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: 50
46
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by GenRadek
 





And what happened to the substandard fireproofing as it got impacted by the aircraft? Some professionals believe that the true conspiracy was the crappy fireproofing on the WTC is what may have contributed to their demise.



Prove it. And when you think you have, I will contact Minoru Yamasaki and Associates and warn them that the abysmal Larry Silverstein will probably sue them on account of the "substandard fireproofing" you have identified



www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can start there.


We are all aware that these defects existed in the towers and it is primarily why the Port Authority leased the property to Larry "pull it" Silverstein. The leaseholder was contractually required make the repairs to defects under the 'full repairing and insuring' lease (FRI).

I have spent some time reading up on Roger Morse and he is no doubt highly qualified and a bit of a self publicist.

As an architect he seems to have, for some reason, opted to pursue a career as a building defects specialist. Conventionally, it is structural engineers that engage in this field. Roger Morse approaches the subject of building defects with an auto-didactic process while a structural engineer tackles building defects from a foundation of formal training and scientific quantitative analysis.

For example in one of the links you provided to the Fire Engineering website to the report by Roger Morse, he says, "There were problems with the fireproofing in the World Trade Towers that may have rendered them vulnerable to fire". This is a qualitative assessment based on possibilities and not extrapolated facts.

Roger Morse falls short of going beyond the defects of trusses that were entombed between the concrete encased profile steels lightweight floor slabs, the false ceiling and the intumescent and physical fire stops.
You will note in the report below that areas identified by Roger Morse were entombed as detailed below. Even if one of the fire stopping barriers were breached to get at the poorly insulated trusses, fire damage would be isolated from the rest of the building.



Similarly, Roger Morse identifies further details as follows,


I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high...

www.fireengineering.com... ofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html


The NIST wrote of the same matter;


According to the report, no defects were found in the existing fireproofing material. In most of the shafts,
several small regions and a few large areas of fireproofing were found to be missing from core framing
members, which, according to the report, was probably due to the high-speed elevators moving up and
down the shafts. In particular, an 8 in. wide by 1 ft 6 in. long area of fireproofing was found to be missing
on the top flange of the beam between shaft numbers 30 and 31 on floor 22. Also, 100 percent of the
fireproofing was found to be missing from the south face of column 908 between floors 27 and 29 in shaft number 1. All exposed steel members were found to be in good condition with only isolated locations of light surface corrosion on the steel. Some minor shrinkage cracks were reported in the troweled-on fireproofing materials on the columns.
wtc.nist.gov... pdf p. 39-40 (p. 93-94 in PDF file)


The bottom line is that Roger Morse was hired to conduct a survey of the building to identify defects that may or may not have contributed in whole or in part to structural failure of the building because of fire. He effectively implies so with his speculative comments.

Roger Morse's survey produced a "schedule of dilapidations" that would have been used to negotiate the FRI lease for the WTC. Subsequently to the collapse of the WTC, he wrote various articles using the defects within his schedule as possibly contributing to the collapse but he does not commit to his own analysis. A formal structural engineer's forensic analysis of the collapse would have included calculations, scaled testing, systemic analysis looking at compartmentalization of fire, computer modelling and a contextual analysis of building elements and materials.

Even the NIST report falls short of what Roger Morse speculates.
edit on 1-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Hello verm....just a point of thought here.,.....Reference as to the time of the picture.....at what point of the collapse was the picture taken.....was it just as the building was about to tilt....Is it tower one or tower two...is a frame taken from a video....please post some reference points as to when this bowing occurs....
these are the thing you would request of other posters so it is a reasonable request to put onto you.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
This has got to be one of the biggest pieces of bull I've read in this thread yet!

Where are these underground fires coming from exactly? The bombs that went off in the basement?


Not to sound condescending, but the underground fires came from fire. The collapse also no-doubt ruptured gas lines and power lines. There's plenty of sources for smoldering underground. As someone who has used a campfire before, I know for a fact that things can stay hot for a long time even when under layers of ash. Consider that situation with debris filled with air pockets and plenty of fuel, and you can begin to understand underground fire. It happens all the time in house fires that collapse. Just look it up.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Varemia
 


Hello verm....just a point of thought here.,.....Reference as to the time of the picture.....at what point of the collapse was the picture taken.....was it just as the building was about to tilt....Is it tower one or tower two...is a frame taken from a video....please post some reference points as to when this bowing occurs....
these are the thing you would request of other posters so it is a reasonable request to put onto you.


