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.

 

WTC fireproofing

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Links
Roger Morse was doing well until he said "One of the problems is obstructions from ductwork, you can see that the ductwork has made it virtually impossible to get to the, for the fireproofing applicator to get to the top chord of the truss in this location. "
I was willing to let that slide, just as whoever typed out his statement let slide what he was actually talking about "virtually impossible to get to the????"
then the next line he says
"Ceilings that are in place before the fireproofing is installed can make it difficult for the applicator, and then difficult for the inspector to determine what's gone on."
His credibility is worthless imo.

Show me one instance of fire protection being applied to steel after the ceiling has been fitted.


I’ve seen it a couple of times. It common to see fireproofing on the grid suspension wires, conduits, etc. especially in retrofit situations.

On the other hand, if the ceilings, ducts, pipes and conduits are hung after the fireproofing is installed, the other trades will scrape off the fireproofing in order to install their hangers, leaving holes in the application. I’ve seen that plenty of times also.

Your questioning of his credibility is kind of funny.




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


I’ve seen it a couple of times. It common to see fireproofing on the grid suspension wires, conduits, etc. especially in retrofit situations.


Show me an example.

On the other hand, if the ceilings, ducts, pipes and conduits are hung after the fireproofing is installed, the other trades will scrape off the fireproofing in order to install their hangers, leaving holes in the application. I’ve seen that plenty of times also.

Your questioning of his credibility is kind of funny.



The ceiling ducts, pipe work and conduits are usually hung from the slab or the steel underdeck after any fire protection is sprayed, it used to be a very messy job. likewise ceilings are fitted after the ducts pipework and conduit are fitted. Well thats the way we do it here in Scotland.

The last time i encountered spray on fireprotection was over 10 years ago, i had to remove some where it had been applied to thick, i was encasing the columns with a fireproof board. I can remember very well how tough a job it was to remove, it did not just shatter and fall of like is made out by some.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Links

Originally posted by HowardRoark


I’ve seen it a couple of times. It common to see fireproofing on the grid suspension wires, conduits, etc. especially in retrofit situations.


Show me an example.


On the other hand, if the ceilings, ducts, pipes and conduits are hung after the fireproofing is installed, the other trades will scrape off the fireproofing in order to install their hangers, leaving holes in the application. I’ve seen that plenty of times also.

Your questioning of his credibility is kind of funny.



The ceiling ducts, pipe work and conduits are usually hung from the slab or the steel underdeck after any fire protection is sprayed, it used to be a very messy job. likewise ceilings are fitted after the ducts pipework and conduit are fitted. Well thats the way we do it here in Scotland.

The last time i encountered spray on fireprotection was over 10 years ago, i had to remove some where it had been applied to thick, i was encasing the columns with a fireproof board. I can remember very well how tough a job it was to remove, it did not just shatter and fall of like is made out by some.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
What the heck makes you think an airplane hitting and entering one side of a building takes all the fireproofing off? Look at flight 175 that thing almost missed it hit at such a severe angle. There is no way that fireproofing got knocked off all 47 columns.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Yeah, the near perfection of how they fell says something, plus the third building did the same thing. How on earth could we even look at the footage, after it being pointed out how perfectly the buildings fell, without having questions?

I'll accept the truth, whatever it is, but look at the top of one of the towers as it was falling. It started to fall outward, but the floors below it fell perfectly straight down. Why didn't the top continue on it's path outward, but instead it fell gracefully to the ground with the rest of the floors? I think that maybe if it did collapse as a result of the planes and whatever else, but no bombs, it should not have been so perfect.

Troy



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Once the floors began to sag and fail, they were no longer providing the nessessary stiffness to the exterior columns. The result?

the exterior columns began to buckle inward




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
A little math for those of you so inclined.

The formula used to calculate the critical buckling load for a column is called the Euler formula. The critical buckling load being the load at which the column will buckle and fail.



Pcrit is the critical buckling load.

