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.

 

The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

page: 15
87
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 007Polytoks
 


Something as damning as Cheney conducting the very exercise that simulated the very events that happened and on the very time and day of 911 after saying America needs another Pearl Harbor to get us to go to war in the middle east is the fact that 2 weeks before 911 Rudy moved from his reinforced communications bunker to a building a few blocks down the street fro WTC7 . Do they think we are stupid????




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


All the weakened steel in the world will not cause a building to completely collapse into its footprint.

Outer walls do not fold inwards from a gravity fed collapse, it is impossible. Collapsing internal structure would push the walls outwards.







Not only that but fire would not cause sudden failure, that can only happen when all the supports fail at the same time. Fire would cause partial collapses first, simply because you could not uniformly heat all the steel up at the same amount, and the same time.

So you can prove all day that fire can cause steel to fail, but fire cannot cause a building to collapse symmetrically into its footprint. That is what you have to prove can happen, not that fire can heat up steel.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 



1-No SFRM needs to be destroyed for the steel to be heated. SFRM is nothing more than insulation.
2-You're questioning that this can happen, not making a statement, so the logical presumption is that you don't believe that can happen. Therefore:
3-the connections that NIST detailed as being broken by thermal expansion were bolted. So not tons of steel. A few pounds.
4-no, they buckled. Nothing was destroyed.
5-Only 3 columns
6-No, it twisted in 2 different directions during the collapse, and fell onto the roof of Fitterman Hall. Not symmetrical.
7-onnly the heated areas are effected, not the entire building.
8-No, the science can be verified.
9-it's in the NIST. Since you don't know this:


Wow ummm not sure what to say here...awesome facts...incredible....

your right nothing but facts here.

SFRM huh.....what is the acronym...let me think.

Spayed on Fire Resistant Material.....yuppers just foam....cause we all ove to play in foam.

yes bolted.....damn .....did they forget the welds to....the plates were bolted and Welded.

kinda like a pic and mix huh....we just choose the fixings that will best suit our concept.

could you please show the twisting in both directions...i mean there is enough footage out there to do this...i know i have done it....It is easy for anyone to do...and all the available software is free to use.

Any ways interesting FACTS you provided....I thought the term FACT meant one thing...I did not know FACT meant ....IT is almost true.

Enjoy your day....and If you keep trusting in the Nist report you are going to fall along with it and the towers and building 7.


edit on 023030p://f39Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Right on que, ANOK. We've parried before. I must say, I don't miss you at all.


but fire cannot cause a building to collapse symmetrically into its footprint. That is what you have to prove can happen, not that fire can heat up steel.

"Symmetrical"? "Foot print"? Looks like big pile of rubble to me. "Heat up steel?". I don't have to prove anything. I see in your pictures among thousands of others on the Internet that that building did fall down. It did fall down right? It did suffer impact damage and burn for hours and then it did fall down?

Okay... good. For a moment there I thought you were asking me to prove that it fell down. Not quite in its own footprint, (it seems to be in the street somewhat).

Are you an explosives expert too? Or, like all the other times I have replied to you , you just say, Nope. Or, Prove it. I ain't dancing to your tune here tonight. See ya.

And by the way you prove it was brought down with a bomb. Show me any ( and I mean any) pictures of the left over explosive demolition materials? I'll check tomorrow for that.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


Well you say building 7 could self destruct in the air and fall practically within it's foot print. Well then I was wondering why it has never happened before with fully engulfed structures


The problem I have with these "never before in history" claims, is that this is actually the first time that 757 and 767's were crashed into buildings. Same with the WTC7. Not only was it engulfed, but it was slammed with debris from the south tower. Before we start claiming that type of damage is insignificant, put into perspective that we're talking about 50-60 stories worth of iron, steel, crashing into a building. Has that ever happened to another skyscraper? if it has, I'd love to see the pictures/info about it. If another building has gone through the same amount of damage to the structure and still stood, THEN you can say "that's happened before", and said building has survived.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
All the weakened steel in the world will not cause a building to completely collapse into its footprint.


What has that got to with WTC 7? It did not collapse into its own footprint, any claim it did is just another truther lie....


debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.[46] A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.[47][48] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.[49]



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
What has that got to with WTC 7? It did not collapse into its own footprint, any claim it did is just another truther lie....


debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.[46] A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.[47][48] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.[49]


Watch any CD video and tell us if you find one where ALL the debris remains inside the footprint. Normally a building this size in such a densely packed area as Manhattan would have to be demo'd the hard way, piece by piece, for the specific reason that collateral damage would be virtually guaranteed. But this was 911 and the perps had no such luxury, nor did they have too much concern for collateral damage.

