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.

 

What kept feeding the fires at WTC? Did it make the fire hotter?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
www.theeagle.com...


Then the fire spread to a porch and, suddenly, blew open the back door to the showroom.

"We tried to close the door but we couldn't," Garvin said.

Firefighters quickly donned their air masks and started bringing in hoses to attack the blaze from within.

But they didn't stand a chance, Garvin said.

Once inside, the fire rapidly ignited sofa and chair material near the back door. A rolling ball of fire and gas raced toward the front of the building, the combustible furniture fueling its momentum.

Flames and smoke belched into the humid night, creating what one witness described as a 30-foot tornado of flames. Hot ash pelted hundreds of onlookers.

Capt. Ralph Linderman of the St. Andrews Fire Department said the blaze was the hottest he could recall in three decades of firefighting. "That fire bent steel like a wet noodle," he said.


Did furniture help spread the fire? What about walls, floors, and ceilings? What kind of materials comprised of that could help feed the fire?




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Wow I told you guys this would haunt us...

Reference my past posts where I mention Comparing Strip malls, Freeway Overpasses, and bridges.

And yes I posted this when it happened.. search is nice...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 8/20/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
So we can just ignore the fires burning at WTC. The fires that spread? The furniture and other materials that helped fed the fires? A firefighter that mentions steel being bent like wet noodles? Combine that with the impact of a plane, it sure makes a very tall steel building collapse more likely by those factors.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Then when we bring up actual buildings like.... I donno..... Lets start with...

China building, Bankers Trust, Windsor Tower, And countless other buildings that I cant remember off hand...

You sit there and tell us to go to hell, our references aren't good enough, The fires aren't the same, The buildings are different, The is, The that... ya whatever..

You guys wanna compare the gravity on the moon with this 9/11 stuff, yet people who wanna see the truth come out get slammed for everything under the sun...

Decide where you wanna go with this cause its useless.. you know why?? here are a few reasons on why..

1) Where is the plane?
2) Where is the jet fuel?
3) Where are the other floors?? Last i checked a strip mall was 1 floor.
4) How is this the same as WTC 1 2 and 7's collapse?
5) Why is this the same?

Wanna play stupid games I am all for it.. Back up your statements on how this is all the same please...

Have a nice day..

[edit on 8/20/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   




And its a wonder how we felt when you guys brought up those BS as well. "Wanna play stupid games I am all for it."
Yeah have a nice day really.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Let’s add 100,000 lbs of jet fuel to the equation, plus the delivery vehicle penetrated to the very center of the support structure. Add this all up and it is not just your typical fire that started in a wall or room.

Once a few floors gave way from the melted steel then it turned into just a set of dominos for the lower floors that were untouched.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Whats the matter? Cant compare the 2??

As my original post stated, Apples and Oranges.

And I really don't understand why you people quote someone right above you.. its a waste of database space..

[edit on 8/20/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Whats the matter? Cant compare the 2??

As my original post stated, Apples and Oranges.


Apples and Oranges. Yeah remind everyone including people that are on your side of agreement of demolition.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apples and Oranges indeed.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Still didnt answer my original questions.. You know the 5 above there..



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Well here we go with another thoughtful and constructive 9/11 debate. Whoopee.

I basically stopped contributing to 9/11 threads because I'm struggling to remember the last time I saw one which involved people who had any particular intention of debating a subject, instead they always seem to involve a group of individuals who have already made their minds up about the subject and have no desire to consider other possibilities. I'll apologise now to one or two noble exceptions to this picture because I'm know they do exist but how many of us can honestly say that this is a picture of 9/11 debate on here that they do not recognise?

Adherents of both sides of the debate are guilty, both are quite prepared to sit at opposite ends of a large room and shout yah boo sucks at each other and if anybody believes that will get us any where nearer the truth which we claim to seek then they are very foolish.

I bring this up now because like deltaboy I have thought about a couple of events over the weekend which made me ponder on their relevance to the WTC fires and collapses but, like deltaboy's above they do not in anyway provide unimpeachable insight into the WTC fires but should provoke at least a couple of moments pause for thought.

1. The description above of wet noodles reminds me of a very large steel warehouse near the M25 on the east side of London which suffered a major fire a couple of years ago. I drove past it two days or so after the fire and it looked like a plate of tagliatelle after a purely conventional fire, albeit intense and longer lasting than those on 9/11. I've looked for ages for decent photos of the aftermath but I'm sorry I can't find any. No, it wasn't the WTC but don't let anyone tell you a conventional fire can't weaken steel to the point where it is useless.

2. I was struck by a radio report today of the investigation into a hotel fire in Newquay over the weekend. It was by all accounts a remarkably intense fire which lasted some hours in an old brick and timber building. OK, so little similarity to the WTC there but the comment which really caught my attention was that yesterday fire investigators tried to get onto the rubble which was still smouldering after the fire on Friday night but had to abandon their efforts as despite wearing protective clothing the heat was too intense and the soles of their feet were being burnt. Once again, the WTC it ain't but don't let anyone tell you that you need a mini-nuke to achieve this end.

...and the Chinese skyscraper? Well to be honest, I don't know why it survived a fire with such apparent ease and that troubles me a bit and I'm quite prepared to admit it. (Not least because when I saw the building for the first time just after it had been completed my Chinese colleague said to me he would never stay in the hotel because of the fire risk).

So there you are, things to make you go hmmmm. No, neither fire was remotely like the WTC, neither building was the same either but you have a choice to either consider these events and deltaboy's and file them away for future reference as interesting or to dismiss them out of hand as utterly irrelevant if you've made your mind up already, your choice entirely.

