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: 25
87
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Aluminum powder doesn't flash like an explosive .



No its much brighter.

Google " flash powder."




posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
The fact is that building 5 and 6 never fell and were burned completely out leaving only the Steel structure . The steel structure of buildings 5 and 6 were impacted by massive debris from the Towers and likely suffered the fireproofing to be knocked off of the structural steel. The WTC 7 did not show the same charring of the building and the heat in that building could have never been as high as building 5 and 6 . How is it that WTC-7 fell apart all at one time throughout the building at one time . The Penthouse started the fall and the rest of the building fell with it within 1 second after the start of the collapse . The center columns were cut to keep the building falling in to the center of the pile . This is a classic building implosion technique that all demolition people use . The wrinkle in the facade at the top shows the tell tale of this technique Anyone who believes that a few large office fire could bring down a building with 75 steel columns all at one time really has not looked at the MATH supporting that misconception . Or they are on a mission to disrupt and discourage people carrying on a meaningful discussion of the inconsistencies within the official explanation of an event that reeks of deception .



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Aluminum powder doesn't flash like an explosive .



No its much brighter.

Google " flash powder."


Well for someone who had no idea what Thermite was , now you are an expert .



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


WTC 5 and 6 were different structures COMPLETELY from WTCs 1,2, and 7. They had a traditional steel skeleton. However, WTC5 not only had severe impact damage, it also had some serious internal floor collapses that were not results of impact. I take it you did not study this as well?

WTC6 had huge holes punched through, but again, its structure kept it from collapsing to the ground. They were not built like any of the towers that fell.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


WTC 5 and 6 were different structures COMPLETELY from WTCs 1,2, and 7. They had a traditional steel skeleton. However, WTC5 not only had severe impact damage, it also had some serious internal floor collapses that were not results of impact. I take it you did not study this as well?

WTC6 had huge holes punched through, but again, its structure kept it from collapsing to the ground. They were not built like any of the towers that fell.


More mumbo jumbo from Architects Anonymous.

The holes were burned through 5 and 6 by the same superheated debris that caused the molten pools. That debris should have crushed those buildings but instead burned holes in them. The aerial photos prove that conclusively.

How about some details describing these structural differences?
edit on 3-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I suppose buildings 5 and 7 were made of 2 1/4 chromemoly steel and could resist the heat better than building 7. Anyone who can believe that 75 columns of a building could be weakened simultaneously by sporadic fires and collapse all together can not be thinking . The facade did not show that kind of involvement in raging fires throughout the building . And it would have . Building 7 collapse showed a penthouse collapse with the building falling with it in a manner that the center columns were cut so that the implosion would fall to the center of the building ..



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 
But, Varemia said there were 'holes with smoke coming out of them', and all the fireproofing was knocked off by debris from 1 and 2. That's why building 7 fell straight down. Didn't he make that clear to you? I guess you aren't paying attention.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Who said he knows what he is talking about or if he is a shill like some of the others are . Some of these people sound like common office help and have never worked on steel or steel structures .? You! Registered Architecs says it had the unmistakeable characteristics of a demolition . Office fires don't bring down buildings .



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by SimonPeter
 
But, Varemia said there were 'holes with smoke coming out of them', and all the fireproofing was knocked off by debris from 1 and 2. That's why building 7 fell straight down. Didn't he make that clear to you? I guess you aren't paying attention.



Do you ever actually contribute to any of the discussions on this site?

I did not say "all" the fireproofing was knocked off. I said the fireproofing in the impacted areas was knocked off, allowing the fire to affect the steel at a much more significant level. That's why they have fireproofing in the first place, to prevent collapses.

It's also a gross oversimplification to say that it is the sole reason the building fell straight down. It was a combination of factors, including, but not limited to the severity of the damage to the South side, and the progression of the collapse. If the South side wasn't damaged, I contend that it would have been a much dirtier collapse.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Office fires don't bring down buildings .


