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.

 

1975 WTC fire

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by goose
Two things I find interesting from this link is a picture showing what might be an area that might have been off limits to workers and out of view to worker where phone cables were run through. Were these area possibly where explosives could have been packed in and set up for a demolition job?

Of course knowing that a previous fire had taken place in one of the WTC and it had suffered a previous fire on several floors for three hours, in the past without structural damage. While it is true that at that time it had not been hit with a plane, ...............



This is where you should have stopped and not posted the link. The FACTS are that a plane flying at 500MPH slammed into the building. The fires ALONE didnt NOT cause the collapse. PERIOD. FEMA, NIST, ASCE, or anyone else with 1/2 a brain has never stated this.

In regards to the "offlimits" areas. They are locked! Thats why they are "off limits". Im sure there were MANY of those areas.
Most speculate the core was a good spot for hidign them... thank god they didnt have a bunch of elevator technicians working 7 days a week there... of that the state requires annual inspections of these areas. (minimal)
[edit on 14-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]


Hi CO-

5 questions I have. . .

1- Weren't the towers designed to withstand such impacts. . . and did?

2- Yes the contingency was more suited for planes landing with less fuel, but the designers foolishly did not allow for any fuel to be present on impacting aircraft to possibly start residual fires?

3- Just because something is locked makes it impenetrable?

4- Elevator technicians cannot be fooled?

5- Because someone has a "1/2 a brain" means they automactically have the "right" one?

Thanx- I'm writing a book. . .

2PacSade-




posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   


No actually they could have been wired over a period of weeks or months prior leading up to that time, within these areas I mentioned being off limits to the majority of personnel and probably locked as Captain Oblivious mentioned.


Now you are talking YEARS to get it wired in a way that would conceal all the wires and charges......have you ever seen what it looks like after a building is ready for demolition? cables and wires all over the flipping place..thousands of holes drilled for charges....you couldnt hide that.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   


1- Weren't the towers designed to withstand such impacts. . . and did?


They were theoritically designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 at or near approach speed. Not a 757/767 at high speed. Until 9/11, no airliners had ever crashed into a building, and dont bring up the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. Thats not even comparing apples to oranges.

As for the fuel, a half empty fuel tank can be much more dangerous than a full tank.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
They were theoritically designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 at or near approach speed.


If you understood the design concept of the towers outer structure you would know that it should have stayed standing regardless of how big or how fast the plane was that hit it. As we can see from video it did as it was designed to do, remain standing. We also know it's impossible for the fires to have got hot enough to cause complete global failure. So neither the planes impact or the fires had any significant role in the buildings collapse.

Quite simply there must have been a third event that caused the collapses, and what that would have been I'll leave to your imagination...



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
...have you ever seen what it looks like after a building is ready for demolition? cables and wires all over the flipping place...


Well that's only because in a normal demo they don't have to hide anything...


You really think a trained unit of some kind couldn't pull off planting explosives?

And yes it could have taken YEARS, so what? You make it sound like that would be such an incredible impossibility, when with inside help it could easily be done.

But if there weren't any explosives how do explain the lack of resistance in the collapse? How do you explain the tilt of the South Tower and it's seemingly lack of respect for the laws of physics? How do you explain the lateral expulsion of pieces of the outer structure, weighing tons, up to 600 ft away? How do you explain the pulverization of the concrete? How do you explain complete destruction of the central structure, that should have stayed standing if it was a pancake collapse?

The planes impact and resulting fires explains non of this. A natural gravity fed collapse would cause non of this.

You de-bunkers have a lot of explaining to do because so far you've explained nothing.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Which is it, burning or pouring?
ITs absurd to say that burning jet fuel 'poured' down the elevator shafts.
Simply absurd.


IM sticking with the above statement.

I read a few pages of your government sponsored report and IM not buying it.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade


Hi CO-

5 questions I have. . .


1- Weren't the towers designed to withstand such impacts. . . and did?

A: The towers were built to withstand an imact from a 707. Yes, and there are conflicting reports as to how fast the plane would/ could be traveling. Actually a bit of finger pointing in my opinion. The point though is not the speed of the aircraft, but the damage that was caused by the fires after impact. There was not appropriate testing back in the 60's to determine what the fires would have done.

