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.

 

Melting steel?

page: 32
16
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: charolais

Even if you heat up the steel on a couple of the floors, nothing will make the steel below that crumble to the floor with any sort of weight.

If you bolted or welded together a mock structure building out of steel the diameter of chopsticks, I suspect you would barely dent it even by slamming it with a boulder 20 times its size. And though something might be able to bend it, nothing will make it crumble.




posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Structural integrity applies to all such structures. Ever compared structural ribs of metal roofs with aircraft structural stiffeners and stringers?

edit on 22-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat



Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast... Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

en.wikipedia.org...


Overpass Near San Francisco Collapses After Fire

The tanker exploded, sending flames hundreds of feet into the air, according to witnesses, and quickly buckled a three-lane section of Interstate 580 and caused it to collapse onto Interstate 880 some thirty feet below.

At a noontime press conference held at a toll plaza near the collapse, Mr. Kempton said the heat from the fireball had likely melted the steel girders and bolts that support the concrete roadway. “If you have that kind of heat, you’re going to have this kind of reaction,” he said. “We’re not surprised this happened.”

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99

Structural integrity applies to all such structures. Ever compared structural ribs of metal roofs with aircraft structural stiffeners and stringers?

Did you seriously just try to compare building structural integrity to aircraft structural integrity?

You have absolutely ZERO sense in architectural engineering so stop.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

That's been debunked as well because it does't show the rest of the area, which many 9/11 conspiracy theorist were aware of as well. After all, many eyewitnesses saw American 77 strike the Pentagon.


Not true, you lose, just by the amount of stars I get compared to you.or the others,,. your not fooling anyone sky, go to bed.
edit on 22-12-2015 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Where is the plane..


It's here.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5

Photo 6

Photo 7

Photo 8

Photo 9

Photo 10


edit on 22-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb



Where is the plane..


It's here.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5

Photo 6

Photo 7



Sorry the first photo stands, it is the first piece of evidence, no debunking that..



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb



Where is the plane..


It's here.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5

Photo 6

Photo 7


I'm glad you posted those. That is the stuff that gives conspiracy theorists fuel, because you posted a bunch of BS.

NOTHING there is related to 9/11.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

False and the fact that many people saw American 77 slam into the Pentagon debunks you claim. It is very easy to debunk your claim because there are many 9/11 conspiracy theorist who admit that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon and look what you'd posted.
edit on 22-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

False and the fact that many people saw American 77 slam into the Pentagon debunks you claim. It is very easy to debunk your claim because there are many 9/11 conspiracy theorist who admit that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon and look what you'd posted.

Who saw it?

*ADD - many people is not an answer
edit on 22-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

False and the fact that many people saw American 77 slam into the Pentagon debunks you claim. It is very easy to debunk your claim because there are many 9/11 conspiracy theorist who admit that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon and look what you'd posted.


CIT, thats all i need to say, good night sir..



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Actually, many 9/11 conspiracy theorist admit that American 77 struck the Pentagon, which make it very easy for me to discredit your post by that very fact.


edit on 22-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99

Actually, many 9/11 conspiracy theorist admit that American 77 struck the Pentagon, which make it very easy for me to discredit your post by that very fact.


MANY PEOPLE IS NOT AN ANSWER

Who saw it?



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99

Actually, many 9/11 conspiracy theorist admit that American 77 struck the Pentagon, which make it very easy for me to discredit your post by that very fact.


Actually, many NIST believers say they saw a missile hit the pentagon, and the planes hitting the towers were holograms.

See how that works?



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Well, if you do your homework, you will find that many 9/11 conspiracy theorist admit that American 77 slammed into the Pentagon, which left wreckage everywhere.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Well, if you do your homework, you will find that many 9/11 conspiracy theorist admit that American 77 slammed into the Pentagon, which left wreckage everywhere.


And if you do your homework you will find many NIST believers believe a missile hit the pentagon, flight 93 landed in Canada, and the planes hitting the towers were elaborate holograms like the one used to make Michael Jackson seem alive again.

It's fun to make stuff up.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Vector99

Actually, many 9/11 conspiracy theorist admit that American 77 struck the Pentagon, which make it very easy for me to discredit your post by that very fact.


Actually, many NIST believers say they saw a missile hit the pentagon, and the planes hitting the towers were holograms.

See how that works?


well in a sense a 757 on a collision course is a missile.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: choos

And the engines would be the explosive charge, where are they? And why did they not penetrate the pentagon but the equivalent of a coke can did.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

And the engines would be the explosive charge, where are they? And why did they not penetrate the pentagon but the equivalent of a coke can did.


not the engines.. the fuel would be the explosives.

the WTC is not built as solidly as the pentagon.. how much of the engines remained in those incidents?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

The fuel would be the accelerant. The velocity of the solid frame of the engines would be the explosive. Again, how does a tin can poke a hole while the solid bricks of metal just disintegrate?

The engine impacts on the WTC's are quite clear by the way just incase you've never actually looked at it.



new topics




 
16
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join