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.

 

Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:53 AM
link   
www.tms.org...

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



you can state it all you want but that wont make it proof. what are you basing that on other than the purdue animation?

im going to stand by the fact that NONE OF US know EXACTLY how much damage was done as there was NOT a first hand evaluation and assessment of the scene. there were no responders OR better yet engineers in there looking at the impact zones to determine just how much damage had been done and so all we are doing is speculating off incomplete data.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles there were no responders OR better yet engineers in there looking at the impact zones to determine just how much damage had been done and so all we are doing is speculating off incomplete data.


If we only have specualtion, how can so many people state for a fact that the planes caused the collapse?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


well thats a fabulous question. ive said that of the theories currently available its the one that makes the most sense to me, but i dont recall ever claiming its fact. as for anyone else, i dont presume to speak for them.

now nist fema et al may not be speculating but lets face it, they have more data than we do. they just arent sharing and are doing a pretty piss poor job in explaining things



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
now nist fema et al may not be speculating but lets face it, they have more data than we do. they just arent sharing and are doing a pretty piss poor job in explaining things


Well we know NIST kind of screwed up. Like not testing for explosives or chemicales. Not recovering any steel from WTC 7 for testing.

www.nist.gov...

NIST’s investigation of the WTC towers fires and collapses was conducted under the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act. The act gives NIST the responsibility for conducting fact-finding investigations of building-related failures that result in substantial loss of life. NIST has no regulatory authority under the NCST Act.

The NCST Act also states that no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in the report.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well we know NIST kind of screwed up. Like not testing for explosives or chemicales.


Isnt that like a dead person with a gunshot to the head being tested for an aneurism to see if that caused the death? Or why not test the wiring in the building for possibly a spark causing the fires.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
[ Isnt that like a dead person with a gunshot to the head being tested for an aneurism to see if that caused the death? Or why not test the wiring in the building for possibly a spark causing the fires.


FEMA thought it was improtant enough to do testing for explosives and chemicles.

No becasue they screwed up more when they did not recover any steel from WTC 7.

So i guess by your reasoning the police do not need to do an investigation if witnesses say they saw what happened.. i guess we can get rid of all the CSI people then and save some money?

Also NIST reports are not official. They have no regulatory authority. They cannot be used as evidence in a lawsuit.

www.nist.gov...

NIST’s investigation of the WTC towers fires and collapses was conducted under the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act. The act gives NIST the responsibility for conducting fact-finding investigations of building-related failures that result in substantial loss of life. NIST has no regulatory authority under the NCST Act.

The NCST Act also states that no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in the report.




[edit on 17-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Would there be a lawsuit about the jet fuel making the fires cooler, that would require NIST info? I don't think there would be...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Would there be a lawsuit about the jet fuel making the fires cooler, that would require NIST info? I don't think there would be...


Who would want to use NIST anyway as evidence since they screwd up and keep changing their story?

We have plenty of evidence that jet fuel cooled the fire.

jnocook.net...

A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)



[edit on 17-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
FEMA thought it was improtant enough to do testing for explosives and chemicles.



now that line i find interesting, and so you dont think im taking shots at you ill tell you now i mean that i find it genuinly interesting.

ive not read the fema report. if i ask nicely could you by chance tell me which chapter/page number their findings are on? dont feel well of late and it would simply save me time.

because the thing is this, if they tested and found nothing then one of two things is a pretty key factor.

a) they found something and lied about it (which is what the majority of the alternative theories crowd is likely to say)

or

b) they simply didnt find anything. (which would be supported by the air samples, the ones that said the dust was X microns in size as im pretty srue if they had clue one they did a GCMS which would have showed any explosive residue as well)

so if you could link me to that or just give me a chapter/page number for thier results, i would consider it a favor. thanks



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ive not read the fema report. if i ask nicely could you by chance tell me which chapter/page number their findings are on? dont feel well of late and it would simply save me time.


911research.wtc7.net...

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified



911research.wtc7.net...

CLimited Metallurgical Examination
C.1 Introduction
Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.

C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join