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.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by jthomas
You have not demonstrated factually that NIST's conclusions and collapse mechanism are incorrect.
Oh I have.
You just choose to ignore the facts. There's a difference there.
It is a fact that fire has never caused a steel-structured highrise to completely and totally collapse.
It is a fact that controlled demolition companies use explosives to accomplish what we saw WTC 7 do because fire cannot accomplish the same task.
See, facts. Not opinions, not theories. And what's more, you cannot prove any different. All you can do is speculate, theorize, and deny.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
reply to post by weedwhacker
The contention that "unpredictable fires" would have spared a paper or two is fairly lame since the mindset that would have prevailed during the cleanup in the aftermath would have had little context to discern any "found document"...pfft.
As well, the history of the financial giants associated with WTC 7 suggest some collusion...and yes...if one wants to make money in the financial markets then presience is required...why do you think there have been so many scandals? In order to predict the future (make money) one has to make the future...
Originally posted by esdad71
First, when it was retrofitted and updated to create more office space,
the buildings lower floors had spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements that is gypsum-based and had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and truss, and a three-hour rating for columns..
Second, there is no money trail.
This was a simple way that at the time, when money talked and it was plentiful, a company bought the leasing rights to the building. The Salomon Investment firm bought it and then they were dissolved in scandal. Nothing to see here and maybe some money washing for the government but I would see no non white collar crime.
Now the conspiracy theorist could say that it was bought at that time and converted to carry out 9/11 but then why were the WTC bombed in 93?
It is a trip down the rabbit hole when the simple truth is it was a building that burned for 7 hours and finally collapsed.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by _BoneZ_
Negative. Normal office fires are fires fueled by office contents such as paper, furniture, etc., and not fueled by other incendiaries such as diesel fuel, kerosene, etc.
Problem is that most office furnishings are made of synthethic (aka plastics) material.
Almost everything is synthethic - from the computers/monitors to the
desk (particle board bonded with synthethic glue), chairs with urethene
foam (know as solid gasoline). Cubicle dividers are either styrafoam or
urethene sound deadening materials.
Plastics are derived from petroleum - when burned produce some 12,000
to 16,000 btu per lb. This is some 50 - 100 % more heat energy than that
produced by organic (wood, papaer, cloth which generate some 8000 -
8500 btu).
Modern offices have a very heavy fuel load and once ignited is almost
impossible to extinguish
Originally posted by jthomas
That's completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by jthomas
WTC 7 was a unique event.
Originally posted by jthomas
You're entitlement to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Originally posted by jthomas
You believe that is the case but you have neither demonstrated it nor have you refuted NIST.
Originally posted by esdad71
It is a trip down the rabbit hole when the simple truth is it was a building that burned for 7 hours and finally collapsed.
Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by _BoneZ_
Bonez, I would take these claims of no sprinklers and no firefighting attempts as making the case of WTC 7 unique as pure junk. It's clearly stated in NCSTAR 1A on page 63:
"Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were SIMILAR TO THOSE THAT HAVE OCCURED PREVIOUSLY IN SEVERAL TALL BUILDINGS WHERE THE SPRINKLERS DID NOT FUNCTION OR WERE NOT PRESENT. These buildings did not succumb to the fires and collapse because they were of structural designs that differed from that of WTC 7."
Then they go on to compare the WTC 7 fire to other similar fires. Or as they state in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1:
"The other two buildings had contents fires that were not suppressed initially by sprinklers and grew to involve multiple floors before they were extinguished."
"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event," said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. "Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."
www.nist.gov...
The point being, it's obvious to me that NIST is claiming the structural design is the sole reason for collapse. If the fire had been in a differently designed building, I think they are claiming, there would have been no collapse.
4.2 SUMMARY
Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed
WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred previously in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. However, because of differences between their structural designs and that of WTC 7, these three buildings did not collapse. Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 – 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 – persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.
wtc.nist.gov...
Originally posted by MemoryShock
The contention that "unpredictable fires" would have spared a paper or two is fairly lame since the mindset that would have prevailed during the cleanup in the aftermath would have had little context to discern any "found document"...pfft.
Originally posted by esdad71
The fires burned on the lower floors for over 7 hours.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by jthomas
That's completely irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant? Either fire has caused steel-structured highrises to collapse or it hasn't. We know that fire hasn't, so it's perfectly relevant.
Originally posted by jthomas
WTC 7 was a unique event.
That sounds like a BS denial-fueled cop-out. There is very little "unique" about WTC 7 than any other steel-structured highrise.
The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. The collapse could not have been prevented without controlling the fires before most of the combustible building contents were consumed.
• WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred previously in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. However, because of differences between their structural designs and that of WTC 7, these three buildings did not collapse. Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 – 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 – persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.
wtc.nist.gov...
Originally posted by jthomas
You're entitlement to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Can you find a single video of a steel-structured highrise anywhere on the net that shows a building collapsing similar to WTC 7 that fell due to fires? A news story, perhaps?
Originally posted by jthomas
You believe that is the case but you have neither demonstrated it nor have you refuted NIST.
History has refuted NIST by proving no steel-structured highrise has ever globally collapsed from fires. Controlled demolition companies have refuted NIST by using explosives to bring steel-structured highrises down because, well, fire can't.
Sorry you can't accept those facts. But those facts don't go away just because you don't agree with them.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by MemoryShock
The contention that "unpredictable fires" would have spared a paper or two is fairly lame since the mindset that would have prevailed during the cleanup in the aftermath would have had little context to discern any "found document"...pfft.
What if the "found document" happened to be an alleged terrorist passport, in almost pristine condition?
I guess they only find what they want to find!
Originally posted by jthomas
See NIST above: "The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires." Do you not accept NIST's statement?
NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction, the properties and condition of the materials used, or changes to the original construction made over the life of the buildings.
Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth
Originally posted by esdad71
Why is it that sometimes NIST is right and sometimes they are wrong?
I'm sorry to say but the evidence is overwhelming in the sense that no steel structure has ever been brought down by fire. Fires have lasted in steel structure for up to 24 hours and still the structure stands..
In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse
In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse
In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing
Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing
For two freaking day, you have to be either stupid, or blind to not notice cover up by the corrupt rogue government..
It was also shown that if fire protection to structural members is adequately designed and applied with quality control, fire damage to fire exposed members will be minimised and structural collapse can be prevented.
The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction
The building featured two heavily reinforced concrete transfer structures (technical floors) between the 2nd and 3rd Floors, and between the 16th and 17th Floors respectively. The original cladding system was fixed to the steel perimeter columns and the floor slabs. The perimeter columns were supported by the transfer structures at the 17th and 3rd Floor levels.
The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.
All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24. At the time of the evacuation, the fire appeared to be under control on the 22nd though 24th floors. It continued to bum on floors 25 and 26 and was spreading upward. There was a heavy smoke condition throughout most of the upper floors. The evacuation was completed by 0730.
The fire was stopped when it reached the 30th floor, which was protected by automatic sprinklers. As the fire ignited in different points this floor level through the floor assembly and by autoexposure through the windows, 10 sprinkler heads activated and the fires were extinguished at each point of penetration. The vertical spread of the fire was stopped solely by the action of the automatic sprinkler system, which was being supplied by Fire Department pumpers.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by jthomas
See NIST above: "The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires." Do you not accept NIST's statement?
No, and neither should you.
Originally posted by thedman
Also for the millionth time - steel DOES NOT have to melt. Only to reach
critical temperature to lose it structural stenght and begin to deform