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.

 

Massive Fire Skyscraper Dubai

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

You might be right, I don't know. I replied because you stated the differece between jet fuel and no jet fuel influencing the fire. I'm not even close to being an expert.




posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

OK, not to derail the thread but to answer your questions:-

We all know the towers fell ........ FACT

So ......... we have two factors ............ aluminium, rubber, pcb's wire, suitcases, ABS, PP, Glass, fuel, body parts, shoe polish, jewelry and speed, (not 500mph impossible at that height) in the case of airliners. We have H section Girders, Glass, Concrete, Wire Cables, Office Furniture, People, possibly all other components, among more, that were in the towers ......... ok?

OK

All those factors combined, anything can happen. However ...... wing tips would never carve through H section girders whatever their orientation, a commercial jet liner, however much fuel on board, would not "nose in" and "nose out" through that amount of carnage without being severely damaged .......... FACT

How did it nose out?

3 weeks later, a pilot lost a 737 using rudders because the bolts sheared on the vertical stabilizer (tail), that never happened on 9/11 .......nothing sheared ............... on either aircraft? EXPLAIN? it slotted please ........... a perfect slot in the first tower? help me



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Sorry to read about that. Getting stuck in a fire would be a terrible way to go.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Edit (after 4 hours)

Correction: The plane crash in Queens some 3 weeks later was an Airbus not a 737 as previously stated. The plane came down due to the co pilot performing a series of "rudder hard overs" to counteract wake turbulence from a JAL 747 which had taken off just before him, on the fifth hard over the vertical stabilizer sheared off due to stresses induced by the "hard over" maneuvers, which happened to be AA normal practice / instruction / training, at that time ...... that crash changed policy.

Even so, still nothing sheared off the 737's on 9/11 so my argument still stands
edit on 2015-02-22T05:53:23-06:002015Sun, 22 Feb 2015 05:53:23 -0600bSunday5302America/Chicago155 by corblimeyguvnor because: typo correction



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor
a reply to: TsukiLunar





Even so, still nothing sheared off the 737's on 9/11 so my argument still stands


There were no 737's on 9/11. Just B767 and 757's
edit on 22-2-2015 by Ivar_Karlsen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: elevatedone

exactly...what you said......common sense.... I glad no one was injured or killed in THIS high rise fire.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AreUKiddingMe because arsonist poured 100 gallons of kerosene down garbage suit and lit it on fire. and maybe it was built uing crappy building materials and had a lot less safety features then it shroud have building contracyors are notorious everywhere for trying to build buildings as cheaply as possible and picketing the cash they skimmed



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guenter

A jet is in essence nothing bot an over-sized beer can with wings at a speed of 500mph. No matter what the mass and speed of this thing is, the material the jet is built of is less dense than the material the WTC was built of. And none of the jets hit the towers right dead center bulls eye! So it is again an irregular damage which then would result in an irregular collapse. And after all the WTC were designed for the very fact that aircraft could impact! After all the Empire State got hit in 45 or 46 with a B-25 bomber! Buildings collapse due to fire and impact damage but they ONLY collapse in their own footprints if "helped" with a bit of a controlled demolition.
Jet fuel burns in "open air" at just a bit over 1,000C which is not enough to "melt" steel. So even with the jets ramming it they should have collapsed irregular or partially. That is what i am saying. Not more and not less. You do not get an almost free-fall in it's own foot print collapse just because of a plane hit. So no matter what you throw at any building it will NOT collapse free-fall into its own footprint.


Oversized beer can designed to carry it's own mass, fuel and luggage & passengers at a few hundred miles an hour and has to be able to bank & turn just as well YOU don't design planes then eh!

I suggest you check pictures re the positions of impacts of the jets at 9/11



The Empire State building got hit with a plane a FRACTION of the size and at a far lower speed it was of different construction read up on what happened to one of the engines of that plane.



edit on 2-3-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
2012 is old news friend..




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join