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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by WestPoint23


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


Such as..................


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".


According to the guys who certified the steel, this was not the case.

Nor were the fires hot enough to even warp or weaken steel enough to cause collapse.

By the way, only a relatively small area of the WTC was hit, and, according to many survivor reports, the plane obviously did not reach that far within the building. People on floors above the impact site were able to escape via stairwells that were not in the impact zone. the whole "fireproofing was damaged" line does not cut it.




posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Furthermore, considering that there were no structural damage to steel, which obviously didn't need replacement, then how do you get very substantial structural damage across the rest of the World Trade Center to cause the structural failure?

I don't see the connection you're not making.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
...can you show us the massive buckling that occured across each floor in both World Trade Center 1 and 2.


And how do you think I go about doing this?
For me the proof is the collapse of the towers at the impact area.


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
According to the guys who certified the steel, this was not the case.

Nor were the fires hot enough to even warp or weaken steel enough to cause collapse.


How hot were the fires then? Because I cant imagine exposed steel and structure withstanding an intense jet fire and then a continues fire for another hour or so and not being weakened. The link below kind of goes over the fire topic.

Link


Originally posted by Masisoar
Furthermore, considering that there were no structural damage to steel, which obviously didn't need replacement, then how do you get very substantial structural damage across the rest of the World Trade Center to cause the structural failure?


I’m sorry, I don't understand what your trying to say here, can you run that by me again? Are you talking about the 1975 fire or the 9/11 impact?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And how do you think I go about doing this?
For me the proof is the collapse of the towers at the impact area.


Being familiar with electronics, this is absolutely god-awful "proof".

You can have devices on each floor for a span of say, 20 floors. Fly a plane anywhere in those 20 floors, then pick a floor that looks good to you, and remotely initiate a collapse from that floor with incendiaries or explosives as a unit for that single floor.

Not only is that possible, but it a private company could even pull it off, the technology is so accessable.


Because I cant imagine exposed steel and structure withstanding an intense jet fire and then a continues fire for another hour or so and not being weakened.


That's funny, because there have been a lot of hydrocarbon fires in skyscrapers, and most of the time, the structures aren't weakened. I could list off lots of examples, but you would just dismiss them all for having different architecture. Here we have a fire in WTC1, that also caused no structural damage.

What it boils down to, is that you just don't want to know what happened that day, West Point.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...

read the above link, click on the piccies it contains, and realise that any pretence that an aircraft brought down those towers after such a small fire and low temp, well the above link is an eye opener for sure.

Very well laid out, and with some angles that i had never thought about before.

No fire or plane brought down those towers.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Furthermore, considering that there were no structural damage to steel during the 1975 fire, which obviously didn't need replacement, then how do you get very substantial structural damage across the rest of the World Trade Center to cause the structural failure on 9/11?

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

Look at videos and photos of the building before collapse, they're very tall-taled



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's funny, because there have been a lot of hydrocarbon fires in skyscrapers, and most of the time, the structures aren't weakened. I could list off lots of examples, but you would just dismiss them all for having different architecture. Here we have a fire in WTC1, that also caused no structural damage.

What it boils down to, is that you just don't want to know what happened that day, West Point.


Huh? No I would dismiss them because the circumstances are not the same, obviously a jumbo jet flying into the building and causing all kind of damage is not the same thing as this fire in 1975, I believe I've already pointed out some of the reason why.

And BTW, I know what happened, I along with everyone else saw what happened, you on the other hand apparently refuse to believe your own eyes.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The wtc core comprised of 42 (not 100% sure) columns. obviously all the columns werent damaged and exposed to fire. Even with the floors pancaking,this wouldnt bring down the core itself. The floors are bolted to the core with a truss system. The truss is crap in terms of fire resistance.Look at the tower with the antenna. The antenna,which is supported by the core sags down and starts to fall first.Wouldnt this indicate the core collapsed first?

Remember that the jet fuel didnt burn for 2 hours. What was burned in the initial explosion burned off within 20 mins. The rest of the fire was regular office equipment,which is rated to not burn above a certain temp. The fires on the other floors werent even hot enough to burst the glass on the windows.

