Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by samkent

 

So why has the 911 section here, all but dried up in the past year? Even the conspiracy shows on tv have moved on.

Good question and since I was not her for the past year, I couldn't say for sure.

But I have seen mentioned that the 9.11 threads here at ATS were under heavy moderation at some time during that span. I don't know why but I do know what I read.

VERY good observation!!!!!!

The moderation you're referring to was becuase a certain 9/11 conspiracy website...which deserves to remain nameless for its infamy...invaded ATS to stir up artificial controversy and confrontation with sock puppet accounts and get people to log onto their web site. I distinctly remember one poster pretending to be a twenty year old woman who seemed to know quite a LOT about the physics of aircraft design well beyond what a twenty year old woman would reasonably know. I'm not certain what incident triggered it, but the 9/11 forum was shut down for some serious spring cleaning.

That brings up the question- seeing that there has been that much less activity on the 9/11 forum since the spring cleaning, does that mean the huge majority of people who were posting the "irrefutable truth behind the 9/11 attack" here on ATS were in fact sock puppet accounts from said conspiracy web sites deliberately creating artificial controversy?

reply to post by ANOK


Fire Fighter training Collapse warning signs

The signs of impending collapse

Notice ANOK, that there is no asterisk, no exceptions based on the size or shape of the building, no special set of rules that exempt structures from the list based on "never happened before". Nothing to substantiate your delusions of "since it never happened before it will never happen because its impossible."

Incident command should consider the following when determining collapse potential:
•Structural inadequacy, poor construction, illegal or non engineered renovations
•Fire size and location, and conditions on arrival
•Age of building
•Previous fire
•Fire load to structural members
•Backdraft or explosions
•Engineered lumber, truss joists, nail plates
•Load increase as a result of water load
•Cutting structural members during venting operations
•Cracks or bulges in wall
•Water or smoke that pushes through what appears to be a solid masonry wall
•Unusual noises coming from building or dwelling
•Truck operations notice soft or spongy footing
•Weather extremes

Among the recommndations it makes to fire departments are:
•Implement and review occupational safety programs and standard operating procedures.
•Ensure that the incident commander conducts an initial size-up and risk assessment of the incident scene. before beginning interior firefighting.
•Ensure that the incident commander always maintains accountability for all personnel at a fire scene, both by location and function.

commandsafety.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Structual Collapse Command Safety

Here's what gets me. Even if someone can admit that building 7 was pulled because of structural damage, how do they then continue that logic. As most know I'm a skeptic and delete by way of logic when I can. In this case logic leads to only debunking the os.

So how do you continue that logic? Well, how in the world could they pull building 7 due to structural damage? Planting charges and general preparing to take down a 47 story building would take a couple weeks. Yet you want to tell me they set up and pulled building 7 in a matter of a few hours? While scary office fires were managing to weaken a steal framed 47 story building? Which I obviously don't buy,

I don't think so. Logic in this case points to planning. Planning points to conspiracy. Conspiracy points to, imo, the same folks who killed Kennedy. G H WB. "Keep reading your stories jr, sr's got this"

reply to post by bknapple32


But then you have to suspend belief that the demo charges were all magically fireproofed to withstand smoke and fire and heat, and impact.

reply to post by GenRadek


Not entirely. Much debate about how bad those fires were. Plants don't have to be on every floor. Plus, smoother them with asbestos and I would assume they can withstand a paper fire on the same floor.

reply to post by bknapple32

Which I obviously don't buy,

I don't think so. Logic in this case points to planning. Planning points to conspiracy. Conspiracy points to, imo, the same folks who killed Kennedy. G H WB. "Keep reading your stories jr, sr's got this"

Building fires happen in every country on the planet.
There are fire departments in every country.
Almost all have special training.

Why hasn't some fireman from some other country said . . .
"Our training says fire won't take down steel buildings."

Wouldn't you think that experts from Iran, N Korea, Cuba would have come forward and say BS to the OS when it comes to fire???

To believe that WTC7 was part of some conspiracy you would have to explain why no experts have ever come forward to say BS to the fire theory.
Do you think the US has the ability to hush Iran? N Korea? Venezuela?

reply to post by GenRadek

What you need to know is that firefighters are not morons nor are they ignorant

Except, apparently, when they report bombs, explosions, or rivers of molten steel.....

reply to post by samkent


I dont even Know where to begin-

Let's start with how many of those countless office fires ever brought down a Skyscraper. Answer: 3 All on 9/11


Research firefighters for truth

Research architects for truth.


Impossible to have discourse when you don't we all the facts

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Not entirely. Much debate about how bad those fires were. Plants don't have to be on every floor. Plus, smoother them with asbestos and I would assume they can withstand a paper fire on the same floor.

But the collapse initiated from an area of severe fires. There also were no explosive devices heard prior to collapse of the WTC7. Fires and heat would degrade any wiring or set off explosives prematurely.

reply to post by Flatcoat


They reported bombs? They had actual visual confirmation of actual explosive devices in and around the WTCs? Really? I am shocked! Wait, did they see them, or did they hear things go boom? You do know that "sounds like bombs, sounded like explosives, sounded like" does not equal actual bombs or explosives. i thought by now you people would at least realize what a simile is. I have no doubt at all that firefighters heard explosions or things go boom during 9/11. Hell I watched a garage fire a few years back, and heard quite a few explosions emanate from it. Not once did I go "ZOMG!1! BOMBS!! Bombs are in the garage! it was all planned!!!"

If there were rivers of molten steel, then I am amazed to hear they survived to tell about it. In order for steel to be a molten river, it needs to be over 2,000F continuously. A furnace like that requires special heat shielding like in a blast furnace, but even that only gives short time protection.

