911 is joke in your town...CDI bought to make you cry

reply to post by GoodOlDave
[

How do you explain WTC6, the US customs house, blowing up and out as the second plane hit the south tower? As for the squibs there are many pictures and videos of demolition charge exhaust coming out of the 4th and 5th floors of the towers before the roofline moves or any other sign of "pancakeing" appears. The official reports are being questioned by people who were involved in them and they have not to this day released a final report on WTC7. If you have no other interest in this except finding the truth google 911 studies/911 photos and go down the search page to Jack White's site. Please go there and look at all the pictures and read everything he says. It will take some time but when you get done I would like to hear your opinion of what really happened that day.

Originally posted by WATCHER.1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
[

How do you explain WTC6, the US customs house, blowing up and out as the second plane hit the south tower?

Uh... what?

As for the squibs there are many pictures and videos of demolition charge exhaust coming out of the 4th and 5th floors of the towers before the roofline moves or any other sign of "pancakeing" appears.

Uh what? Can you show the ...um ... lol... "demolition charge exhaust" prior to the collapses?

....

have not to this day released a final report on WTC7.

Uh... what?

Dude, not to sound rude...but do you know what year it is?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

Have a look at this graph re steel and temperature

www.elephantowners.com...

at about 1200f ONLY 600c look at the strength, about 0.3 its lost
70%!

I think people get confused when f and c are used in different documents thats the real problem.

No, the confusion is again you are ignoring the physics of heat transfer,
and the fact that a room fire is not going to get hot enough in an hour to heat steel to 600°C, even if the fire was that hot.

The steel is not going to be the same temperature as the fire. Heat is wicked away along it's length and other components it's attached to.
Once no more heat can be transferred along the length it will reach equilibrium and start to heat up toward the flame temperature, but this takes a long time.
The fire also was moving, so a spot that was in contact with fire at one point would cool down as soon as it wasn't in direct contact with the fire.

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C....

www.doctorfire.com...

In a controlled test situation, it takes 4 hours to reach 1093°C. After 8 hours it only goes up to 1260°C.

Already damaged steel weakend by fire then massive loads above impact point!

You mean the massive loads the building was designed to hold and had done since it was built?

Also your FOS are WAY OUT for structural fixings most engineers allow a fos of 3 not 6
as you claim even your link tells you 2 but as usual with you guys lets distort things by claiming this is a minimum!

It doesn't matter as long as the Fos is 2, the minimum, then the building could easily withstand the dropping of the top section. The only section that could have been weakened by fire is the section directly in contact with the fire. The bottom was undamaged and no extra weight was added that it was not capable of holding up, as it had done since it was built.

But really this pic proves the whole hypothesis wrong...

WTC1...


The top collapsed independent of the bottom. Where did it go? How did it manage to disappear and cause the complete symmetrical collapse of the more massive bottom section?

[edit on 7/19/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


Okay, you've convinced me.

What do we do now?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay, you've convinced me.

What do we do now?

1) Keep talking to people and spreading information. As far as I'm aware, most Americans still have never even seen WTC7 collapse. That can still be helped.

2) Keep putting pressure on politicians and others who are in some position of authority or relevance. Politicians are elected to represent the people.

3) Depending on elevating social tension from the economy and other examples of insider abuse and corruption, the events of 9/11 ARE grounds for a violent revolution for all who are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the federal government betrayed us. This is still not something many people are comfortable hearing but it is the sad truth, and millions of red-blooded Americans know it though they are afraid to say it. This is what a peaceful coup and restoration of Constitutional government will prevent. However I don't think this is likely to happen.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Hello again friends.

I'm going to make this short and sweet. I don't care to argue sides, nor do I care what you believe. I am simply putting this here for your information. Feel free to comment, but again, I'm not going to argue with anyone. I'm simply putting it out because it needs to be.

...

Still think jet fuel brought down those buildings?

First, you portrayed yourself as an innocent unbiased bystander, and then you ended your faulty claim with a biased statement. Your motivations to post this thread were biased.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Hello again friends.

A brief description.
Controlled Demolition Inc. is the company that was contracted to clean up the world trade center and is a standard in the Rolodex of the US Government. Though they do clean up as well, their mainstay is demolition having exploded most of the worlds high profile structures. They are experts in every facet of imploding and exploding buildings.

Second, if the company was hired to 'clean up' the World Trade Center, would that not also mean they have seen these massive beams in the wreckage? Other words, the guy was commenting on the beams he had to clean out of the WTC rubble.