We all want to see the truth come out, (I hope), the question is how many of us would be happy to be confronted with that truth if it didn't comply with our preconceived notions of how it should appear?

There you go, you may now insult me to your heart's content.

Regards to all...



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Yes, of course the fires would burn hot enough to ruin the structural integrity of the steel, POSSIBLY causing the "pancake effect", however there is NO explanation for the molten steel found in the wreckage.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Whats the matter? Cant compare the 2??

As my original post stated, Apples and Oranges.


Apples and Oranges. Yeah remind everyone including people that are on your side of agreement of demolition.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apples and Oranges indeed.


Wow. You're calling that apples and oranges but want to compare a strip mall. That was Thickheaded's point.

One thing I can see in the strip mall fire is that the steel roof colllapsed, not the columns. Do you know how thin steel roofing is compared to the almost 8 inch thick columns at the trade center?

Apples to oranges indead.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
This is true. Again a thread that is immediately discredited by someone or something who is adamant about their point of view but will not take anothers.

I could say that anyone who thinks anything other than the official story is mentally challenged. This statement would be untrue until it was proven with some evidence, which, thickheaded, you showed with your reponse, closemindedness and absudrity.

1. THere is NO proof of demoliton. NONE> NO physical proof except conjecture.

2. a fully loaded 767 slams into a building at over 500mph, an architect would feel lucky if it survived.

3. The attack was planned, so that one tower would topple into the other to take them out, and if that would have occured, the loss of life would have been worse. That is what they wanted in 93.

4. The fires were fed by the office space that took up almost every inch of free floor space. Chairs, desks, supplies, plastic, paper,etc.. The fires do not need to break steel, but weaken ti so it cannot support 20 + floors above it, something that the 'design' of the WTC did not compensate for.

5. Comparing those other buildings is relevant but not precedent.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled debate.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
the fires werent hot enough to even theoretically cause that.

most of the cerosine exploded at the impact on the outside, the rest didnt burn very long, anf then it just stewed. (black clouds).
till the collapse, people were waving , so it sureley wasnt over 1700 degrees to melt steel .



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
No, it wasn't the WTC but don't let anyone tell you a conventional fire can't weaken steel to the point where it is useless.


Steel columns or thin steel roofing and composite floor decking? There's a huge difference.


2. Once again, the WTC it ain't but don't let anyone tell you that you need a mini-nuke to achieve this end.


There's also a difference between brick insulation and steel insulation. But, I'll give this one to you because I don't find anything of value with the hot temps.


We all want to see the truth come out, (I hope), the question is how many of us would be happy to be confronted with that truth if it didn't comply with our preconceived notions of how it should appear?


To be honest. I'd be thankful. Probably alot more than if the shoe was on the other foot.


There you go, you may now insult me to your heart's content.

Regards to all...


Never insult. Disagree maybe.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


1) There was MOLTEN steel found. Yes the fires burned hot enough to ruin the structural integrity of the steel, but that does NOT explain molten steel being found.

2) Have you seen Zeitgeist? In it they have interviews with the ACTUAL engineers of the WTC, and in it they are saying that they actually DID design the WTC with the thought of a plane crashing into it.

3) There might not be PROOF of demolition, but you would need to define proof. There is EVIDENCE for it, just like there is EVIDENCE that Bin Laden had some terrorists go about this intricate plan to destroy the WTC.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Deltaboy, you're reading a news article that's intentionally trying to make the scene sound exciting.

What kept feeding the fires at WTC? Hydrocarbons.

Did it make the fire hotter? Well, you give me some actual numbers, or photographs of the physical evidence, instead of a sensational news article, and we try to put it together.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
Yes, of course the fires would burn hot enough to ruin the structural integrity of the steel, POSSIBLY causing the "pancake effect", however there is NO explanation for the molten steel found in the wreckage.


And yet, there is no proof of molten steel being found either. Molten aluminum maybe...but not steel.



In it they have interviews with the ACTUAL engineers of the WTC, and in it they are saying that they actually DID design the WTC with the thought of a plane crashing into it.


Yes, a 707 at landing speed, lost in the fog. A far cry from a loaded 767 at 400 + mph. However, since you want to speak about the engineers, look for a COMPLETE interview with Leslie Robertson. He helped design the towers and in retrospect, he was surprised they stood as long as they did, not to mention he has also stated he feels some responsibility for their collapse.


From Leslie:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth. And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I dont know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fueled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.

www.bbc.co.uk...

And this....




LESLIE ROBERTSON: I think the structures were stalwart, but they were not that stalwart. There was no fire suppression system that could even begin to deal with that event. Nothing. Nothing. So I didn't know whether they would fall or not fall.


Or this...




A 1952 Berkeley civil engineering graduate, Robertson and his then-partner John Skilling were the original structural engineers for the Twin Towers. The offices of his firm, Leslie E. Robertson Associates, helped repair the structural damage caused by the February 1993 bombing. Robertson remains deeply affected by the responsibility he feels for the towers’ collapse.



www.coe.berkeley.edu...

So, can we now dispense with the "the engineers said it survive being hit by a jetliner" ?????



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Since we want to quote Leslie Robertson.


As of 21 days after the attack, the
fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running.


Source: www.seau.org...

This is describing a speaking appearance by Robertson. As in a direct quote from him.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
There are SEVERAL reports of molten steel:

911research.wtc7.net...


Fair enough, you make a good point from Leslie. I will check more into the engineer interviews.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join