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.

 

If the twin towers were left burning, could they soon collapsed?

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Want to see how the "2 floors of small fires which could have been fought by firefighters" crowd responds to this one.

Nice post




posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
^What difference does it make? Fire does not cause a building to collapse verticaly onto itself, and cause it's concrete, office furniture etc. to turn into a fine dust as it's columns are blown outward up to 600 ft. Sry bud but nice post or not that picture doesn't amount to anything.

Call that a fire, this is a fire...



Notice something about the colour of the flames, what does that tell you? Anything?



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
^What difference does it make? Fire does not cause a building to collapse verticaly onto itself, and cause it's concrete, office furniture etc. to turn into a fine dust as it's columns are blown outward up to 600 ft. Sry bud but nice post or not that picture doesn't amount to anything.

Call that a fire, this is a fire...



Notice something about the colour of the flames, what does that tell you? Anything?


Fire alone doesn't make a building collapse onto itself, true. But you are missing a cruicial factor. In case you forgot, allow me to refresh your memory. Two 767 jets slammed into the World Trade Centers on 9/11. It wasn't a building fire.

Did you even READ the page you got that picture off? Allow me to highlight some points from that very page.



www.911myths.com...
The Madrid Windsor fire is sometimes cited as being relevant to the WTC collapse, but in reality there are major differences between the two situations.

No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn't sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning. (And for those who keep emailing us to say that neither did WTC7, reports of the damage there are covered here.)

The Madrid Windsor Tower was much smaller than the WTC, too, at 32 storeys.

More significantly, the design of the Madrid Windsor Tower was entirely different to that of the WTC.

-Snipped Quote from 911myths page to avoid double quoting-
No reliance on steel frames here, the core was mostly concrete. And what happened to the steel that it did include?

-Snipped Quote from 911myths page to avoid double quoting-
Yes, it failed. Other photos reveal how the concrete was all that was left on the upper floors.

The same story suggests it’s only the key design differences from the WTC that kept the Madrid Windsor Tower standing.

An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse

-Snipped Quote from 911myths page to avoid double quoting-
Others confirm the advantages offered by the Windsor Tower design.

-Snipped Quote from 911myths page to avoid double quoting-
So what does the Madrid Windsor Tower fire show? That steel columns will collapse in a fire, that concrete is more fire-resistant, and, uh, that’s about it. It’s hard to see how any of this, especially in such a different building design, can have much meaning for the WTC case.


Now, Allow me to point out your 'pulverised concret' theory is also poorly constructed.



www.911myths.com...
Now if this was to be provided by explosives, then how much might be required?

Well, a metric ton (1,000 KG) of TNT has 4.184 * 10^9 joules ( www.answers.com... ). A ton is a lot of explosives, but not enough for us: we have to get to 36 x 10^11 joules. Which suggests we would need 860.420 tons (aka 860,420 kilogrammes, or 1,896,901 pounds) of TNT to produce the WTC collapse and its observed results.

Nearly 1.9 million pounds of explosives placed without noticing? Per tower? How many detonators do you think might be required for that? How much cabling? Is this sounding just a tiny bit unlikely to anyone?

There are more powerful explosives, of course: C4 will offer 34% more energy, for instance, reducing out requirements to 642,104 kilogrammes. Let's assume the conspirators used something ten times more powerful still: now we're down to 64,210 kg, or 141,558 pounds of this mystery explosive. Per tower. We're being generous here, but this still isn't sounding very plausible.


So you believe that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. That doesn't explain the concrete any better than the official story. In fact, the official story is the only real explanation for that much dust to have flown out of the building.

So tell me AWOK. Do you actually believe the garbage you post?



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Fire alone doesn't make a building collapse onto itself, true. But you are missing a cruicial factor. In case you forgot, allow me to refresh your memory. Two 767 jets slammed into the World Trade Centers on 9/11. It wasn't a building fire


The jet impacts severed less than 15% of the columns in the impacted regions in each Tower. The perimeter columns had FoS ratings of 5, meaning you would have to knock out 4/5 of them before the rest would fail from not being able to bear their loads. The cores had a lower FoS, but they were similarly little affected by the impacts.

Point is, the impacts didn't do much.

Show us any building fire that has gutted any numbers of box columns.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi



www.911myths.com...
Now if this was to be provided by explosives, then how much might be required?

Well, a metric ton (1,000 KG) of TNT has 4.184 * 10^9 joules ( www.answers.com... ). A ton is a lot of explosives, but not enough for us: we have to get to 36 x 10^11 joules. Which suggests we would need 860.420 tons (aka 860,420 kilogrammes, or 1,896,901 pounds) of TNT to produce the WTC collapse and its observed results.

Nearly 1.9 million pounds of explosives placed without noticing? Per tower? How many detonators do you think might be required for that? How much cabling? Is this sounding just a tiny bit unlikely to anyone?

There are more powerful explosives, of course: C4 will offer 34% more energy, for instance, reducing out requirements to 642,104 kilogrammes. Let's assume the conspirators used something ten times more powerful still: now we're down to 64,210 kg, or 141,558 pounds of this mystery explosive. Per tower. We're being generous here, but this still isn't sounding very plausible.


So you believe that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. That doesn't explain the concrete any better than the official story. In fact, the official story is the only real explanation for that much dust to have flown out of the building.

So tell me AWOK. Do you actually believe the garbage you post?




So, this says that it takes tones of explosives to achieve the dust but, you're saying that fire and gravity did it alone? Am I getting this straight? Remember that in an demolition, there would also be the same fire and gravity. So, fire and gravity alone can accomplish this. But fire, gravity and TONS of explosives would be needed to do it? What is it? Tons of explosives or not? This is circular logic if I've ever heard any.

Fire + Gravity = collapse with fine dust particles etc.

But

It would require tons of explosives? That gives us

Fire + Gravity + TONS of explosives = collapse with fine dust particles etc.

Can't you see the error in that logic?



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
So tell me AWOK. Do you actually believe the garbage you post?


Jeez, do we have to keep going over the basics again and again and again?

If you have ANY understanding of physics at all, you would see how impossible it is for the towers to have collapsed vertically onto themselves from the fire OR the planes impacts. I'm not going to repeat it, go back and do some reading, with an open mind, and try to understand what is being said, instead of just getting defensive and blocking your own minds ability to reason logically.

Just to get an idea of where you're coming from pls give me an explanation of what inertia is. Because if you understand then you would have to see that tower 2 did the impossible, unless of course it had help. If you don't know what I'm getting at then you have NO credibility to make claims on behalf of the gubernment, because you have not researched the physics of the collapses thoroughly.

Nice spelling of my name BTW, nice to see how much you pay attention? Garbage in, garbage out...



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join