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.
Monitoring the fires from World Trade Center 7 and their progression/strength shows reasonability that there was no way they could of been that extensively spread while under containment of sprinkler systems/fire fighter control.
Furthermore, not to strain an ignorant mindset, but your photos of that side of the building yield nothing but smoke and in NO WAY produces the critical anaylsis of how bad the fires indeed were. Your photos provide smoke, that tells us there were fires, but from the angle of that picture, it doesn't seem all that out of control.
Did the fires seem to of saw fit to stay out of view from the rest of the public eye? Why concentrated in the center of the building at that point at an unviewable stance? Why are they not visible? Clearly with such a huge inferno as you are insisting, you would be noticing flames. Fires are not ordered substances, they follow a path of chaos, and as for that, if the fires were raging infernos, which they were not, they would of not simply stuck out of view, produced smoke, but pillowing out the sides as well. Especially considering that's on the rather smaller lengthed side of the building.
This doesn't help matters for you, as it mimicks popular commercial demolitions styles, Now the whole building wasn't engulfed in flames, or that'd be self evident unless you have MORE pictures to provide for usefulness that I haven't already came across. But for it to collapse from the bottom up, at free fall speed, it wouldn't of had the pleasure of knocking out any resisting forces, giving it the free fall speed.
This topic has been debated many many times on this board, take a second, a minute, or to do yourself an hour and reflect back with search on the criteria covered with WTC 7. You simply can't win because it's a subject the NIST was never strong on.
You can continue to look at the non-important aspects, or ignore the real questions trying to be posed and blow them off as pure hootinany, which can only show your true agenda here, but that all aside.
It's still a wonder how the building managed to fall as it did, when fires were not rampant throughout the building and the fires could not of reached a critical temperature, and produce the heat needed to take the structure out, considering it was laced with concrete as well.
- Material was pulverized (concrete)
- Molten Steel found at WTC 7 following its collapse
- Intense hotspots found in the basement of WTC 7
- Traces of evaporated steel found
- Fires WERE NOT as I've stated, not consuming the whole base of the building, as there were was no pretense for such a simultaneous collapse of the building, and with that, how did it collapse as such with no evidence of fires described?
- WTC 7 was reinforced with concrete, provided more sturdy supports than WTC 1 and 2 when being consumed by flame
- WTC 7 had fireproofing and sprinkler systems, also hindering the spreading of fires
- WTC 7 fell at free fall speed - which, for those of you that don't follow 9/11 threads and seem to jump in casually, shows that there was no resistance in falling floors, as if they fell unhindered.
So how does the Official Story, which even FEMA quoted was least likely, seem to fit in to explain all what I've listed above.
But just for fun, I'll take a bet with BSB, that your photo of the "Raging smoke" is going to appear pointlessly 3 more times in this thread.
It's still a wonder how the building managed to fall as it did, when fires were not rampant throughout the building and the fires could not of reached a critical temperature, and produce the heat needed to take the structure out, considering it was laced with concrete as well.
Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
[American Free Press]
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times]
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
- Molten Steel found at WTC 7 following its collapse
I've heard this claim a lot, yet I've never seen any proof.
Originally posted by Griff
First, why would a fire chief ask the building owner to pull his men out (or even contact him for that matter)?
Originally posted by Griff
Second, why would Silverstein tell the fire chief to demolish the building? If this was a government/Silverstein conspiracy, why would Silverstein now involve the fire department's chief with critical information that could potentially ruin him (Silverstein)?
Originally posted by Griff
My only conclusion that I have come up with is that Silverstein lied in the interview about that conversation. I don't think the words "pull it" ever came out of Larry's mouth on the day of 9/11. I'm even suspect of him ever having this conversation in the first place. IMO, no side of this part of the arguement makes sense.
Originally posted by MMP
This is a great question. I personally do not have answer other then the chief was involved in shady dealings with Silverstein.
Silverstein got roughly 5 billion (tell me if that amount is wrong) in insurance money which can go a long way to pay people off. Everyone has their price.
This is a fair estimation. I am not aware of anyone coming forward (like the fire chief) to refute his comment. Don't you think they would?
OK, there are plenty of eyewitnesses to the molten steel found at WTC7. Now, I'm not sure about photos. So, you guys say that eyewitness accounts are better than photos when it comes to the "fires" of WTC7...correct? Well, how about eyewitness accounts of engineers (who would know the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum) seeing molten steel. Molten aluminum doesn't glow in daylight...molten steel does. See the hypocrisy?
First, why would a fire chief ask the building owner to pull his men out (or even contact him for that matter)?
Second, why would Silverstein tell the fire chief to demolish the building? If this was a government/Silverstein conspiracy, why would Silverstein now involve the fire department's chief with critical information that could potentially ruin him (Silverstein)?
Silverstein got roughly 5 billion (tell me if that amount is wrong) in insurance money which can go a long way to pay people off. Everyone has their price.
Mr_Pointy, nice asanine assumption. They're building engineers, they'd know structural steel from anything else. What else would it be? Molten Concrete? Molten desk wood? Molten air molecules?
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
It's obvious from the quotes that he suggested they pull back and let it burn, not demolish it.
[edit on 15-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]
That still is up to interpretation at this point and is on the side of the matter of which of your opinions are based. If you're more pro-official, then you tend to believe he said "pull it" referring to the operation (But still even firefighters and Silverstein himself couldn't of predicted that the building was going to collapse soon, how could they of, we've already discussed the fire issue and there weren't raging infernos across the building's base area to initiate heavy destruction)
Or if you're more pro-conspiracy, it leans toward the pull it, referring to a demolition type of slang to bring down the building, which sort of seems more realistic, but as I said, it's still up to interpretation, to claim it's obvious on such an opinionated matter is silly.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Molten aluminum, or another metal, building engineers don't work with molten metals, only solid ones.
[edit on 15-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]
Originally posted by Masisoar
I hope my post, further above, was enough for you. Molten aluminum varies in color from that of steel. Molten aluminum, in day light, doesn't have very luminous properties as steel, especially at the reported temperatures, its known to give off more of a metallic silver.
Iictures of molten aluminum:
Also furthermore, to even support that there was molten material present, such as steel, is assisted by the hot spots and eye witness/picture accounts. Then the question is posed to you Mr_Pointy, indeed how did the fires get to those temperatures when it's out of their capability?
These are some interesting links, don't you think?
911myths.com...