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.

 

Watched the history channel documentary and some things caught my attention that does not make sense

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
All of this took place in about 20 minutes elapsed time. The video had a time counter visable. I think the show was "Amazing Videos" or something like it.


When heat is trapped, enclosed in an area, hydrocarbon fires can produce temperatures above their approximate 825 C open-atmosphere limit. It also sounds as though there was more than enough fuel, from start to finish. Neither of those applied to the Twin Tower fires.

Also take into account that a steel girder is not a very good representation of the structure of a 110-story skyscraper. Even if parts of floors failed from fire, which I doubt given the nature of the WTC fires, then there still should not have been any failures of whole floors because of localized damage. The impacts are proof of that. Unless the fires managed to take out the majority of any given floor's supports, a collapse simply would not have started.




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Wood fires reach temperatures capable of melting steel. That's HISTORY. Steel has been manufactured since before hydrocarbon fuels have been used. Add that to the fact that they smelted Iron - which melts at a temperature well within the temperature necessary to make steel 'sag'.

Also - I couldn't care less if both 'sides' agree on how long the jet fuel lasted - I'm on my own side. The change in the color is no real indication of whether or not there is fuel still present in the building. The fuel-air mixture is affected by many things - especially other fires as well as the rising heat which can cause a draft, increasing the available oxygen supply.

There are simply too many factors - and the color of smoke is not a very adequite determining factor. I've set many things on fire in my life - and smoke color or intensity is not a good measure of the amount of fuel present. If anything the color change was due to other elements in the building catching fire.

There's no way of knowing, though - exactly how long the fuel fires lasted. None of the firefighters ever made it up to the source of the fires - and anyone that was present there for longer than 15 minutes isn't alive to tell us (that I'm aware of).



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Wood fires reach temperatures capable of melting steel. That's HISTORY.


No, that's called a furnace.

If you could just light a wood fire and throw steel into it, blacksmithing wouldn't be a profession. You need a furnace to do that.



The change in the color is no real indication of whether or not there is fuel still present in the building. The fuel-air mixture is affected by many things - especially other fires as well as the rising heat which can cause a draft, increasing the available oxygen supply.


If the above could cause such a dramatic change in smoke color, we would have seen it much earlier than ~15 minutes.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
When heat is trapped, enclosed in an area, hydrocarbon fires can produce temperatures above their approximate 825 C open-atmosphere limit. It also sounds as though there was more than enough fuel, from start to finish. Neither of those applied to the Twin Tower fires.

Also take into account that a steel girder is not a very good representation of the structure of a 110-story skyscraper. Even if parts of floors failed from fire, which I doubt given the nature of the WTC fires, then there still should not have been any failures of whole floors because of localized damage. The impacts are proof of that. Unless the fires managed to take out the majority of any given floor's supports, a collapse simply would not have started.


When I see a truck on fire under a wide open overpass make 4 ft. tall I-beams with a 1ft flange bend like cooked pasta. It doesn't take much to make me believe that it can do the same to a welded truss consisting of some "L" angles and steel rod. Especially after the structure containing that truss was subjected to the impact of a Boeing 757 moving at between 300 and 400 mph.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I like linear thought processes.

And what is a furnace? Does one have to be manufactured in order to accomplish the same overall objective? What similarities does the structure of the WTC have in common with that of a furnace?

What about those said additives being completely consumed, leaving only the jet fuel, causing the change in smoke color?

What other combustables are in the world trade center other than wood?

I'll try a different approach, here.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
See if you can find some sort of link or video to the information, so we have something more than hearsay to go off of.


Originally posted by Aim64C
And what is a furnace? Does one have to be manufactured in order to accomplish the same overall objective? What similarities does the structure of the WTC have in common with that of a furnace?


It is difficult to melt steel with fire, which is why furnaces for doing that have to be specially designed in the first place. Steel won't melt until very high temperatures. Fires in skyscrapers have never produced molten steel.



Pre-heated air has to be blasted in, specific materials have to be used for certain chemical reactions, etc.

It's Wikipedia, but here are some pages to look over:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


What about those said additives being completely consumed, leaving only the jet fuel, causing the change in smoke color?


Are you suggesting that the office materials were depleted before the jet fuel was?


What other combustables are in the world trade center other than wood?


As far as I know, virtually everything in the Towers was hydrocarbon in nature. Would burn the same, produce about the same temperatures, as burning jet fuel. Plastics, paper, etc.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
So, the fact that there are further sources of hydrocarbons in the world trade center suggest that it is possible; if not likely, given the nature of these products, that the fires in the world trade center could have sustained a temperature above 850 degrees celcius for a time period longer than 15 minutes?

Don't need to melt steel - only weaken it - which is well within the burning temperature of wood. Of course - we also have to take into consideration the carbon content of the steel and its resulting heat tolerance.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
See if you can find some sort of link or video to the information, so we have something more than hearsay to go off of.



There is no hearsay about it. The show is "Spike's Most Amazing Videos" or "World's Most Amazing Videos".



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
back on july 28th, 1945, a b-25, lost in the fog, crashed head on into the empire state building. fuel burned and spread into the building, and the upper floors where it hit. just like 9-11. are you trying to say that a building that was built in the 30's could take a hit from a military plane was better constructed than the world trade centers? once again no other modern steel frame high rise has EVER collapsed from fire. yet we have three that do so on the same day.

in spain a couple of years ago, the windsor hotel burned for 18 hours and only sagged. putting things into scale, you hear fairly often of small cessnas and such crashing into houses and apartment buildings. scale wise one does not see a whole collapse from these either, fire included. there was a fighter jet, in florida i believe, that crashed into an aprtment building and the fuel burst into flame. i remember this one clearly because a mother was not able to save her young son even though she could see him because he was trapped behind a wall of flame. the building did not collapse.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by blackthorne]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
A B-17 and a jet airliner are quite a bit different. Fuel quantities are vastly different - compared with the fact that a B-17 is lighter than an F-15 - and only slightly bigger. I've had the privelage of going inside one of these magnificant aircraft.

You're also talking a vast difference in velocity. That B-17 was likely going 80-120 mph. Even if the aircraft were the same weight, that's 9 times less impact force.

The structure of the Empire State Building is also completely different from that of the WTC.

The Windsor Hotel is also not near the scale of the WTC and is also a different structure.

And what is your logical alternative?

That some agency wired the buildings with explosives and managed to keep it a secret from thousands of people. Also disregarding the preparation that goes into demolition - which involves cutting the steel so that the explosives will 'pop' a chunk of it out, removing concrete around the supports....



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Even with the Windsor building, as some claim, that you cannot compare to the World Trade Center due to the concrete.

However, the extent of damage done to the core of the building of the core with the WTC 1 and 2 would never of been enough, yet weight from falling floors and failing trusses are accused or taking down the "inner core columns".

Those core columns were HUGE pieces of steel, smaller at the top than the bottom.

THat's just defense for the Windsor building being a somewhat representation.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a b-25 flying at 80 miles an hour? lift off is @230 mph, weight, unloaded is 21,150 pounds, comparable technologies for the same time period. especially with fire fighting techniques being alot more primitive, the empire state weathered the hit pretty good.

the windsor hotel in madrid was around 32 floors high. just about wtc 7 height. built in 74, the same time period. still, dod not collapse.


[edit on 15-8-2006 by blackthorne]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join