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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OverYonder

Haha right, I love how he says it's ONLY a 300° difference. If the average global temperature was 370° we would be ok because it's only 300° difference
edit on 17-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus

In a seminar 6 months after 9/11 heard the incident commanders describe their actions on scene

Direct from the FDNY.....

What is your evidence,,,???



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   
One thing that still bugs me to this day is the concept of path of least resistance in physics. The towers should have fallen over before falling into themselves like they did.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Echo007

I was just thinking, how much jet fuel was on those planes, and wouldn't most of it have just evaporated?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Wouldn't the jet fuel have also created a vapour cloud suffocating people ?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Are you saying that the lower part of wtc's were super heated.
To me, I could see the structure above the fire collapsing, but only the hot beams.
Why would lower coulombs of steel buckle, when the weight above would remain the same.
A more plausible idea would be that there was a massive design flaw somewhere, and the subsequent cover up is there to protect those responsible



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



The towers should have fallen over before falling into themselves like they did.

The towers were designed to stand vertically not at a tilt.
Once the collapse started truss after beam after connector were snapped or bent.

Remember that only the core had horizontal beams.
The majority of horizontal rigidity came from floor trusses like Walmart roof trusses.
It doesn't take much to bugger those trusses.
Without those floor trusses the outer steel frame would buckle.
The cascade would continue.

The WTC has shown designers not to ever build another design like that.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus




What happened to the concrete? Show me what fire does to 425,000 cubic yards (930,000,000 kg) of a concrete core? Please tell me what happened to the concrete so I can go back to sleep. Please tell me how a concrete core of more than 2050299038.32lbs, 1025149.519tons disappears by external truss failure?

There was no concrete core.
Light weight concrete was used on the floor pans as the surface people walked on.
Light weight means a higher percentage of expanded clay, slate or shale.
Light weight concrete weighs about 2/3's or normal.
Light weight concrete has comprehensive strength of about 2500 lbs vs 3000-4000.
Typical high rise buildings use just under 4 inch thick concrete over steel trusses.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Physics tells me the path of least resistance in 3 collapsing buildings is not straight down into the infrastructure. I don't care how a building is built, energy will always exert itself in the path of least resistance. That is proven science.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Esarman




A more plausible idea would be that there was a massive design flaw somewhere, and the subsequent cover up is there to protect those responsible

The design flaw was the tube in tube design.
Neither tube could stand 1362 feet by itself. Especially the outer steel.
There were no vertical supports other than the core and outer steel.
Just look at pictures of the outer steel sections going into place.
Gage how many floors of outer steel could stand under load, without horizontal bracing. (trusses)

Wtc was 207 feet wide.
B767 was 156 feet wide.
First plane was tilted slicing maybe 125 width through outer steel.
Add fire and what do you think will happen?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

All it takes is ONE stiff piece of steel to alter the path of least resistance. That didn't happen. It has never happened anywhere else ever. It even happened in a building that wasn't hit by a plane that has endured similar extremities (fire). The other buildings didn't fall.

Buildings fall in on them self ONLY when they are meant to, because the demo crew knows they have to create the path of least resistance.

That is the one science that is really hard to argue my friend.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: samkent

Physics tells me the path of least resistance in 3 collapsing buildings is not straight down into the infrastructure. I don't care how a building is built, energy will always exert itself in the path of least resistance. That is proven science.

Yet we have a photo posted in this thread of another building that was damaged at a distance by beams hitting it... supposedly to prove that explosives were used (not that I believe that).
So, did the building fall straight down? Or did debris hit the other building?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
At least we haven't gotten to the point where members are saying that the planes were holograms yet.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
AND another thing....

If the goal of 'conspirators' in the government was to cause damage, injuries and loss of life....

Why in the hell would they go to the trouble of rigging a complete controlled demolition on these two buildings (to make them 'fall in their own footprint'), when they could have toppled those huge buildings sideways and crushed many other building and killed many more people?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: samkent

Physics tells me the path of least resistance in 3 collapsing buildings is not straight down into the infrastructure. I don't care how a building is built, energy will always exert itself in the path of least resistance. That is proven science.

Here we have yet another smoking gun. This combined with massive 12 ton steel sections being ejected outwards and embedding into buildings 600 ft. away. How can you explain these two major facts without telling people 2+2=5.

If you don't think a professional firefighter, more than one by the way, can positively identify molten steel, "flowing like a foundry", than you should just stop popping your head out of the sand to post. Flowing molten steel is very distinct.

Deniers please address this,
"Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.”
www.historycommons.org...

That quote and countless other eye witness testimony conclusively proves there definitely WAS molten steel at ground zero and it's another smoking gun? These smoking gun thingys are everywhere.
edit on 17-12-2015 by DeceptioVisus because: grammar



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeceptioVisus

If you don't think a professional firefighter, more than one by the way, can positively identify molten steel, "flowing like a foundry", than you should just stop popping your head out of the sand to post. Flowing molten steel is very distinct.



Here's a challenge. Quote me saying anything ever about molten steel.

(besides this post)
edit on 17-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Vector99



The towers should have fallen over before falling into themselves like they did.

The towers were designed to stand vertically not at a tilt.


The towers were built to withstand 140 MPH winds, they were built to "tilt"



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
I was only addressing your post I quoted in my first paragraph to agree with it. Nothing was directed at you. Sorry I will try and make that more clear next time.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
I see know. Not my error. Had I directed that at you it would have been a "reply to", not a quote of your typed words.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus

My bad, I thought you implied i thought there was molten steel. There wasn't, it was aluminum. Totally misundersttod your post, my apologies my friend
edit on 17-12-2015 by Vector99 because: words, beer, etc



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join