Also what kind of explosives create long lasting puddles of molten steel? Just curious.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by samkent

 

I dont even Know where to begin-

Let's start with how many of those countless office fires ever brought down a Skyscraper. Answer: 3 All on 9/11


Research firefighters for truth

Research architects for truth.


Impossible to have discourse when you don't we all the facts

edit on 20-3-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

Firefighters for truth and architects for truth are carbon copy sites that spew the same old crap word for word. Same lies, same halftruths, same misinformation, and same old deception. I am surprised those site are still operating.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bknapple32

 

But then you have to suspend belief that the demo charges were all magically fireproofed to withstand smoke and fire and heat, and impact.

But that's the point WTC7 was not impacted, yet fell as if it was a professional demolition job.

reply to post by bknapple32

Let's start with how many of those countless office fires ever brought down a Skyscraper. Answer: 3 All on 9/11

How many office fires were started by a plane full of fuel?
How many went unfought?

Research firefighters for truth

Research architects for truth.

Are these websites generating revenue?
How much money can these sites make if they aspouse the OS? Hint: none

Some people say follow the money trail in 911.
I say follow the money trail on these 'truther' sites.

Why has Richard Gage refused admission to his conferences to certain people?
There are YT vids where he refuses to answer certain questions.
If he is an 'expert' why hasn't he produced a paper for peer review detailing how the buildings were demo'ed?

He claims to be an expert.
He claims to have the plans for the building.
But he can't produce a paper? It's been 11 years. No paper from a self proclaimed 'expert'? You don't smell a rat??

reply to post by GenRadek


All you're doing is taking arguments on the surface and trying to debate points without getting to the nitty gritty.

It wasn't just hearing things go boom. It was trained firefighters knowing the different noises. Differences you nor I are trained to decipher. Plus fire fighters hard booooms in the basement before the building fell. And that's just scratching the surface.

Again. Answer how building 7 was the first building to fall due to office fire. The physics are impossible. And yes I'm ignoring 1 and 2, conceding I have no idea what would happen when planes crash. Although my logic feels me jet fuel didn't do anything structurally significant, as 90% of the fuel burned away in the initial fire ball

reply to post by GenRadek


Listen to what the firefighter says at around 2.47 in this video.

Then listen to what these firefighters have to say.

You know, you can't have it both ways. Either firemen are reliable observers/witnesses or not. Which is it?

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bknapple32

 

But then you have to suspend belief that the demo charges were all magically fireproofed to withstand smoke and fire and heat, and impact.

But that's the point WTC7 was not impacted, yet fell as if it was a professional demolition job.

It was impacted. By debris from Towers 1 and 2. The last one left a gash down its face and knocked off chunks of the corners. Also set fires across multiple floors which burned for nearly 6 hours straight without a drop of water put on it.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I think the 9/11 crowd should refocus. At this stage of the game we as a country shouldnt focus on who did what. Inside job or not....

The focus should be that a tragic event was used to usher in a set legislative powers and provisions which have proven to be ineffective and have only targeted US citizens instead of possible threats.

The argument should focus on the PATRIOT act being used as a tool to increase control and reduce the quality of life for the average citizen while not increasing security in any meaningful way.

The expenditure and waste generated by the legislature passed into law is what should be the focus now as well.

Regardless of its author. The response we have had to 9/11 was not legal and is essentially flawed.

Using a tragic event like 9/11 to pass laws that were obviously written long before it occurred was opportunistic and vile. It should be exposed as just that.

Forget WHO did it. Get at the solution already. Erase PATRIOT ACT and every other form of unbalanced and impractical laws passed BECAUSE of it.

That would be more productive to finding out what exactly happened as well as solve the negative effects it has had on American society.

reply to post by GenRadek


google Spain sky scraper fire burned for 20 + hours

reply to post by bknapple32

Answer how building 7 was the first building to fall due to office fire. The physics are impossible.

Unless the US gov is hushing all the experts on the entire planet, it is possible.

Can you explain Iran's silence? N korea? etc

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by GenRadek

 

All you're doing is taking arguments on the surface and trying to debate points without getting to the nitty gritty.

It wasn't just hearing things go boom. It was trained firefighters knowing the different noises. Differences you nor I are trained to decipher. Plus fire fighters hard booooms in the basement before the building fell. And that's just scratching the surface.

Really? I had no idea firefighters are trained to tell the differences between explosions and sounds like what. That is simply amazing. They are not able to tell if a structure is showing signs of collapse, but they can tell the difference between a bomb and a loud report of steel snapping, or gas lines exploding, or large debris impacting. Also have not heard about firefighters hearing explosions in the basements either. must be a new one that cropped up and is being passed off as a "fact". If there were explosions in the basements, then why didnt the collapses initiate from there?

Again. Answer how building 7 was the first building to fall due to office fire. The physics are impossible. And yes I'm ignoring 1 and 2, conceding I have no idea what would happen when planes crash. Although my logic feels me jet fuel didn't do anything structurally significant, as 90% of the fuel burned away in the initial fire ball

It is the first tall structure to get impacted by large debris and having multiple floors on fire without any firefighter assistance in putting it out. As for jet fuel, that is in the WTC towers. They had plenty of fuel inside the offices that can burn. All the jet fuel did was act like the starter fluid for the charcoal. i thought this was at least easy to understand or at least figure out. if you want to see a large office fire that did not have any jet fuel in it, Windsor Tower is a good study. Also a great study on how steel behaves in a fire. The top section of steel failed within two hours of initiation. All that survived was a massive steel-reinforced concrete core with concrete pillars and massive concrete technical floors. The steel collapsed all by itself without any impacts or jet fuel and all that burned was office supplies.
Windsor Tower Fire Study.