They do if the fireproofing is compromised. Is this such a difficult concept to drill through your head? Why do you think they fireproof buildings? For the fun of it?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
So your contention is that you contribute, and that I don't? My contention is that you do nothing but waste space. You've spent countless hours trying to explain how a 47 story building that held itself up for over thirty years, came crashing straight down, unimpeded, because of fire. I believe that the evidence for that is non-existent, and that you are here not to verify your position, but to restrict investigation into mine. Save your indignation for someone who gives a sh**. Your ship is sinking.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
So your contention is that you contribute, and that I don't? My contention is that you do nothing but waste space. You've spent countless hours trying to explain how a 47 story building that held itself up for over thirty years, came crashing straight down, unimpeded, because of fire. I believe that the evidence for that is non-existent, and that you are here not to verify your position, but to restrict investigation into mine. Save your indignation for someone who gives a sh**. Your ship is sinking.


So you're saying that a change in state for a building should not affect it in any way? If a building gets damaged, burns for 7 hours, and then collapses, it's not that suspicious to me. How can you rationalize the situation to be that the building stood before it was damaged and burning, so it must still stand after the damage and fire? By that logic, every collapse in the history of the world is a conspiracy, because all things that collapsed held themselves up before the collapse.

By that logic, if I had a Jenga tower set up for 20 years, and then removed a block and started shaking the table, the collapse would be suspicious?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Office fires don't bring down buildings .


They do if the fireproofing is compromised. Is this such a difficult concept to drill through your head? Why do you think they fireproof buildings? For the fun of it?



Sonny boy I am retired from working on those structures and have forgotten more than you think you know . Your smart attitude says much about you . I haven't set in an office somewhere or turned burgers for a living like some on here . I know about the structures and floor pans and composite construction and safety factors that are figured into these buildings .Steel structures don't just fall from sporadic fires spread from floor to floor . There isn't enough fuel in an office building to create that much heat .In an apartment building there is a lot more fuel such as clothes bedding and a higher concentration of furniture .



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Sonny boy I am retired from working on those structures and have forgotten more than you think you know . Your smart attitude says much about you . I haven't set in an office somewhere or turned burgers for a living like some on here . I know about the structures and floor pans and composite construction and safety factors that are figured into these buildings .Steel structures don't just fall from sporadic fires spread from floor to floor . There isn't enough fuel in an office building to create that much heat .In an apartment building there is a lot more fuel such as clothes bedding and a higher concentration of furniture .


So a building with exposed steel and uncontrolled fires should remain perfectly safe? That appears to be what you are insinuating.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Sonny boy I am retired from working on those structures and have forgotten more than you think you know . Your smart attitude says much about you . I haven't set in an office somewhere or turned burgers for a living like some on here . I know about the structures and floor pans and composite construction and safety factors that are figured into these buildings .Steel structures don't just fall from sporadic fires spread from floor to floor . There isn't enough fuel in an office building to create that much heat .In an apartment building there is a lot more fuel such as clothes bedding and a higher concentration of furniture .


So a building with exposed steel and uncontrolled fires should remain perfectly safe? That appears to be what you are insinuating.



First of all you will need to do some defining of uncontrolled fires and some sort of information that will confirm the temperatures from the fires of office materials proportionate to the average office configuration .You will find that these materials are not piled against columns . And as far as fireproofing being jarred off of steel structure , it doesn't happen , ever . You can beat it with a hammer until you tire out and not remove half of it . You can get a scraper and scrape it off once you have gotten down to the steel , but that takes a lot of effort . Even the hit from the planes didn't knock it all off . Yes where the main impact was there was definitely a lot of damage to the shield and did compromise the majority of that area . But most likely not the whole floor . That stuff is kind of tuff to deal with and building 7 did not suffer a strike that would have compromised it's spray on concrete and (asbestos or now fiberglass) fire shield .



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


More mumbo jumbo from Architects Anonymous.

