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.
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]
spOOn1
Wheres the thousands of gallons of molten metal in the foundation of the bridge?
DrFungi
The temperatures of the fire aren't enough to melt steel. No one ever claimed the steel melted before the building collapsed.
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.
Originally posted by Zhenyghi
I think that was tried in '93, but failed to bring them down.
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.
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]
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?
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.
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]
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.
Originally posted by Valhall
Long story short - comparing this incident to the WTC fires is comparing apples to oranges. I'll post more later.
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.