It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.
"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other.
On September 17, the BBC quoted another expert, professor of structural engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton, on the subject of melted steel.
"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."
"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."
Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports.
Originally posted by ccaihc
For all those reading, his post is very disgenious. His quotes don't come from any of my resources, he's just trying to make my links look like they're from some silly news article on BBC when in fact these are all scientific papers.
Nice try though.
Originally posted by billybob
ever wonder why it is hard to find 'good' debunking resources?
it's sure not hard for conspiracy researchers. in fact, it is becoming increasingly easy to see the lie of the shadow elite. there are all kinds of great movies coming out, books, discussion groups, activist groups, and, best of all, new research by independent experts.
i like to look at the chinese computer sim as a good example of debunkers debunking themselves. notice in their model, they had to remove 30 to 50% of support to get the towers to collapse at all. notice that, in their model of these 'killed' areas, there is no core in one tower, and no corner on the other.
someone from physorg contacted those two engineers and asked how long their collapse took. one minute, and thirty seconds was the answer. not 12.5 seconds.
notice in their model, 95% of the debris is not exploding outside of the footprint.
notice how their model, the BEST one i've seen, is not showing what actually happened.
Originally posted by piacenza
I am sorry but you must have missed the last 4-5 years in the 911 conspiracy.
Everything you just posted was not debunked but debundebundebunked.
If you can provide us with a serious simulation of how the tower felt please feel free to do so. While you are at it you might as well tell us how the material was ejected and how the puffs where seen 40 story below the collapsing point. Etc... etc... etc... etc...
Honestly there are better debunkers in here than the so called experts that wrote those silly articles you just posted. You see you don't need to debunk anything just provide us with some real evidence and we will elect you as our (at least mine) personal hero.
Originally posted by bsbray11
How did the authors of most of the above articles come by their information?
Figured I'd post this here too, but this is what all of those early "experts" were saying:
speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.
"But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The rest of your post dealt with the speculations of people early on in the investigation with nothing but videso evidence to back them up.
Originally posted by Byrd
Like many who are familiar with civil engineering and building, he predicted the collapse as the event was happening.