That's a legitimate concern. I acquired the picture from here, and the only caption is that it was not taken from NIST's report. I'll do a search to see what I can find...

It was cropped from a photo taken by Robert Giroux of a suicide jumper. The meta data from this image shows:


Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:38:29 AM


Disregard this: Since the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 AM, I'm just going to venture a guess that the camera the image was captured on was not set for daylight savings. This places the picture time at approximately 9:38 AM, 21 minutes before the collapse of WTC 2. Hope this is enough evidence. I was curious, but I wasn't sure I'd find out exactly. This is about exact as it gets, depending on how accurate the guy's camera was.

----------
Aaand, scratch that. I'm an idiot. It says 2008... So, it's in the air. I have no idea.
edit on 1-6-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)


----------

It can't be discovered from the image data. The guy didn't have his camera's data-and-time function operating. This source: mikophoto.net... proves that he was using a camera from 1969 with the default date-and-time stamp on the EXIF data (not META, like I thought).

Sorry, I have no evidence to prove when the photo was taken in relation to the collapse.
edit on 1-6-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


cheers for the info and attempting to find out as it was all pertinent to try and verify so we could ascertain the time of bowing...



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Oh.....for christ sake....do you really believe that SOME steel truces could heat up to the point of VERTICALLY disloging 110 floors of building.......wait a minute..........not one.....BUT 3 buildings!!!!!!!!!!

Please stop.

Just because you wish things weren't true doesn't mean you can put your fingers in your ears and shout that it isn't happening.

The fact that you don't know WTC7 didn't use trusses indicates you have learned nothing about 911. How can anyone take you seriously when you make elementary mistakes of such seriousness?


Originally posted by kidtwist
Steel dissipates heat, and requires a lot more heat than regular fire to make it weak enough to sag, and then the fire needs to be concentrated at such a heat over a set period of time. The conditions for this to occur just didn not happen on 9/11!

I literally posted a video of steel twisting and bending within minutes. How do you explain this fact?


How come you lot always say stuff like, "the concrete was weak, the fireproofing was below par, the rods were llightweight and thin steel rods, not particularly well encased, and certainly a significant risk in a fire"

You make it sound like you had a hand in every element of the building process, and that it was lucky to be standing even before 9/11! If going off your opinions it would have fallen down if I huffed and puffed at it!

How come we say the truth? Because you want to believe that the WTCs were infallible super buildings made out of impregnable steel. In reality they were as strong as they were felt was needed, and not strong enough. I want to show the truth here, not the insane theories of Simon Shack etc.


Jeez, we have done our research into the building, and all this stuff you are spouting is total rubbish! Who are you trying to fool with this information?!

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

You have not done your research into this building if you think the facts about trusses is a lie. Stop being so partisan and do your own unbiased research. Simple as that.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
1. They pooled 700 gallons of jet fuel under one eight inch beam. The jet fuel from the planes was not pooled under one beam. Much of the jet fuel was vaporized in the initial explosion. The rest would not have pooled, but dripped down into the building.

So fire will damage steel


2. An eight inch wide flange beam is much smaller than the WTC structural beams and there were many to bear the load and the fire damage not just one beam.

So fire will damage multiple steel beams or columns


3. For the test to be anywhere near valid, they should have scaled the amount of jet fuel to be the proportion that would have been absorbed by one of the beams. Then they should have scaled it further to account for the size difference between the beam tested and the actual size of the beams on the WTC.

Why? The point was to demonstrate that fire damages steel.

Do you agree? Fire damages steel?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Nobody is claiming the trusses could not have sagged under the right circumstances, that is really not the issue.

The issue is sagging trusses having the energy to pull in columns, that is what you need to demonstrate.

Even though, as already mentioned, room fires for an hour would not produce enough heat to transfer enough to the steel in order to heat it up to malleability.

ANOK I provided you with a paper that proves they would. You in turn said you refused to read it and that I should explain it for you here.