2- Yes the contingency was more suited for planes landing with less fuel, but the designers foolishly did not allow for any fuel to be present on impacting aircraft to possibly start residual fires?

A. Yes, as stated above the proper testing was not even available at the time plans were drawn.

3- Just because something is locked makes it impenetrable?

A. No, but to enter certain sections of the WTC would require that vendor to have security to either open the door for them, or give them a key to access the locked area. Either way, security and or workers at the WTC would know that they have accesssed that specific area.

4- Elevator technicians cannot be fooled?

A. Fooled how? To gain access to the elevator shafts? Sure. But, please tell me how the elevator mechanics can overlook a demop charge no matter if its TNT, C-4. Thermite, whatever.

5- Because someone has a "1/2 a brain" means they automactically have the "right" one?

A. Hell NO!
Comparing a typical fire to that of one caused by a commercial aircraft is ..well silly.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Well Captain, you are starting to contradict yourself, first you state:


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
. . . The FACTS are that a plane flying at 500MPH slammed into the building. The fires ALONE didnt NOT cause the collapse. PERIOD.


and then later you say:


The towers were built to withstand an imact from a 707. Yes, and there are conflicting reports as to how fast the plane would/ could be traveling. Actually a bit of finger pointing in my opinion. The point though is not the speed of the aircraft, but the damage that was caused by the fires after impact.


So which is it, the "FACTS" of a plane flying 500MPH contributing to the collapse of the towers, or is the point "not the speed of the aircraft, but the damage that was caused by the fires after impact?"

I have read several posts in these 911 threads that give the opinion the buildings survived the collisions just like they were designed to, and that it was the heat of the fire from combustion of jet fuel that brought them down. If this is the case, and is your contention, then a previous fire would be very relevant to the argument. After all, it would only matter how hot the fire burned to compromise the structural integrity of the support beams , not what was combusting to cause the fire.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrZERO
Well Captain, you are starting to contradict yourself


Hi Dr. Zero ~

I understand why you may think there is a contradiction here. Let me try to explain: While I was stating that the speed of the plane was irrelevant to the discussion were were having, it WAS however relevant to the damage it caused INCLUDING the removal of fireproofing materials. It was a combination of all three if these things that caused the collapses.

Of coarse the heat of the fire is relevant, but you must concede that the removal of the fire protection on the steel was a contributing factor. So, in order to think another fire should be compared to that of the events is not appropriate considering alll the other factors.

Thanks, I hope I cleared that up a bit


[edit on 7-8-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

ITs absurd to say that burning jet fuel 'poured' down the elevator shafts.
Simply absurd.



Originally posted by 11Bravo
IM sticking with the above statement.

I read a few pages of your government sponsored report and IM not buying it.


Did you happen to read the interviews from the firefighters? The survivors? You don't have to "buy" anything, but ignoring facts is counterproductive if you indeed are searching for the truth.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
... but you must concede that the removal of the fire protection on the steel was a contributing factor.


There is no evidence or proof that this material was widely dislodged... NIST and Purdue TOTALLY disagree on the mechanism and amount of fireproofing that was dislodged and NEITHER provide any tangible evidence to support their claims. They never looked at the evidence, they just said "the computer showed that the fireproofing was dislodged"....

So, in summation, It is silly to concede something that has never been proven/disproved.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
... but you must concede that the removal of the fire protection on the steel was a contributing factor.


Putting fire protection on steel columns is like putting fire protection on the inside of a steel wood stove. How much is it really going to protect, when it's obviously going to do absolutely fine without it? It's done for safety reasons in buildings just because until more recently, nobody really knew what to expect in such a situation. But from the mid-1980's through 2000, the University of Edinburgh and a group of several other institutions did rigorous testing of fires on steel structures, and released a study in 2000.

They didn't mention fireproofing specifically, but noted that steel structures were more sturdy than previously thought, that runaway collapses of any sort aren't realistic, and that most of the damage from fire in steel structures comes not from the fire or heat itself, but from deflections and additional forces created in the members from expansion. When beams try to expand in tight spaces where they're welded and bolted between columns, for example, all kinds of warping occurs. Columns trying to expand upwards also warp around where beams connect, etc. This goes against the logic that the heat actually causes the steel to melt or soften into spaghetti noodles, but is MUCH more realistic and has harder information behind it.

