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.

 

What it wasnt.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   


The building fell at a speed as if it were falling through air.





It fell at nearly free fall speed.


Which is it? Freefall speed or nearly freefall speed?

You seem to have confused yourself.
Exactly what speed was it anyway, I'm still waiting for your mathematical proof on this topic.




You have nothing to say about Newton's Laws of Motion so you try to spin what I say and then go off topic.


I have nothing to say until you mathematically show how they relate to your claims.
You claim it was impossible, I expect proof.

But anyway, since you obviously don't care what anyone says, whats the point of further discussion?

BTW, I didn't realize this was another free fall thread, maybe we could take this discussion (well, me discussing, while you not caring what anyone says) over to the existing free fall thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
As promised NIST NEVER stated the temperatures where any where near hot enough to melt steel.....

[Mod edit: to add source link and appropriate external source tags]



source:
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)




source:
A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 98/148)




source:
A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)




source:
The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6)




source:
Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/78)


FEMA echos them same, I'll find them later.

Mod Note: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/31/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   


FEMA echos them same, I'll find them later.


Save your time, I'm familiar with what they say.
I wonder though, where do some posters get the info that the steel melted and caused the collapse? There sure are quite a few that seem to think thats what the gov claims.


Typical arguement...

"the fire was nowhere near hot enough to melt the steel, therefore they were demo'd" or something to that effect.

BTW for you effort in going above and beyond the call of duty... yadayadayada....

You have voted Stateofgrace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Look, right now there's one thing that stands out: The speed at which the towers fell. I've been searching for a link that recorded the fall speed or velocity/building size, but I can't find it at the moment. I'll do it later using a video if need be, but you guys can help. This is a discussion, NOT an argument. Work together to find the truth, not whine about how your facts are right because "science says so."



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
9.1 seconds...freefall time.

WTC 1: tc = 13.48 s

WTC 2: tc = 12.07 s

www.911myths.com...

Here is a 32 page report calculating the collapse time of each tower against observed times, care to read it ? or would you prefer we looked at shakey videos with stop watchs?

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
if you get the chance go on google click on more then videos and search for a video called 9/11 loose change it made me really think about things.
theres an updated 2nd edition there with about 20mins extra footage so look for that one



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
this is a sight i just found www.civil.usyd.edu.au... its got a little diagram and stuff saying why they fell. thats good enough for me.

seriously though who cares why they fell. the fact is that they did fall, people died, people went to war, more people died, during the time between when they fell and now morons on the internet argue over why they fell when they have no idea.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by dirtyrat5000]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
I'd like to bring attention to something: "had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft"

Key points being steady wind loads and 30 times the weight of the aircraft.

1. How is a sudden impact of a plane hurtling through the air steady? It's abrupt, which according to your first quote, doesn't state it was made for abrupt loads.

2. 30 times the force the weight of the aircraft can exert. There's a difference between force and weight.

Which exhibits more force - a bowling ball resting on your head, or a bowling ball falling 100m before landing on your head? The latter. A plane cruising through the sky will collide with much, much more force than if it just happened to sit merrily on the support structure exerting only the force of gravity compared to it's mass.


Just something I found that I believe was said to distort facts in favour of the external source's view.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
It didn't melt. It was sagging. Two diferant things.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
The WTC was created with inner support columns that distributed the wieght of the floors. When the planes impacted, nearly 50% of the columns were damaged or destroyed. Multiple floors were removed and with only the remaining columns, the floors began to buckle, and the burden of the upper floors was suddenly supported by half of what it was.

Also, the fire was not only outside of the building, as fuel shot as far down as the lower floor and the basment levels.

The steel did not have to melt, it had to weaken which it did. Please take some time and research one of the following, the NIST report, FEMA report, Silverstien properties report or the 9/11 commision findings.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
I wonder though, where do some posters get the info that the steel melted and caused the collapse? There sure are quite a few that seem to think thats what the gov claims.



I think it comes from the molten metal in the basements. I could be wrong, but that's where I think people get that the steel melted. Notice I said molten metal not steel, because it's not been proven to be steel.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo



Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.Link




You must have read that, since you posted it, but apparently you don't really understand it. Yes there is a difference between temperature and heat. You need to understand that relationship before we can discuss this further.



Originally posted by Tasketo

FACT
The maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires (jet fuel) burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating is 825ºC.


Did you read that part about pre heating? do you understand how that applies in a structure fire?


read me



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
When the planes impacted, nearly 50% of the columns were damaged or destroyed.



Esdad, please would you stop spreading fallacies. Even NIST states that only 15% of the columns were damaged.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
NIST may have stated 15% destroyed, which I believe is true, what I stated was damaged. The inner core that held the WTC together was severly damaged after the planes impact, and then weakened further by the fires. This is not fallacy, it is a chain of events.

en.wikipedia.org...:World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Bird%27s-eye_Impact_Locations.jpg

This gives a good scale of just how large the planes were, and where the columns stood.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo

One example of this law is if you push against a door with a certain force, the door is also pushing with the same force against you



This is a poor example to make your point... actually it refutes your point.

If you are comparing this as to why the WTC towers should not have collapsed, then the door should not open either if it is responding with equal force.

Think more along the lines of dropping a 10 pound weight onto a scale. The scale doesn't just go up to "10" then stop. It goes up to like 90 then settles back down to 10. Or the example previously given about the bowling ball is excellent.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by craig732]

[edit on 31-3-2006 by craig732]

[edit on 31-3-2006 by craig732]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Certain people I believe are being paid to turn the truth inside and out. They will call you names and riddicule your interest in the TRUTH.

What is it, for the last 50 years every skyscraper in the world that burned never collapsed?

Why does every other plane crash in the world leave HUGE fields of debri, except the 4 on 911?

Certain people suffer from cognitive dissonance, or are on someones payroll.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I don't claim to be an expert in anything but I've spent a few years of my life in the US Coast Guard and I've responded to my fair share of shipboard fires. I know that most large vessels burn jet fuel and not diesel. I know that an engineroom fire is the worst thing that can happen aboard ship. I know that after responding to an engineroom fire, when the fire was out and compartments cleared you'd see steel bulkheads warped and/or buckled with a fraction of the weight on them that the wtcs had. I know that you'd definitely have to watch your step because the steel deck plates would be warped enough that they'd be either in the bilge or close to falling in.

Now I don't have an engineering degree or fire technology degree or etc... like a lot of people around here apparently but I do have experience. I know what I've seen.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Notbuynit,

How long did these fires last before they were put out/burned themselves out?

And was the engineroom an enclosed space, so that hot air wouldn't be able to escape?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join