The holes were burned through 5 and 6 by the same superheated debris that caused the molten pools. That debris should have crushed those buildings but instead burned holes in them. The aerial photos prove that conclusively.


Excuse me, burned through? Seriously? More mumbo jumbo from the truther camp. Ok, so they placed tons and tons and tons of thermite on the roofs of 5 and 6 without a soul noticing, and they burned through all the floors? Is this what you are insinuating? Really? I've heard some funny things on ATS, but this is a new knee-slapper.
The purpose of this was what again? Also, can you explain what caused the interior floors to collapse in the zone where there was no hole from the roof of 5?

Yeah I guess these guys are just some shmucks from Architects Anonymous too eh?

WTC5 Structure and Interior Collapse.

But you know more than them right?





How about some details describing these structural differences?
edit on 3-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


You should read the article perhaps and learn something. Funny, they mention nothing about thermites on the roof. I guess you must be so much smarter than them eh?

Also read the FEMA report. If you need to research into the differences between WTC7 and 5 and 6, without seeing the obvious, I dont know how you can have any say about more complex things. Where are the transfer trusses in 5 and 6 like in 7 over the ConEd substation at the base? Where was the basement in WTC7 like in 5 and 6?

Plus who said 75 columns had to fail simultaneously? Where are you getting such nonsense from? Personal Incredulity is not a point to argue from. It just makes you look that much more foolish.

You wish to learn the differences?

Here is a great start:
WTC4, 5, 6 FEMA pdf

WTC7:
NIST WTC7

Good luck! Lots of reading ahead of you and education.
edit on 7/4/2012 by GenRadek because: links



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimonPeter
Aluminum powder doesn't flash like an explosive .



No its much brighter.

Google " flash powder."


Well for someone who had no idea what Thermite was , now you are an expert .



You are not dealing with a brain of the century dude. What do you expect from some one who calls people "witch hunters" because they question the 9/11 official story?
edit on 4-7-2012 by Ilovecatbinlady because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
First of all you will need to do some defining of uncontrolled fires and some sort of information that will confirm the temperatures from the fires of office materials proportionate to the average office configuration .You will find that these materials are not piled against columns . And as far as fireproofing being jarred off of steel structure , it doesn't happen , ever . You can beat it with a hammer until you tire out and not remove half of it . You can get a scraper and scrape it off once you have gotten down to the steel , but that takes a lot of effort . Even the hit from the planes didn't knock it all off . Yes where the main impact was there was definitely a lot of damage to the shield and did compromise the majority of that area . But most likely not the whole floor . That stuff is kind of tuff to deal with and building 7 did not suffer a strike that would have compromised it's spray on concrete and (asbestos or now fiberglass) fire shield .


Wouldn't the impacts from the destruction of Tower 1 cause the furniture configuration to change? I doubt that all the furniture was bolted down. It just seems to me that you are oversimplifying this to make it fit your version of the conspiracy. You have to consider the details before you make a grand assertion.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ok, so they placed tons and tons and tons of thermite on the roofs of 5 and 6 without a soul noticing, and they burned through all the floors? Is this what you are insinuating? Really? I've heard some funny things on ATS, but this is a new knee-slapper.
The purpose of this was what again? Also, can you explain what caused the interior floors to collapse in the zone where there was no hole from the roof of 5?


I never said thermite was placed on the roof. You just made that up.

5 and 6 had holes burned through them caused by the falling superheated debris.




I don't pretend to know the cause of such super heat. I do know that it wasn't jet fuel or office fires.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia
 
So your contention is that you contribute, and that I don't? My contention is that you do nothing but waste space. You've spent countless hours trying to explain how a 47 story building that held itself up for over thirty years, came crashing straight down, unimpeded, because of fire. I believe that the evidence for that is non-existent, and that you are here not to verify your position, but to restrict investigation into mine. Save your indignation for someone who gives a sh**. Your ship is sinking.


It wasn't just fire DOH!



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join