By industry standards, WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint, whether you choose to accept it or not. Jumping up and down calling people liars out of subconscious denial that your government is catastrophically corrupt won't change it either.
edit on 22-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuciferFlow

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


Well you say building 7 could self destruct in the air and fall practically within it's foot print. Well then I was wondering why it has never happened before with fully engulfed structures


The problem I have with these "never before in history" claims, is that this is actually the first time that 757 and 767's were crashed into buildings. Same with the WTC7. Not only was it engulfed, but it was slammed with debris from the south tower. Before we start claiming that type of damage is insignificant, put into perspective that we're talking about 50-60 stories worth of iron, steel, crashing into a building. Has that ever happened to another skyscraper? if it has, I'd love to see the pictures/info about it. If another building has gone through the same amount of damage to the structure and still stood, THEN you can say "that's happened before", and said building has survived.


I'm a skeptic and this is the one thing that makes me hesitate in thinking it was a controlled demo. It was indeed the first time buildings of this type did collapse but it was also the first time jet liners slammed into the side of them. As a skeptic I wouldn't advise people to use the "first time in history" notion. The argument has it's rough edges.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by LuciferFlow

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


Well you say building 7 could self destruct in the air and fall practically within it's foot print. Well then I was wondering why it has never happened before with fully engulfed structures


The problem I have with these "never before in history" claims, is that this is actually the first time that 757 and 767's were crashed into buildings. Same with the WTC7. Not only was it engulfed, but it was slammed with debris from the south tower. Before we start claiming that type of damage is insignificant, put into perspective that we're talking about 50-60 stories worth of iron, steel, crashing into a building. Has that ever happened to another skyscraper? if it has, I'd love to see the pictures/info about it. If another building has gone through the same amount of damage to the structure and still stood, THEN you can say "that's happened before", and said building has survived.


I'm a skeptic and this is the one thing that makes me hesitate in thinking it was a controlled demo. It was indeed the first time buildings of this type did collapse but it was also the first time jet liners slammed into the side of them. As a skeptic I wouldn't advise people to use the "first time in history" notion. The argument has it's rough edges.



Aside from building 7 which was struck by no airplane, it does not matter one iota how big the planes were. It wouldn't matter if the Titanic and the Olympic hit them, they were struck near their tops. This does not cause steel-frame buildings to collapse in their entirety the way they did. Not in this universe, and not in the next, no matter how much you try to get your brain to make it work for whatever reason that you can't accept that the buildings were wired.
edit on 22-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter

Those stupid Architectural Engineers cared enough to show proficiency in their chosen field by attending classes on the subject for years and pass exams and pursue careers in that field of en-devour . So lets let them make the call .


Here's where I take issue with that: They have made demonstrably false statements in their bios at AETwoof. Haven't read them for quite a while, but I remember one architect stating that the tower's collapse initiation was at ground level and not where the planes hit. Another dude, and one that they made their dude of the month, claims that nukes were used. There's more false claims made there too....

Which makes me disregard their statements as a whole until they produce some work that I and others more educated in the matter can read and evaluate. And once there is some sort of agreement in the engineer world that there are some valid questions regarding the NIST report, then I will get on board the twwof train.


The problem with the whole thing is that people as a rule aren't stupid .


I agree with that. But it is undeniable that being intelligent and having an education in an engineering vocation precludes one from mental disease. Note that the guy mentioned above that believes nukes were used is a verified structural engineer. He's clearly insane too.


They are Ignorant by choice of many things and no one is excluded from that .


And the members of AETwoof demonstrate that for you...


and we have all seen pools of red hot and some molten metal within the basements of those structures a week after the collapse .


Here's something you may not know:are you familiar with the well known video of the firemen where they state that there was steel running down the channels, etc? They were working under WTC6...... SO whatever they are seeing there had zero effect on 1,2, and 7 (7 ddn't have a basement cuz it was constructed over an electrical station)


Thermate was discovered in the dust around the area .


No, a claim has been made to that effect. This is faaar from proof of thermite.


I don't suppose that you ever looked up to see where permits for DEMOLATION of the WTC was applied for twice by the owners - the NY Port Authority .


Post it.


Asbestos and operating cost as well as vacancy rate was the reason .


The asbestos was in one tower only, and in about 35 floors only. Why would anyone dismantle the other tower given that fact?

The towers were near full capacity on 9/11.


You should also look at the details of the lease by Larry Silverstien .


I already have. I know all the details.

There is no smoking gun.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

All the weakened steel in the world will not cause a building to completely collapse into its footprint.


Lie


Outer walls do not fold inwards from a gravity fed collapse, it is impossible. Collapsing internal structure would push the walls outwards.


Lie


Not only that but fire would not cause sudden failure, that can only happen when all the supports fail at the same time.


Lie


Fire would cause partial collapses first, simply because you could not uniformly heat all the steel up at the same amount, and the same time.


Strawman


So you can prove all day that fire can cause steel to fail


true


but fire cannot cause a building to collapse symmetrically


it didn't collapse symmetrically.

Lie.


[into its footprint.


lie


edit on 22-6-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube

awesome facts...incredible....