E is the modulus of elasticity for the material the column is made of, and I is a factor based on the geometry of the cross section of the column.

L is the effective length of the column. this is the distance of the column between two points by which it is pinned.



The key point to note is the fact that L in the above formula is an inverse square function.




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Once the floors began to sag and fail, they were no longer providing the nessessary stiffness to the exterior columns. The result?

the exterior columns began to buckle inward





Here's a good copy of that photo.
www.pbase.com...&exif=Y

BTW how do I contact you?



[edit on 2-6-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Clark_Kent]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
We still have the third tower that fell in the same beautiful straight down fashion.

It's just so freakin' perfect of a fall for a building, all damn three of them. The structures burned perfectly as to allow a perfect fall to the ground, wow, and without it even being planned. How logical is this? Really? And we can allmost factor out the other 2 buildings and look at the fall of the third, and figure out that something doesn't quite add up.

I'm sure it takes a lot of preperation for demolition crews to bring about the demolition of a building, so it falls with the least damage possible. If buildings fell so perfectly then all we would need to do is crash an airplane into a building, and it would fall neatly to the ground, we wouldn't need demolition crews. Demolotion crews are there for a reason. Bombs would have to be placed in their proper locations, the timing would have to be right, or else you could have the top of a building fall into another building.

Troy



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
you could have the top of a building fall into another building.

Troy


Which is exatly what happened. Parts of the towers hit WTC 7, and the bankers trust builindg, and the Winter Garden and the Mariott, and WTC 6 and a number of other buildings.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Howard,

Please post us a picture showing enough buckled columns for a collapse to have initiated on any floor.

Also, please prove that what you're showing is the result of heat on the trusses and not otherwise explainable.


And you must surely be aware that even bare steel won't lose even half its strength until heated to 600 C. Hydrocarbons in an open atmosphere won't burn more than 825 C (and this temperature is with perfect fuel to air ratio), whereas much heat is always lost in transfer.

In all likelihood, unless you think perfect fuel to air ratios produce black smoke (which I sometimes think you're dense enough to suggest), you're looking at fires significantly less than 800 C, and much of that is being lost in the smoke. Black smoke means soot, which means uncombusted hydrocarbons, which indicates an inefficient burn. Black smoke also has high thermal capacity to carry that much more heat away from the steel. Then of course you have the open atmosphere itself in general, and the concrete slabs and office materials and etc., and even the steel itself is a great conductor and would've carried heat rapidly away from the source.

Deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
You have voted bsbray11 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


Howard, I just don't understand, I wanna see your reasoning for this.

You have World Trade Center 1 & 2, both hit by airplanes, but causing damage at different angles. One of the planes hit almost horizontally with the floors it was aiming for, almost directly in the middle of the building. The other plane hit the corner of the building and not horizontally, but almost sideways.

The first plane that hit caused damage almost direct to that face of the building, and then the explosion that blew out everything on the surrounding floors, and the second plane that hit did the same as well, but not as concentrated to one floor.

Nevertheless, the point I care to get at is, they were both affected differently, damage wise. Not all the fires would spread uniformly throughout the buckling floors, applying the same heat and weakening of steel in each support.

The problem? ---> How do you get simultaneous buckling from a fire that isn't spread evenly, in both buildings.. causing them to fall down in the foot steps? Honestly... How?

I was satisfied that one of the building's upper half began to tip over, well there's support for the fires not damaging everything evenly.. it's tipping over.. all is good, but wait, the whole building begins to fall down in this "pancake theory" as it's tipping over.. and then ultimately ending the life of the WTC. I can understand floors below being taken out as it comes down and falls over, but even as it falls over, that's mass being displaced by air, causing less of a force. But I cant understand the whole building.

Then as for the other WTC, well.. that just fell down in its tracks..