Whatever disagreements ppl have about the towers though,all i ask is what about wtc 7? WTC 7 wasnt even included in the NIST report. 7 was a regular,classical steel caged construction bldg. No trusses to fail,no pancaking floors. Yet it had minor office fires and some damage to one of its corners. The wtc owner is on video saying to pull the bldg. What caused this bldg to collapse on itself in an orderly fashion?

How come all the computer models we were shown explaining how the towers fell never had the core included in them?

Why were there power downs and evacuation drills just prior to the attack?

The cost of removing all the asbestos in the towers would have been enourmous,and just prior to the attack the owner took out a 99 year lease on the wtc. Then said that the 2 planes were 2 seperate attacks,so he pockets a couple billion $,that he doesnt have to pay to anyone.

Norad standown excercise,fema exercises,the white chppr hovering near 1 of the towers suddenly turns and flies away 2 seconds before the first collapse.

Its just too many unaswered questions,ignored questions/requests,and coincedences.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
West Point, you've had about 5 years and apparently you still don't understand that the impacts themselves did precious little damage to those buildings.

Read FEMA's report on the impact damage, and look at what NIST had to say about the maximum core damage they modeled, even after altering impact angles from what really happened. I'm tired of posting the numbers just for people like you to ignore them. Go read them yourself and come back and try to blame it all on the impacts.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
West point, I do not wish to start a fight or any thing, but its that attitude of ' i know what i saw' that lets magicians get away with tricks and illusions.

The rigid belief that it was the plane and that alone that brought down those buildings cannot be true for one very glaring fact.

WTC 7 was pulled. They all admit it - SO, they had to have preplaced charges to pull a building on the very day of the attacks. As for the towers falling and vaporising into dust whilst STILL AIRBORNE cannot be explained by any thing let alone a simple pancake theory.

Read the above link i posted, have a look at the pictures and read the testimony.

What you saw that day was a well crafted illusion to pull you into the 'bad guys did it' mentality.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, as thats not my intention, all i am saying is that what you can see with your eyes and what was hidden out of sight were and are two seperate things.

PS. If it was a collapse just because of the air craft, why the desperate measures taken to avoid the steel being analysed by independant experts or the FDNY fire service experts?

No they had some thing to hide thats why.

911research.wtc7.net...

Dude read the link. Pancake = false, fire = false, steel melting /weakening = false.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
West Point, you've had about 5 years and apparently you still don't understand that the impacts themselves did precious little damage to those buildings.


The impact itself may not have brought it down but the impact is what allowed the fire to weaken an already damaged and exposed part of the structure.

And D4rk Kn1ght, no problem man I read your link but IMO its too simplistic in some points and other just misleading in others, I know you may feel differently about it and that's fine but I’m not convinced by it.

BTW just so you know I don't believe in magic.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


How hot were the fires then? Because I cant imagine exposed steel and structure withstanding an intense jet fire and then a continues fire for another hour or so and not being weakened. The link below kind of goes over the fire topic.



The exact temp of the fires will never be known. However, by other evidence, we know how hot they were NOT.

People were seen in the windows near and around the impact site, alive and well. Firemen who made it up to the impact site were able to go right up to the wreckage and reported back that the fires were mostly small and easily contained. This was before the building came down.

Obviously, if people are able to move about, talk, and such aroud and in the impact zone, then the fires were not that intense. The fact that the smoke coming out of the tower was black also is evidence that the fire was quite cool, not the intense fire you are claiming was present.

In fact, i see absolutely no evidence of intense fires at all in the buildings before they collapsed. Since most of the jet fuel was consumed on impact, and since office furniture and decor must be fire retardant by regulation, the claims of furtniture being fuel for the fire are weak.

And given the amount of steel in the building, and steel's heatsink properties, there would have to be a nuclear furnace on those planes to generate the necessary heat to weaken the steel.

All evidence points to the fires not being intense at all, and this is certainly the first time we have had a case of a steel and concrete structure collapseing from fires.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Skadi I've seen that before, about the firefighters reaching the floors I think they were NEAR impact, not sure. Do you have a source, just wanna check it out.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The main point is, the same effects would result in the 9/11 fires as in this one relatively, so it's indeed interesting the results with what happened to the steel.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Skadi I've seen that before, about the firefighters reaching the floors I think they were NEAR impact, not sure. Do you have a source, just wanna check it out.