I don't think much fireproofing was actually dislodged, as if it actually did matter. NIST tested that hypothesis by firing a shot gun at a steel beam with fireproofing on it. Purdue only did a computer simulation, and that's totally dependent upon the parameters they put into it in the first place. How do we know the amount of energy required for separation from the columns in their simulation corresponded to anything in reality on 9/11? Someone should ask.

And even if it DID matter, steel still only loses strength very slowly and on a pretty well-defined curve, corresponding to temperature. It would still take an unbelievable amount of heat to significantly weaken any one of those massive columns. The fires in those buildings weren't extraordinary. They were ordinary. Jet fuel is an accelerant but that just means it burns up faster, and not any hotter than any of the office supplies.

And finally, NIST's failure mechanism has nothing to do with the columns themselves being weakened or heated. Their theory asserts that the floors basically jerked the outer columns inward and somehow caused everything else to fall. They never tried to explain the rest of the collapse, the "global" part of it, or even what happened to the core.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
There is no evidence or proof that this material was widely dislodged...

So, in summation, It is silly to concede something that has never been proven/disproved.


Having minimal photographic evidence (of the internal structures) does not prove there was not any fireproofing removed. There is however substatial photographic evidence to many areas around the impact points. In these pictures you can clearly see the red Tnemec paint that proves that there is no longer any fireproofing in those areas.

Please go to:

wtc.nist.gov...

Pages 100-102 (on your PDF) shows these photos. Also, 6.2.5 Photographic Analysis of Pre-Collapse Fire Exposure to External Panels

With all the analysis and phtographic evidence, my opinion still stands in that comparing a typical office fire to a catastrophic event (911) is inappropriate.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
With all the analysis and phtographic evidence, my opinion still stands in that comparing a typical office fire to a catastrophic event (911) is inappropriate.



Why? Because of the missing columns, or was there something special about the fire afterwards?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
With all the analysis and phtographic evidence, my opinion still stands in that comparing a typical office fire to a catastrophic event (911) is inappropriate.


What specifically was unique about 9/11?

The plane impacts? OK those are just forces. Which have already been accounted for by the design team. Which would have distibuted the forces to intact columns.

The fires? Nope. The jet fuel would have burned faster but not hotter than a normal office fire. This may have contributed to the heat transfer but NIST states that only 1 column reached over 250C. So, nope, not the fires.

The plane impact and fire? Not really. There have been fires that produce partial collapses in steel buildings before. The airplane damage could be considered a partial collapse for analysis purposes.

Explosions? Possibly. I've never heard of a fire producing secondary explosions. At least not multiple explosions. Why don't we hear from firemen after every fire "there's a bomb in the building" if they hear explosions all the time?

I'd have to go with explosions being the unique part here.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Having minimal photographic evidence (of the internal structures) does not prove there was not any fireproofing removed. There is however substatial photographic evidence to many areas around the impact points. In these pictures you can clearly see the red Tnemec paint that proves that there is no longer any fireproofing in those areas.


From NCSTAR 1-3 per your request.

Section 6.6.2 No tested core columns from the fire zones exceeded 250C

Section 9.4.5 Of the 170 tested exterior columns FROM THE FIRE ZONES, THREE exceeded 250C. (and this could have been in the pile that these temps were reached)

REAL TESTING. REAL FACTS. REAL RESULTS.


Now, they claim the sample set was too small... WHAT? So either the FACTUAL evidence does not support their story (It does not) or they SUCK as scientists and should have expanded the sample set. Either way... toss the report. It is all BS EXCEPT FOR THE ACTUAL STEEL TESTING THAT DEBUNKS THEIR ENTIRE THEORY.

You "fireproofing" statements are all based on ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. I have provided FACTUAL EVIDENCE (PROOF) from ACTUAL TESTING.

I would think twice about arguing the NCSTAR reports unless you have thoroughly read them.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by Pootie]




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join