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.

 

Fire Could Easily Have Been Cause of WTC Collapse

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhaLight
JimC, can we count you to the list of USA today employees?

Or are you just ignorant?

[edit on 8-11-2006 by buddhaLight]


hmmm, now now remember we must be nice to one another,
i think he is neither of the two but thats what ats is for,
you can put it out there and talk about it ,
so lets try not to resort to name callin eh mate?


make love not war dudes and groovey dudetts.
understanding is the key to enlightenment .

Omega




posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Man.. another balogne thread with a deceptive title.





spOOn1

Wheres the thousands of gallons of molten metal in the foundation of the bridge?


EXACTLY which leads me to this other 'quote'..



DrFungi

The temperatures of the fire aren't enough to melt steel. No one ever claimed the steel melted before the building collapsed.




Hmm.. where did all that melted steel after the collapses come from?



What was that molten 'metal' spewing out of the tower right before it collapsed? OH.. that's right. it was aluminum!.. (Riiiiight)


Sounds like YOU need to go back to kindegarden. (Since you mentioned it)


BTW: Apparently alot of you forget the fire that occured at WTC in 1975:


www.lookingglassnews.org...

"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........ Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.



This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.


This is just another "The towers fell this way because "I" said they did".

Nope.. not buying it.



[edit on 8-11-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
One of the revolutionary features of the WTC was that the outer walls were load-bearing. This allowed for the large, open areas in certain areas inside.

When the jets crashed into to WTC, it disrupted the structural integrity of the building. Additional, secondary supports were inside the building around the elevator shafts, which were melted, or at least weakened by the fire from the jet-fuel from the planes.

With the loss of both of these means of support, plus all the weight of people, furniture, equipment, paper, etc., is there any surprise that the WTC fell?



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
hmmm, and what of the sub level detonations??
i dont think i will ever get bored of this subject.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I think that was tried in '93, but failed to bring them down.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zhenyghi
I think that was tried in '93, but failed to bring them down.


Right. You're right. It was tried in '93... and it failed.


Oh.... And it was tried again about 5 years ago on... I believe the date was Sept. 11th, 2001. Oh, and if I recall correctly it was under a government black op staged terrorist attack.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Seems to me that these CT people want to believe that the Twin Towers were invincible. Planes at 500 mph couldnt destroy them, fires couldnt destroy them.

All Jim was trying to do was show you how fire affects steel.

And a few months ago I posted thread on how much a 300 degree F fire can warp a column and how much just a minor 3 inch midspan warping can reduce the columns carrying capacity. If you guys actually did some structural analysis all your doubts would be cleared.

Train



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
And a few months ago I posted thread on how much a 300 degree F fire can warp a column and how much just a minor 3 inch midspan warping can reduce the columns carrying capacity. If you guys actually did some structural analysis all your doubts would be cleared.


Can you link to these threads? I'd be interested in looking at them. I don't know how I missed them.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Whats the exposure time, and is that in a perfect environment with a concentrated flame?



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Check out this short video,this guy says the wtc buildings could probably withstand mutiple impacts from planesvideo he was the construction manager for the wtc buildings also since the towers were built to "sway" in high winds would'nt that absorb much of the impact energy?

[edit on 8-11-2006 by crowpruitt]


exactly, great video,it actualy explains alot, i can't believe that after hearing the construction manager about how the towers could hold multiple implacts people still think those towers were made of 'paper',seriously they were designed for plane impacts, surpirsingly they were designed in mind with a 707 crash (yes smaller than the 737)against them with a FULL TANK of fuel much heavier than the planes that hit the towers,i do say the planes that hit the towers were bigger but it's not the size but the power that counts.

Also, why did the buildings fall in free style? "IF" the core was damaged it would've bent on the area affected or in a worse case tilt the building to a side,not crumble into dust.

this Video explains why the towers could have never fallen or atleast the core should have left standing.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zhenyghi
One of the revolutionary features of the WTC was that the outer walls were load-bearing. This allowed for the large, open areas in certain areas inside.

When the jets crashed into to WTC, it disrupted the structural integrity of the building. Additional, secondary supports were inside the building around the elevator shafts, which were melted, or at least weakened by the fire from the jet-fuel from the planes.

With the loss of both of these means of support, plus all the weight of people, furniture, equipment, paper, etc., is there any surprise that the WTC fell?


Dear God dude. Seriously, think about it please! I hate statements like this.

First, the out walls were load bearing. Yes. So was the massive inner core. Look at the damage from the planes and where the second one hit. The damage was not enough to disrupt the buildings to the point of collapse.