You took it out of context, and then you put strawberries on top.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
That being said, I found this video on another conspiracy blog and went through hell trying to get a copy as it was embedded. I finally managed to copy it then a few days later lost the video. I went back to try and recopy it and it was gone. It was only up maybe 2 days on this site (which for the life of me I can not remember now) I wanted to cry.

Interesting. So, since it was on a conspiracy blogger site (hobbyist), that would mean this piece of work is factual?

But there is more...

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Well to my surprise I found it yesterday. I have edited it down yet, kept it in context. U2U me for full length copy if you wish, but I cut it down to the important part for times sake.

It does not matter if you edited it for length. What matters is that you were able to edit the clip. What also matters is that both the owners of the conspiracy blog and you made a piece of fiction, and then both of you tried to sell it to ATS visitors as a matter of truth.

You took the whole statement out of context, you admitted they were involved with cleaning up the WTC site after the disaster, and then you dismissed the connection so you can create a narrative.

Let me ask you this - Could these people have seen the large beams he is talking about during the clean up effort, which his company was involved with after the WTC attacks?

Where is your logic?

[edit on 19-7-2010 by Section31]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Actually, there are some websites that did actual research. One problem with the contention that they fell due to the collapse of the upper floors is the speed at which they fell.

The timing of the fall is consistent with a free-fall. The standard rate of acceleration, in a vacuum is 32/ft per second per second. Meaning, with NO RESISTANCE, the towers would have fallen in about 10 seconds. And THEY DID! One would expect the lower floors, presumably undamaged and intact, to offer significant resistance, yet they didn't.

Those are the laws of physics that nobody can argue with. Do the math, then explain to my how those buildings fell at a free-fall rate if the lower floors hadn't been somehow weakened? I'm all ears.

reply to post by General.Lee

Where did you get your research? How did you arrive at your assessment? What are the websites, and who are the people running them?

In the Bush administration, it seemed the standard procedure was to put whoever DID the crime, in charge of the investigation.

That's why I figured it would be interesting to track bank accounts and the whereabouts of all Controlled Demolitions staff around a certain August through September.

Isn't that easier than putting Million Dollar scanners at all the airports?

Thanks for the post OP -- and I too, don't give a crap about debate on this issue.

reply to post by Section31


LOL. Sure, NOBODY could have pure motivations except for the Bush government that attacked two nations that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. There were no TALIBAN on those planes -- not even on the alleged suspect list.

So now, we have to wonder about this mysterious stranger who has EVIL reasons behind posting something about 9/11.

Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with thousands of people DONATING their time and energy because they care -- that would never occur...

It's Al Gore making money on pollution or Michael Moore is fat -- it's shoot the messenger because the Banks, the Military and the Pentagon, are so innocent and only looking out fore everyone's best interest.

Blowing up bridges in iraq so that the same oil companies can get their production sharing agreements while we close down schools in America because we "cannot spend all this money." Even with that -- it would all be paid for by rescinding Bush's tax cuts for the top .5%. Oh -- but that is SOCIALISM.

9/11 is just like the Banking collapse. Lot's of innocent people raking in cash and power and the bill gets paid by the working stiff.

>> The Bush administration and now the COMPLICIT Obama administration have a list of crimes now -- what's one more? More people will die from BP's oil spill in a few years than died in 9/11. And that's not just the clean-up crews without respirators. When a corporation, can count some beans and save a few million so that they risk killing an ocean --- I don't think that there is ANYTHING these people wouldn't do.

>> I suppose EVERYONE has some agenda who says that 9/11 was an inside job. But without 9/11 we wouldn't have the Afghanistan and Iraq invasion and we wouldn't have the Patriot Act and somewhere along the way they snuck in electronic voting. We won the war and lost the Democracy.

9/11 is such a little bitty crime -- but it means so much to all the Patriots who justify every damn crime against America in it's honor. And the Patriots who want meaning for the dead soldier by burying the living one.

Why don't we just leave Afghanistan and Iraq? There is ample proof that our corporate-military-government doesn't care about human life.

Originally posted by Section31

Second, if the company was hired to 'clean up' the World Trade Center, would that not also mean they have seen these massive beams in the wreckage? Other words, the guy was commenting on the beams he had to clean out of the WTC rubble.

You took the whole statement out of context, you admitted they were involved with cleaning up the WTC site after the disaster, and then you dismissed the connection so you can create a narrative.