Here u go.

911research.com...
911research.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
WATS to in nothing we trust... I leave for four days and you guys find piles of fresh stuff. Nice work. I need to catch back up here.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
West point, I do not wish to start a fight or any thing, but its that attitude of ' i know what i saw' that lets magicians get away with tricks and illusions.

The rigid belief that it was the plane and that alone that brought down those buildings cannot be true for one very glaring fact.

WTC 7 was pulled. They all admit it - SO, they had to have preplaced charges to pull a building on the very day of the attacks. As for the towers falling and vaporising into dust whilst STILL AIRBORNE cannot be explained by any thing let alone a simple pancake theory.

Read the above link i posted, have a look at the pictures and read the testimony.

What you saw that day was a well crafted illusion to pull you into the 'bad guys did it' mentality.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, as thats not my intention, all i am saying is that what you can see with your eyes and what was hidden out of sight were and are two seperate things.

PS. If it was a collapse just because of the air craft, why the desperate measures taken to avoid the steel being analysed by independant experts or the FDNY fire service experts?

No they had some thing to hide thats why.

911research.wtc7.net...

Dude read the link. Pancake = false, fire = false, steel melting /weakening = false.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]


No one with any credibility is making a claim that the planes alone brought down the buildings. It was a combination of the structural damage caused by the planes, the destruction of the fireproofing, and the sprinkler systems, as well as the fires and flawed design that brought them down.

no one admitted to pulling building 7, that's just CT web sites taking quotes out of context to create sensationalism.

The collapse has been repeatedly explained scientifically and in great detail. And by structural engineers with papers that have been peer reviewed by other structural engineers and published in structural engineering journals. This notion that it goes unexplained is 100% false.

The problem is the websites you are referring to.. They are conspiracy web sites who's only goal is to find anything they can to present a conspiracy. For some reason this is always taken as absolute truth and sceintific studies are simply thrown out the window in favor of tabloid web sites. Why is that you have to ask? Is it because they are really telling the truth, or because you really just want to believe they are?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Snoopy, no offense, but why do you post garbage like that? I don't think there's a person here who hasn't yet heard the planes and fire theory, so what good do you think you're possibly doing for anyone by rehashing it -- AGAIN? Think it's suddenly going to make sense this time?

The same problems are going to be pointed out with it until more and more people get outside of the mindframe that it could only have happened from the impacts and fires. There was not enough structural damage, pre-collapse. NIST own figures on the safety factors indicate this, as well as their lack of visual evidence of sufficient failures. We even have a very experienced structural engineer going public now, saying this exact same thing, that others have been pointing out for years.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The same problems are going to be pointed out with it until more and more people get outside of the mindframe that it could only have happened from the impacts and fires. There was not enough structural damage, pre-collapse. NIST own figures on the safety factors indicate this, as well as their lack of visual evidence of sufficient failures. We even have a very experienced structural engineer going public now, saying this exact same thing, that others have been pointing out for years.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by bsbray11]


There most absolutely WAS enough structural damage. But that as stated by NIST was not the major factor in the collapse, it only aided it. The fire weakened the trusses which bent and pulled away from the inner and outer cores, causing them to collpase. The core columns which depended on the trusses for stability then became unstable.

So your claimiing that you have a good case because an experienced structural engineer is going public? But yet you discount the many worlds top qualified structural engineers who worked on the NIST reports? You discount the ones who have had peer reviewed papers, peer reviewed by other structural engineers and published by structural engineering journals?

All of that is garbage, but your singular structural expert is completely valid? Who are you kidding? This clearly points out that you only want to believe what you want to believe and evidence is meaningless. Anything that doesn't support your pre determined conclusion is garbage.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
It was arson, and it was fire damage, not total destruction. I remember it bieng the 9000 sq ft or so in one corner in the south that was actually destroyed and needed to be replaced. It is in the NIST report in the mid 20's i think, the description of the fire. These however were not the raging fires that were created on 9/11.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join