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 North tower burned for 3 hours at 700 degree C in 1975

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."

Sources: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975

Source
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 27-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 28/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Yeah, but the plane was different. Optimus Prime was hiding in the cargo bay. As soon as the plane crashed, he started melting I beams with his lasers. Liono took out the other building with his sword.

I didn't realize that incident had happened. Good job.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Some more information about the 1975 fire.


www.whatreallyhappened.com...



[edit on 27-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The reinforced trusses had ended by the 11th floor, too, and only continued on the mech/skylobby floors, so these should have been the same trusses that NIST alleged failed from >2 hours, sooty fires.

No steel had to be replaced!

Usually the "debunkers" will simply state that you cannot compare the WTC Towers to any other buildings in the world. Period. No comparisons taking into account differences in building materials, safety factors, etc. You just can't make comparisons, best to ignore them all, and everything they may or may not imply (usually these other buildings also suffer no major damage, that's the real reason they don't want to compare
). Well, this was the exact same freaking building as one of the ones that fell on 9/11, and the exact same floor structures. This event alone disproves NIST's allegations of truss failures.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Good find!!!!

I havent seen this story before.

Well what will the debunkers say about this.

Probably nothing, unless it gets some major attention.

Has this been listed in any of the offical media reports?

Unless there becomes a huge uprising, in a way that will get congress off their bottoms and really look at this, it will just sit out and stew.

Maybe someday someone with some connections will make the truth known.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Yep. it sure did. How about this. A 3 hour fire on several floors at several hundred degree celsuis (1292 F) and it didnt do squat to the overall structure. Hmmmmm.

In fact, the WTC ended up standing quite nicely one bombing and 26 years later.......until miraculously, a small amount of jet fuel, igniting a few things in the office (note modern regs make damn near all officer furniture fire-retardant) and relatively low temps burning for less than an hour.....caused the whole damn thing to collapse.

Oh yeah. The Easter Bunny just laid a really cool egg and the tooth fairy will put it under your pillow if you ask her nicely.


Edn

posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Well that brings a whole new light to things. and I expect debunks the debunks saying the buildings couldn't stand that temperature.

I wonder if that was deliberately hidden from people.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Eh, forget it.

[edit on 8/28/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Would be quite easily to hide as it happened so long ago. I think we should look into this a bit more depending what info is available regarding this. I mean if this happened and the building stayed upright without any significant damage then i suppose we could say that one of the towers falling on 911 was a sheer fluke. However the fact that both towers collapsed by fluke is sheer BS.

I can hear the debunkers coming at the speed of a thousand gazelles!!!!!!!!

I would have bought the idea of one tower falling and maybe would have bought the idea that it fell like a controlled explosion maybe a bit of suspicion. However if im expected to believe that this happened to both then paint me black and call me sam



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
awryt guys heres a link for it


1975 WTC fires

anyway jus because im on the topic would the fact that their was such high temperatures not affect the malubility of the steel making it less weak therefore "sort-of" justifying the collapse? then again it doesnt justify the fact the lower part of the tower jsut collapsed all the way down.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by marcopolo]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Err… aren't you all overlooking something? Like the fact that the steel was coated with a special cement mixture* to help it withstand fires, but when the plane crashed into the tower it sheared off this coating and exposed the metal? Anyone know what I'm talking about.

Also, for how long did the towers burn and at what temperature on 9/11?

* Not quite sure what it was exactly.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Err… aren't you all overlooking something? Like the fact that the steel was coated with a special cement mixture* to help it withstand fires, but when the plane crashed into the tower it sheared off this coating and exposed the metal? Anyone know what I'm talking about.


Going by the official story...yes. The thing is, fireproofing is not really fireproofing. The rating for fireproofing is 2 hours. So, even with the fireproofing gone with the planes it still would be comparible. What I mean is at a 3 hour fire...you have 2 hours of fireproofing then an hour of fire with no collapse. On 9/11 you take away the fireproofing and have less than an hour of fire and collapse.....still doesn't sit well with me.

[edit on 8/28/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 8/28/2006 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Hey Griff don't take this personally but can you post some sources for you info? About the fireproofing and such and what it was rated at. Thanks.

Just to add...

Keep in mind that this was jet fuel combined with structural damage caused at the crash site by the plane. Kind of different then this fire.



[edit on 28-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Hey Griff don't take this personally but can you post some sources for you info? About the fireproofing and such and what it was rated at. Thanks.


Not sure if I can get a source for exactly the Towers but most fireproofing is rated at 2 hours.



Keep in mind that this was jet fuel combined with structural damage caused at the crash site by the plane. Kind of different then this fire.


The only thing different is the structural damage from the plane impacts. Since the fire in the '70's didn't cause any structural damage to cause even partial collapse and no steel had to be replaced, then it's a far cry to expect more structural damage(after the plane impacts) from a weeker fire on 9/11. That's how we can make the comparison. Any sense?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
How do you figure? The WTC towers collapsed 59 and 89 minutes after impact, respectively. Now here is the situation, an intense (albeit short) fire from the jet fuel with unprotected steel and structure combined with preexisting structural damage (due to impact), and you have a continues hour to hour and a half of fire from the building itself. I don’t see how this doesn’t make sense, in terms of collapse from the fire.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
How it relates is:

1) You have a 3 hour fire that is hotter than 9/11. It didn't do ANYTHING structurally. With fireproofing, you have an hour of fire without loss of structural integrity.

On 9/11 you have.

2) You have an impact (structural damage), no fireproofing. The fire is less than an hour (WTC 2). There is (suppossedly) structural damage due to fire after the impact that causes global collapse.

How could it burn hotter one day causing no structural damage and then burn on 9/11 causing enough structural damage to globally collapse? Answer is...you can't IMO.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The first tower was only burning for 59 minutes. Thats 1/3 the time it burned in 1975.

The color of the black, the fact windows weren't observed shattering, and that people were seen in openings near the crash site tell us the fires were no where near the melting point of steel. In fact, all evidence, including the fact that most of the fuel was used up furing the impact fireball, tells us these fires were quite cool.

Also, one must remember the building is made of 100,000 tons of steel. Steel will draw heat away. There was more than enough metal in that building to draw off the heat if it was even at the melting point of steel.

All characteristics of these fires point to a fire that was under 800 Centigrade. The melting point for steel is over 1500 centigrade.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The first tower was only burning for 59 minutes. Thats 1/3 the time it burned in 1975.


Uh huh, only if you disregard the other factors in this case is that relevant by itself.

I never said the steel melted, in fact neither do the official reports, however there is a difference between steel melting and steel being weakened to the point of loosing around 50% of its load strength, something which might cause "buckling".



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   


anyway jus because im on the topic would the fact that their was such high temperatures not affect the malubility of the steel making it less weak therefore "sort-of" justifying the collapse? then again it doesnt justify the fact the lower part of the tower jsut collapsed all the way down


does it not make sense that heat will weaken the structure?...albeit mostly to the floors above the fires...the fact that when it ( the top half)collapsed it cascades straight down through the the whole structure (almost as if its hollow) when you might expect it to tumble over.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
WestPoint, if you remain insistent that the World Trade Centers were brought down solely by structural failure (due to fires and impacts) then can you show us the massive buckling that occured across each floor in both World Trade Center 1 and 2.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join