Let me ask you this - Could these people have seen the large beams he is talking about during the clean up effort, which his company was involved with after the WTC attacks?

Where is your logic?

I was trying to discuss that exact issue earlier in the thread. I didn't get anywhere with it, better luck to you.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by gandhi

 

But the point is, he said he could do nothing with that beam because it was so big, and the WTC beams were bigger.

So it comes back to how did fire cause those massive steel beams, that a demo expert said would be a problem using explosives, to simply collapse from fire. If fire could do that then why would it be a problem for a demo expert?

And no the plane did not cause the collapse, that was local damage that could not cause the undamaged lower floors to collapse.

Yes this IS a good find.

As all large steel can be cut, with thermite and they found residue of it.

Many large weaker steel framed buildings have burned for longer
and not fallen.

Furthermore if a bldg received lopsided damage and did fall it would
not fall in its own foot print.

Additionally The core columns were so huge that they would have
remained if this was just a pancake collapse of the floors.

The engineers have made this clear, and the proof thermite was
used is in the video in my signature.

Good Luck to you all !

reply to post by ANOK



NO you dont look at the facts the fire in an office situation can reach 900c the fires were also intense due to air flow remember were they were 80+ stories in the towers.

Also if you WATCH the video and actually look at the collapse the upper section of the building above the impact point DROPS you can clearely see it happen if you actually look that is.

The kenetic energy of that amount of load falling is GREATER than the load that it can support including FOS.

Static Loads when the building was standing are not as great as the DYNAMIC LOAD of the upper floors falling!

Consider the load as energy when free standing no problem when the upper part dropped the ENERGY IS GREATER thats the problem and thats what YOU dont SEE!

reply to post by Ex_MislTech






NO

www.debunking911.com...


Show me another steel framed build that was HIT by an aircraft and then went on fire! before 9/11
Also if you did some research other steel framed buildings have collapsed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Correct it did NOT fall in its own fooprint!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The main proponent of explosives was a Prof Jones HE is not a structural engineer
and he also believed Jesus had visited America I think thats says a lot about the man!!!!!


Also around 1200 ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS approx are members for Architects for truth
ONLY 1200 out of many THOUSANDS MORE in the USA and 10'S OF THOUSANDS MORE around the world who laugh at them!

Also architects ARE not structural engineers they look at pretty pictures in catalogues etc
if you want STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS done they would send you to an ENGINEER!


[edit on 20-7-2010 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

Here we go again at NO repeat NO point did anybody claim that only fire brought the towers down plain and simple.

A combination of structural damage , fire and load above impact point brought them down.

Hey, Harley Man is that you?

I've only read the first page, and I am at work, so I can't go find my other ATS post with the specifics, but I will paraphrase.

The Beams in the WTC were coated with a fire retardent and encased in concrete.

Kerosene (Jet Fuel A) burns at a specific temperature under ideal circumstances. When it has insufficient airflow it is "damped" and it burns at a lower temperature and it creates a lot of black smoke. The WTC fire was just such a condition. All the paints, cleaners, sheetrock, desks, papers, etc, did not add a sufficient accelerant above and beyond the kerosene, so we can safely declare that the temperature of the fire was lower than optimal conditions.

Now, the beams were designed specifically to withstand intense heat of fire. Other similar, smaller buildings in New York City are required to withstand 10 - 12 hours of the most intense heat imagineable. For example a chemical fire with many different types of accelerants burning at 2400 deg F and more. (Kerosene burns at less than 25% of that requirement.) The WTC was held to an even higher standard than those other buildings, because it was taller and harder to pump water to, plus it had a very high occupation rate.

So, under ideal conditions, a Kerosene fire could never have brought down the towers. If the fire had a mixture of the worlds worst and hottest possible fire accelerants, it would still have taken more than 12 hours to heat the concrete encasement to the point of weakening the steel structure.

NOW, assuming all the worst most implausible scenarios, and assuming that under some unforeseen circumstance the towers somehow got up to that crazy hot temperature in an hour or two. Even then, the beams would have been at differing levels of integrity. They would have given out closest to the heat, but they would have held on better as they got further away. We would have seen a very uneven collapse and slide.

It is absolutely impossible to create a pancake collapse with fire, and even more impossible to do it with a kerosene fire, and even more impossible than that to have done it on a building with the highest possible building standards in the Country! (Huge steel girders, coated with fire retardant, and encased in Concrete) IMPOSSIBLE!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

NO you dont look at the facts the fire in an office situation can reach 900c the fires were also intense due to air flow remember were they were 80+ stories in the towers.

