinks I am adorable...ainsi que ce soit mon ami



.
edit on 24-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


I think you're beautiful, and I love you, too.

I do get nightmares from looking at ritalin sniffer strelnikov. To the final battle, eh, comrade. The dust hasn't settled just yet. A beam from this monstrosity has made it's way to the front of a local firehouse. They simply must insure we all get a little piece of the rock, because eventually, we will be picked off, unless we awaken to the handful in control of this mess.

I hang on your every word, because I know you are a seeker of truth, setting us free. There will never be another one like you.
edit on 25-5-2012 by davidmann because: (no reason given)




Without a doubt the truth will emerge. The people responsible for 9/11 and their interests will be held to account for their crimes. All these criminals can do is make threats, deploy their shills and use the media for their lies. But when the tipping point comes, they will have nowhere to hide.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 




Different building designs, different circumstances, and different time periods.


okay, list the differences...



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia
 




Different building designs, different circumstances, and different time periods.


okay, list the differences...



I'm not your servant. Figure it out yourself.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 



1. That's right Gdeck , 5 hours of an uncontrolled fire cannot do squat to steel. In fact , even aluminum has a hard time weakening with uncontrolled fires. So imagine "mild steel". I am starting to think you have never work on an actual Tower before???

2. Flaming debris? You have any physical evidence of that?- I mean flaming while being projected in the sky. You keep shooting yourself in the foot with 1000 ft and 300 ft distance stuff. Understand fire can't survive flying in thin air. And the plane impact is not and will not be an issue when asking a simple question: how many times (the supposed expert) has anyone seen flaming flying debris ignite another of these voodoo fires that will pulverize steel and concrete.




So a fire can not weaken steel.....?

Why then did this building on fire collapse.....?

www.liveleak.com...

I suppose it was sekrit ninja demolition team...? Right .....?

Flaming debris .......

90 West Street on fire





In the days after the twin towers collapsed, 90 West Street was celebrated as a miracle building of Sept. 11, because, unlike so many others nearby, it survived. But the building was severely damaged when flaming steel debris rained on its north facade and gouged the exterior.

Out-of-control fires raged in the building for days, gutting five floors and major portions of four others. A plummeting javelin of steel demolished the kitchen at the Morton's of Chicago steakhouse on the ground floor of the building, at the corner of Albany and West Streets, which once had the highest revenues of any of the chain's restaurants.

The battered copper sheets of the sloping mansard roof -- pierced, pitted and dented by hurtling projectile debris -- were peeled back as if by a giant with a can opener. On the rooftop, the decorative copper balustrade was melted and twisted .


.


Burned out 90 West St



Care to retract your remarlks......



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by HolgerTheDane2
 

The heat of Jet exhaust is 1800 degrees and is burned at the maximum temperature attainable . The heat of raw jet fuel burning in a inefficient manner such as in a burning building might make 800 degrees . An oxygen starved situation would be less such as a smoldering fire . Steel melts at a much higher temperature and is compromised in structural capacity above the temperature of raw fuel combustion .***snip***


Let's put it in Celcius (I'm Danish - so it is OK)
Jet-A fuel burns at 980 Celsius (about 1,796 Fahrenheit).

Even if the Jet-A fuel is spent relatively quickly it is still estimated that the smoke gas temperatures (under the ceilings) were somewhere between 400 and 800 Celcius (752 to 1,472 Fahrenheit). These numbers are the conservative estimates.

Steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong steel) to austenite (much weaker) at about 703 Celcius (1,297 Fahrenheit).
And if the steel is held at slightly less for an extended period we get martinsite (very weak).

This is not to say that the steel used is pure cementite or pure pearlite (ridiculous notion anyway), but merely to enlighten you towards the way steel phases are affected by heat.

Look it up. Steel engineers know this for fact. Truthers disregard habitually.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


So explain how a wireless detonator is supposed to work in a building as large as the WTC ?

You do realize each floor was 1 acre in size ?

That the FDNY was having trouble with its radios in such a large steel frame building

There is a reason why demolition do not use wireless detonator......

It is because they are not reliable

Also have issue with plane coming in and destroying all that beautifil handi work - spend all that time
doing hard work planting bombs only to have it destroyed by a 767



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
***snip***

***snip***



You will also see that the majority of windows are intact and there is little evidence of wide spread fires.


That's a really funny statement. Stupid - but funny.

Please tell me how you can see behind the smoke and see that all those windows are intact.
Doesn't it make sense that the smoke exits the broken windows?

edit on 25-5-2012 by HolgerTheDane2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


So explain how a wireless detonator is supposed to work in a building as large as the WTC ?

You do realize each floor was 1 acre in size ?

That the FDNY was having trouble with its radios in such a large steel frame building

There is a reason why demolition do not use wireless detonator......

It is because they are not reliable

Also have issue with plane coming in and destroying all that beautifil handi work - spend all that time
doing hard work planting bombs only to have it destroyed by a 767




You think so?

Why don't you look at this brochure;

www.dynonobel.com...



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath




You think so?

Why don't you look at this brochure;

www.dynonobel.com...



One problem the receiver needs batteries. Batteries don't like fires.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
You think so?

Why don't you look at this brochure;

www.dynonobel.com...



That brochure says nothing about how much it can penetrate. I've found my cell phone loses signal in bathrooms because of excessive piping. That detonator is only good where it is intended, open-air mines, where the bombs they are detonating have their receivers in the open-air.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


WTC 3 Marriott Hotel

The part that survived is the section around the lobby

It survived for a specific reaason

It was fortified by a steel cage to give extra support following the 1993 bombing of WTC


The collapse of the South Tower (2 WTC) split the hotel in half (such damage can briefly be seen in the film documentary 9/11), and the collapse of its twin destroyed the rest of the hotel aside from a small section as seen on the picture, due to the structural strengthening of the steel framework after the 1993 bombing.


You lie again...



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join