Why do you refuse to read a paper that proves what you've claimed is impossible? I wonder why this could be.

Here's the link again, in case you lost it: www.sciencedirect.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by groingrinder
1. They pooled 700 gallons of jet fuel under one eight inch beam. The jet fuel from the planes was not pooled under one beam. Much of the jet fuel was vaporized in the initial explosion. The rest would not have pooled, but dripped down into the building.

So fire will damage steel


2. An eight inch wide flange beam is much smaller than the WTC structural beams and there were many to bear the load and the fire damage not just one beam.

So fire will damage multiple steel beams or columns


3. For the test to be anywhere near valid, they should have scaled the amount of jet fuel to be the proportion that would have been absorbed by one of the beams. Then they should have scaled it further to account for the size difference between the beam tested and the actual size of the beams on the WTC.

Why? The point was to demonstrate that fire damages steel.

Do you agree? Fire damages steel?



I think you are taking an absolutist position to ramrod through a fallacious point.

You are sticking to the specificity of your point "fire damages steel" to negate the central argument by groingrinder that the experiment model did not match what happened on 9/11.

You are being disingenuous.
edit on 2-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
You are sticking to the specificity of your point "fire damages steel" to negate the central argument by groingrinder that the experiment model did not match what happened on 9/11.

You are being disingenuous.
edit on 2-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

No, I am not. I never claimed that the fire model was a perfect representation of the WTC, I'm trying to ensure that we can build consensus around the fact that unprotected steel heats quickly in fire, and that it requires protection.

For some reason people are literally afraid of agreeing on even the tiniest points. I'm not about to say "Fire damages steel therefore WTC not inside job". What I am about to say is that "Fire damages steel, so what would it do to a WTC truss?"

ANOK wants to avoid this issue, so perhaps you can have the fortitude to address it head on. If fire can damage steel, what would fire do to a protected or unprotected WTC truss?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
You are sticking to the specificity of your point "fire damages steel" to negate the central argument by groingrinder that the experiment model did not match what happened on 9/11.

You are being disingenuous.
edit on 2-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

No, I am not. I never claimed that the fire model was a perfect representation of the WTC, I'm trying to ensure that we can build consensus around the fact that unprotected steel heats quickly in fire, and that it requires protection.

For some reason people are literally afraid of agreeing on even the tiniest points. I'm not about to say "Fire damages steel therefore WTC not inside job". What I am about to say is that "Fire damages steel, so what would it do to a WTC truss?"

ANOK wants to avoid this issue, so perhaps you can have the fortitude to address it head on. If fire can damage steel, what would fire do to a protected or unprotected WTC truss?



You said, "I never claimed that the fire model was a perfect representation of the WTC..."

I did not accuse you of doing that. You introduced this point to obfuscate what I accused you, namely that you are forcing an illogical point through to negate groingrinder's argument.

Further still, there is no way of knowing what your intentions are unless you articulate them. You articulated the point that "fire damages steel" in response to groingrinder's unrelated comment.
edit on 2-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
You said, "I never claimed that the fire model was a perfect representation of the WTC..."

I did not accuse you of doing that. You introduced this point to obfuscate what I accused you, namely that you are forcing an illogical point through to negate groingrinder's argument.

The very argument you're discussing is "the model did not represent the WTC" so you have contradicted yourself.


Further still, there is no way of knowing what your intentions are unless you articulate them. You articulated the point that "fire damages steel" in response to groingrinder's unrelated comment.
edit on 2-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

I articulated my intentions exactly. I wish to build consensus on the fact that fire will quickly damage unprotected steel.

Why are you so reluctant to answer my questions? Surely you can't fear being wrong?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




The very argument you're discussing is "the model did not represent the WTC" so you have contradicted yourself.


Just a gentle reminder, you said, "fire will damage steel" in response to groingrinder. You repeated this point to obfuscate his entire argument.

When I pointed out the above, you subsequently said, "I never claimed that the fire model was a perfect representation of the WTC...".

I did not accuse you of claiming that the fire model was perfect. You arbitrary said this and I suspect it is because you confused my brief description of what groingrinder said.

Here is the sentence;

"You are sticking to the specificity of your point "fire damages steel" to negate the central argument by groingrinder that the experiment model did not match what happened on 9/11."