Even if it were, let's just say that was the case, tell me how 20 to 30 stories of building can cause 80 to 90 stories of UNDAMAGED STEEL AND SUPPORT to collapse at ZERO RESISTENCE!!! Not possible my friend. Basic science. They fell at free fall meaning there was no resistence BELOW the top 20 to 30 stories of 110 story buildings. If the top 20 to 30 floors (I keep saying that because the two planes hit a different locations) fell then they would have simply collapsed down to the point of resistence or simply fallen off to the streets below. NEVER would they have brought down the STRONGEST part of the UNDAMAGED portion of the buildings.

I hate this argument and it just shows one of two things. A) You are paid to say this in order to try and keep the disinformation going or B) You have yet to understand the basic laws of physics.

I am not insulting you here friend. I'm simply trying to get you to see the facts outside of the facts. A building with 80 to 90 stories of undamaged structure will not collapse just from weight. They DEFINITELY would not collapse at the rate in which they did.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by your_evidence

exactly, great video,it actualy explains alot, i can't believe that after hearing the construction manager about how the towers could hold multiple implacts people still think those towers were made of 'paper',seriously they were designed for plane impacts, surpirsingly they were designed in mind with a 707 crash (yes smaller than the 737)against them with a FULL TANK of fuel much heavier than the planes that hit the towers,i do say the planes that hit the towers were bigger but it's not the size but the power that counts.

Also, why did the buildings fall in free style? "IF" the core was damaged it would've bent on the area affected or in a worse case tilt the building to a side,not crumble into dust.

this Video explains why the towers could have never fallen or atleast the core should have left standing.


Yes, and it's more than that. When getting into some debates on 9/11 with people for the Official Story, and when I start pointing to characteristics of the fires that ensued after the impacts, they want to point back to the aircraft impacts and said that it was a combination of heavy impact damage and the fires that brought down the buildings. But according to NIST's findings of inner columns/exterior column damage, this is incorrect and it actually successfully withstood the attack.

And I too am very skeptical of the collapse of both towers in such a vertical manor and somehow completely obliterating themselves, and not slowing down especially seeing as how the structural integrity of the rest of the building was structurally sound.

About the tilting, the only thing I have dramatically odd is how WTC 2 began to have angular momentum with its upper portion but it managed to simultaneously and successfully pummel the rest of the building down to a pulp. Considering you had dramatically more gravitationally assisted force vectored not directly vertically but more off to the side, VERY VERY suprising it caused so much destruction. So it begs the question, for EACH tower... How were the inner cores of each building compromised so successfully?



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhaLight
JimC, can we count you to the list of USA today employees?

Or are you just ignorant?

[edit on 8-11-2006 by buddhaLight]


No I'm not an employee of USA today. My answer to your other comment would violate the rules here so I won't post it. I have a simple idea. How about you go and take a few Engineering classes and then take another look at what I said.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by ANOK
You want us to believe because a bridge had structural failure that a building would collapse down on itself, ejecting tons of steel up to 600 ft, and turning concrete and office furniture into a fine dust? All from fires that lasted less than an hour?
And no it wasn't the plane, the building survived the planes impact, you would have to be completely dense to argue that.


Well your sarcasm aside, let's face it the Madrid tower wasn't struck by a large airliner moving at high speed. There was severe structural damage from the impact of the aircraft and then the damage from the fire was added to the already weakend structure. The towers could have survived one or the other but not both.

The main arguement that I have seen here is that the fire couldn't possibly have weakened the structure enough for it to collapse. Well the photos of the beams in the story I posted disprove that.


I think you're misunderstanding ANOK. You are saying, the trusses could have lost structural integrity such as whats shown in the picture based on fire alone. ANOK is saying if that kind of warpage of steel is what happened to the WTC in one hour of fire, then how in the madrid fire, which was visibly more engulfed in flames and burned for a longer amount of time, was the buildings steel not melted like the bridge throughout the engulfed floors.