NO you don't understand the physics...

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

It takes 4 hours to reach 1093°C in a test situation. An uncontrolled office fire could not reach 900°C in an hour.

You also forget to consider heat transfer and the amount of time it takes for the fire to heat the steel. The steel will not be the same temp as the fire until it reaches equilibrium, which means ALL the steel would have to be heated completely before that happens, and that takes direct continuous heat over a long period of time which rarely happens in an uncontrolled fire (this is why no steel building has ever collapsed from fire). Only a small percentage of the steel was in contact with fire.

Also if you WATCH the video and actually look at the collapse the upper section of the building above the impact point DROPS you can clearely see it happen if you actually look that is.

NO, of you WATCH the video of WTC 1 the top collapses before the bottom starts to...It looks like it's dropping but it's not, look at the bottom of the top section as it collapses, the top is not dropping or you would see movement at the bottom of the section not just the top.
The top is collapsing from it's bottom up, before the bottom undamaged building then independently collapses.



Now watch the video of WTC 2...

The kenetic energy of that amount of load falling is GREATER than the load that it can support including FOS.

Another OSer who doesn't know what kinetic energy is.

Static Loads when the building was standing are not as great as the DYNAMIC LOAD of the upper floors falling!

Hmmm proof? First off you have to prove the top section fell as one block, I can prove it didn't (see pic above).

How do you explain WTC 2 then? The top did not drop on the bottom, it was tilting, angular momentum, when just like WTC1 the bottom dropped from underneath it changing the tops angular momentum.

Consider the load as energy when free standing no problem when the upper part dropped the ENERGY IS GREATER thats the problem and thats what YOU dont SEE!

LOL your whole hypotheses is based on nothing but opinion and hollywood physics. The top section DID NOT DROP, believe your eyes not what you're being told.

Watch very carefully...

www.youtube.com...

The top starts to crush way before the bottom drops. You can even see a huge squib just as the bottom goes, and no it's not dust pushing out of a window.

Here is a gif(t) to show you better...

Originally posted by getreadyalready

The Beams in the WTC were coated with a fire retardent and encased in concrete.

Lie.

Other similar, smaller buildings in New York City are required to withstand 10 - 12 hours of the most intense heat imagineable.

Lie.

The WTC was held to an even higher standard than those other buildings,

Lie.

concrete encasement

Lie.

We would have seen a very uneven collapse and slide.

Lie.

It is absolutely impossible to create a pancake collapse with fire

Lie.

and encased in Concrete)

Lie.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by Joey Canoli]

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Care to elaborate? My information came from fire code in NYC, and from plans of the world trade centers. The post with all the pertinent links and sources exists on ATS. I am personally tired of reposting it, but you don't have to take my word for it. find my original post follow the links and see for yourself.

"Lie" just seems a bit theatrical and substanceless as a rebuttal?

Here are a few logical constructions that I posted in another thread. These are simplistic and they made more sense in the other thread, but I will repost them anyway, maybe someone can quote them and put "lie" after each line?

How about:
MP: Diesel Fuel has never been used in a building Demolition.
MP: Steel will not molt at ideal Diesel fire temperature maximums.
MP: This Diesel fire was severely damped and not at ideal temperature max.
Therefore: A Diesel Fuel fire could not have caused a building Demolition.

or

MP: Millions of Tonnes of debris began an uneven freefall.
MP: The falling section was not torqued in any of 3 axes by the existing building.
Therefore: The existing building did not provide any resistance or counteractive force to the freefalling section.
Therefore: The existing building could not have been intact and rigid at the time of the fall.

or

Assuming the Official Story is correct

MP: Diesel fuel incinerated an entire large aircraft and melted steel support beams.
MP: Box Cutters and identifying passports were found on the ground and among the rubble.
Therefore: Box Cutters were used by terrorists that were kind enough to carry passports with their actual pictures and identitites onto a plane and hijack it with nothing more than box cutters, and those cheap pot metal box cutters and paper passports survived the incineration of an entire aircraft and a thousand foot fall among billions of tons of rubble and were subsequently found on the ground even though hardened and crash engineered black boxes with homing beacons could not be found?

Which conclusion seems the most far-fetched?

p.s. Still looking for page with fire codes and pdf files of construction techniques.