I articulated my intentions exactly. I wish to build consensus on the fact that fire will quickly damage unprotected steel.


Actually when you repeated the phrase, "fire damages steel", you were badgering and attempting to obscure groingrinder's legitimate argument. You subsequently said, "I wish to build consensus" once I accused you of railroading groingrinder's comment.



Why are you so reluctant to answer my questions? Surely you can't fear being wrong?


The above is an attempt at manipulating our current conversation with unrelated matters. There is also an element of psychological sublimation; why do you fear being wrong?

Your problem, as evidenced by our exchange, is that you cannot distinguish between by who said what. Furthermore, you find keeping track of what was said when difficult.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


You could just have said "I won't answer your questions" rather than typing out paragraphs of hyperbole.

Clearly you have no answer, and just feel like butting into conversations. I have no interest in endless circles of your preference to play the intellectual superhero.

Fire can damage unprotected steel rapidly, within minutes, this is a fact that in polite company can not be disputed, the lack of any significant consensus is due to an unwillingness to participate as demonstrated above.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





I have no interest in endless circles of your preference to play the intellectual superhero.


I see. If this is how you feel, I am fine with your opinion even though I disagree with it. It is a shame you refuse to reach a "consensus" with me.
edit on 2-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by exponent
 





I have no interest in endless circles of your preference to play the intellectual superhero.


I see. If this is how you feel, I am fine with your opinion even though I disagree with it. It is a shame you refuse to reach a "consensus" with me.
edit on 2-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


Why waste your time? You don't think you can ever reach a consensus with these people, do you? They will take every and all aspects of 911, isolate each one, and contrive any fairy tale in this universe and beyond to blame it on Muslim terrorists instead of the rogue faction within the US government that we all know exists, and they will continue to do this no matter what evidence is presented to them All this regardless of the fact that anyone with half a brain cell, and that includes ALL the lemmings, knows damn well that something stinks to high heaven inside Washington and that the corporate mobsters have all the control.

The only thing that will stop them from entering these threads are when all the perps are rounded up, the mainstream media is seized from the criminal cabal, and we get the truth broadcast to the masses. REst assured they will be nowhere to be found after that because they will have to find more constructive lines of work and/or hobbies.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
I see. If this is how you feel, I am fine with your opinion even though I disagree with it. It is a shame you refuse to reach a "consensus" with me.
edit on 2-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

This is quite an expert piece of baiting here, and I commend you on your ability to twist words to fit your agenda. Still, the refusal is on your part, I've presented my argument, presented facts to back up my argument. You have resorted to attacking the words i have chosen rather than the meaning they convey.

It only adds to my humour that the first post congratulating you espouses all of the irrational beliefs we've come to know as the last refuge of a model that cannot match up with reality.

I'll venture this question one last time, in the hope that a straight answer can be given. Does fire affect steel to such a degree as to require protection against even short fires?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


I think the problem with OS'ers is that they are selling agendas wholly separate to the interests of the American people.

You are right that some sustain the Official Story because they achieve great satisfaction from the "War against Terror" because it targets Muslims and it correlates with Israeli interests.

I suggest most OS'ers on this thread are not disinformation agents in any official capacity but rather zionists and born agains up for an honest to goodness Armageddon. These howling baboons are baying for a world war to herald the arrival of the Dajjal.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
I think the problem with OS'ers is that they are selling agendas wholly separate to the interests of the American people.

I'm British. You're British. Why are you invoking the 'American people'?


You are right that some sustain the Official Story because they achieve great satisfaction from the "War against Terror" because it targets Muslims and it correlates with Israeli interests.

I suggest most OS'ers on this thread are not disinformation agents in any official capacity but rather zionists and born agains up for an honest to goodness Armageddon. These howling baboons are baying for a world war to herald the arrival of the Dajjal.

This is just of course ridiculous. I'm neither a zionist nor a war proponent. I have never talked to a debunker that is and I doubt you have any evidence to back up your assertions.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



What makes you think I am British? For all you know I could be a foreign Northface luggage salesman irritated by a drop in sales due to MI5's misuse of our premium products which are sold over the internet and in quality retailers everywhere.
edit on 2-6-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join