I think there must have been special circumstances as bsbray and others have mentioned in which the fuel was probably more concentrated or burned longer on the bridge compared to what we saw at the WTC complex.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I don't know if this has been stated yet, but the WTC towers were built to withstand mulptiple passenger aircraft collisions because of an impact involving a bomber and the empire state building back in the 1940's, the empire state building is still standing isn't it? And another note, the initial explosion from the collision would have burned up a large majority of the fuel that would have been in the aircraft. And one more thing, doesn't gasoline have a much higher maximum burn temperature? I think jet grade kerosine can burn at around 980 celcius while gasoline has a max burn temperature of 2148 celcius? There's a big difference there Jim. I also may be wrong maybe someone can help verify this for me.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
We can all debate the towers issues from now until forever, and it won't change the fact that 2 months prior to the 9-11 attacks, I watched an hour-long segment on THC about tall buildings, and the affect that the 1993 attack had on all tall buildings that have been constructed since, as well as how older buildings have been retrofitted - at night - with strategically placed explosives - so that if a natural disaster or a terrorist exercize once again threatened a major building, it could be brought down/imploded to save the lives and properties surrounding it. The World Trade Center Towers, other buildings in that vicinity, and some in Chicago as well as the Library Tower in Los Angeles were among the buildings specifically mentioned that have explosives embedded. It was the middle of the night when I watched this documentary, and I spoke of it with my partner the following morning. We both chuckled nervously, and commented that we are grateful to be retired and no longer need to work in tall structures that make great targets.

Then, 2 months later, we watched in horror as 9-11 unfolded - LIVE - before our very eyes. When those buildings came down, it was an implosion... and so was Building 6(?) - the one that was taken down later on 9-11 - the one in which the Cray Computers were housed.

I tried immediately to get a copy of that documentary. I had help - someone who works for THC documentary order center had seen it, too, and she was sure she could locate it, even though neither of us could remember the exact title. When she went through the entire catalog, the week after 9-11, she found what she was sure was the right documentary, according to the catalog description... but when she pulled the copy, it was something completely different... not at all like the description. Then, the following week, the description went away, too!

If there hadn't been good reason for that documentary to go missing, and then be expunged entirely from THC's catalog, that documentary would STILL BE THERE! It's because the people hired to go in and attach the explosives, the contractors who hired them, and everyone on up the chain right to the top of the White House, needed DENIABILITY! Therefore, even though several Ameicans saw that documentary, unless one of us taped it and can produce a copy of it as evidence, we can't prove a damn thing.

And this brings up HONESTY. If people hired to work in those buildings had been advised the structures contain explosives to avoid compounded disasters, and were asked to sign a waiver, the honesty could have prevailed. No one would be that upset about the buildings imploding, thusly SAVING LIVES of people in surrounding properties. But when clandestine procedures are not revealed to the people who will first be affected by them (explosives embedded at night so as not to arouse suspicion by daytime employees?!?),well, that's where this good project got off on the wrong foot. Cover-up, cover-up, cover-up... Lies upon lies upon MORE lies. If all those people had known they were/are working in buildings that would/will implode, and they continue to work there, then we're all better off. It might affect, in the beginning, which companies will lease the suites and up the insurance premiums, but eventually the buildings will be occupied. And the need for lies and cover-ups and speculations would no longer be necessary.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I have already conducted one phone interview and am awaiting a call back for a second phone interview with key state officials with first-hand knowledge of this incident in Alabama. I will compile a post this evening on the notes I am taking during these phone calls.

Long story short - comparing this incident to the WTC fires is comparing apples to oranges. I'll post more later.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Long story short - comparing this incident to the WTC fires is comparing apples to oranges. I'll post more later.


I never tried to compair them. My intent is to show that a steel beam can be heated to failure by fire. It is that simple. If a gasoline fire can cause that huge beam to distort that badly then it is entirely possible that the fires in the WTC towers could have caused the failure of beams that were overloaded because of damages sustained by the aircraft impacts.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I never tried to compair them. My intent is to show that a steel beam can be heated to failure by fire.


Replace the word "failure" with "warping" and WE ALL AGREE.

No one has ever contested that steel can warp in hydrocarbon fires. Do they always do that? No. Is it as easy as throwing steel in any old fire? No.

Looking forward to the additional information, Val.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Your thread title reads "Fire Could Easily Have Been Cause of WTC Collapse". The problem with that title is - not under the conditions stated in the NIST report. You have based your statement that the fires could have been the cause of the collapse off the fact that a different fire, with a different fuel, burning at a different temperature, over a different amount of time caused a steel girder to warp.

Without me even enumerating the specifics of all the "differences" in the above paragraph, can't you see how wrong that it is?

You cannot compare a gasoline-fuel-rich fire burning at 2000 F in one contained spot over an extended amount of time to a fire in which NIST states the majority of the jet fuel was consumed in the FAE at impact, was not a contained fire, and for which they state the structural elements saw no more than 600 F, and for which they state no structural elements were subjected to the fire for the entire period of time in between the impact and the collapse.

So no - if this example you have pointed to is the reasoning behind your statement the fires could have caused the collapse, that would be incorrect. Because you are using a baked apple as an example in a debate concerning an orange.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join