But Howard, I ask you to answer my above question "The Problem?" .. please?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Remember the last episode of the X-files? Mulder is found guilty and they were going to execute him. Remember the part where he says they have successfully chopped their own heads off in the process of sentencing him and hiding the truth, etc, etc. This is what has come to mind lately. Who wins if the truth of 9-11 is kept hidden? Who benefits?


Troy

[edit on 4-6-2006 by cybertroy]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I personally think that picture is just sort of ...well it taken from an angle that makes it sort of look like the outer columns are bowing inwards, also I believe the heat from the fires also sort of distorts the picture.

Do you have any other pictures Howard that show this?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I'm sorry I thought this was already covered.

Black smoke does not equal dying fire.







Or should we assume that the above fires are dying because it is someones opinion that black smoke automatically equals dying fire?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Well leftbehind, black smoke alone does not necessarily mean a cooling fire, it depends on the fuel burning. Also in those pics how can you tell the fires are NOT oxygen starved and burning cool? You can't.
How do you know there is not oil or some other high carbon material burning in those fires? You can't.

The WTC fires started out as a light grey colour and then by the time the buildings collapsed the smoke was black. That indicates an oxygen starved cooling fire.

Smith and Zaphod have tried this angle recently and they both failed also, do you not learn from each other?


[edit on 4/6/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Well leftbehind, black smoke alone does not necessarily mean a cooling fire, it depends on the fuel burning. Also in those pics how can you tell the fires are NOT oxygen starved and burning cool? You can't.
How do you know there is not oil or some other high carbon material burning in those fires? You don't.

The WTC fires started out as a light grey colour and then by the time the buildings collapsed the smoke was black. That indicates an oxygen starved cooling fire.

Smith and Zaphod have tried this angle recently and they both failed also, do you not learn from each other?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I'm sorry I thought this was already covered.

Black smoke does not equal dying fire.


LB, you must be blooming idiot if you haven't gotten this yet. It's been clarified for you TIME after TIME after TIME after TIME after TIME!

Black smoke = soot = uncombusted hydrocarbons = inefficient fire = improper fuel to air ratio.


The reason the pictures you posted show black fire is because THERE IS EXCESS FUEL.

The WTC Towers STARTED OFF with lighter smoke and then TURNED black.

Since that makes it pretty damned OBVIOUS that the black smoke wasn't because of excessive fuel, the only other explanation is that something was wrong WITH THE FIRE ITSELF. It was DYING.


For the sake of sanity PLEASE try to COMPREHEND THIS!

[edit on 4-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
While it has certainly been posted again and again, it still doesn't make black smoke proof of a dying fire.

watch the videos. There was still tremendous amounts of smoke billowing out of the buildings.

In 9-11 Eyewitness you even see new flames popping out, after the black smoke was pouring out. So if you mean dying as in, another day and it would have been out, then sure I'm with you.

If you mean dying as in they would have been out in the next hour, then I disagree.

BTW, the namecalling is uncalled for, you sir are not the final arbiter on the truth. Please remember that we are debating opinions on things that can probably never be proven %100. Just because I don't buy your speculation about a multi-floor fire in a building with acres of floorspace being ready to go out on its own because the color of the smoke is no reason to call me an idiot.

It is possible to disagree civilly


[edit on 4-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
While it has certainly been posted again and again, it still doesn't make black smoke proof of a dying fire.


Well, LB, since you are apparently such an expert on smoke and fire as to know of another possibility here that none of the rest of us are aware of, why don't you post that other explanation.

Again, no fuel was added to those towers after the jet fuel was flown into them. No reason for the smoke to suddenly go fuel-rich, and cause black smoke from excessive fuel. Right? We can at least agree on that I hope. It's NOT that freaking complicated.

But if you see how that common sense logic is somehow flawed, and there's another explanation here that doesn't violate the fact of the issue, post it.

Pretending there's another explanation that we just can't figure out is completely asinine when the obvious answer is right in your face. So at least post something if you have it. Don't just sit there saying we must just be too stupid to figure out what *really* happened just because it isn't the answer you want to hear.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join