What's incredible is that the poster i was responding to didn't know any of that.

Typical for a truther, eh?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

it does not matter one iota how big the planes were. It wouldn't matter if the Titanic and the Olympic hit them, they were struck near their tops. This does not cause steel-frame buildings to collapse in their entirety the way they did.



So if a plane the size of the WTCs themselves hit, it wouldn't matter, huh? I think you would agree that is delusional thinking.

Therefore, it is an admission that there is indeed a size/set of circumstances that would indeed cause the collapses.

Therefore, it needs to be examined by engineering pros, and your personal incredulity doesn't matter.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous
 


I think he was referring to where they were struck...not what struck them.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat

I think he was referring to where they were struck...not what struck them.



Even so, it's a delusional statement.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by intrptr
 


All the weakened steel in the world will not cause a building to completely collapse into its footprint.

Outer walls do not fold inwards from a gravity fed collapse, it is impossible. Collapsing internal structure would push the walls outwards.







Not only that but fire would not cause sudden failure, that can only happen when all the supports fail at the same time. Fire would cause partial collapses first, simply because you could not uniformly heat all the steel up at the same amount, and the same time.

So you can prove all day that fire can cause steel to fail, but fire cannot cause a building to collapse symmetrically into its footprint. That is what you have to prove can happen, not that fire can heat up steel.


I'm not an engineer or anything of that magnitude, but to me this clip pretty shows what you''re saying. Every single floor had projected outwards in perfect unison from top to bottom.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Funny, that was straight from the NIST pdf (which I included in an earlier post), go tell them how to do their thermal testing if you want to be a wise ass.... Clearly, NIST stated that the fires were the primary cause of the collapse, and they clearly state that the impact had little to no effect.

"Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relitively little damage to the interior of WTC 7. For instance, damage to the sprayed fire resistant material (SFRM) was limited to the immediate vicinity of the WTC 1 debris impact. There was no superficial or structural damage to the North, and East faces. (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter5, Section 5.5.2)"

This seems to counter your fallacious meanderings.


Oh, so they use fire retardant steel in smithy's? How funny... Here I was thinking you were a fairly intelligent person, but with your example trying to compare smiting steel to fire retardant steel used to build a 52 story office building (which housed highly important offices), I just don't know anymore...

Care to give me any other highly improbable, and outright ignorantly misguided examples?

Here is some more quotes directly from the NIST pdf.

"Fires broke out on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, near the damaged southwest corner of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). They were typically observed as single floor fires, and observations supported a local fire origin on an given floor. Unlike the WTC towers, there was no dispersion of jet fuel in WTC 7 causing simultaneous fire intiation over extensive areas of a single floor or over multiple adjacent floors.


Between 12:10 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., there were fires at the southwest corners of the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors. These fires grew large enough to break glass from nearby windows, but did not spread far before dying out."


So, fires that did not even spread before dying out, cause a global collapse?

Fires, that never even reached 600 degrees Celsius, cause columns to weaken that NIST themselves claimed would take 6+ hours under almost double that temperature? Please, do explain me through this.

NIST PDF
edit on 22-6-2012 by 007Polytoks because: spelling



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LuciferFlow
 


Using your logic, WTC 6, and several other buildings in the direct vicinity should have undoubtedly collapsed that day. WTC 6 had the entire tower fall straight on top of it, and fires burnt through it for most of the day, and yet surprise surprise it didn't collapse....




Doesn't that GIANT hole look a little bit more significant than the hole in WTC 7??

As this picture shows, WTC 7 was much further away from tower 2/1, then 4, 5, 6, and the Church (other buildings as well). Yet only WTC 7 was (unlucky) enough to collapse. Why on earth was the Verizon building, and the U.S. post offices left virtually unscathed? I am no physics professor, but I think I understand enough about gravity to assess that WTC 7 getting hit with more force/impact then WTC6/5 is not only highly unlikely, but downright improbable. When you factor in the offices housed in WTC 7, and the importance of that building, its hard to imagine that some office fires that never exceeded 600 degree's Celsius would cause it to collapse.




WTC 6 received the impact of thousands of tons of tower 1, and was in the direct vicinity... It had less reason to be structurally sound ie: was not as tall, and had much less important offices. Yet stood the huge impact. Either way the NIST report clearly states that FIRE, read closely here.... FIRE was the cause of the collapse, not the structural damage received. So unless you want to argue with NIST about changing their report, your ideas that this differs in any major manner from other high story fires, is highly ignorant, and fallacious.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by LuciferFlow
 


Please explain why buildings5 and 6 did not collapse when this debries fell directly on top of it . Then there is the other infprmation you are ignoring about Cheney , Rudy and Larry as well as the Demolation permit applications. Text



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Atlantien
 


Check out Scott Forbes story of the WTC power down the weekend before.

Also, check out former New School pres. Kerry answering a reporter's question after a speech saying something about 30 years.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join