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 ULTIMA1
Well i would need to see what you are basing the damage to the towers on.
Because most of the reports i have seen do not state much damge to the towers.
Originally posted by Damocles
so by simple comparison, take two buildings, identical would be ideal, and light one on fire, slam a jet into the other then light it on fire. (in the same manner as the first) which should in theory suffer more damage?
Originally posted by Disclosed I think Six has more than answered the OP's questions, with real life and profesional experience. It would be hard pressed to find someone else with that kind of experience...
Originally posted by totallyhuman
reply to post by Haroki
I have been a firefighter for 13 years and I have also worked with steel gurders and have had to heat them up.So I am pretty sure that fires would not have been hot enough.Not sure what, other than the explosions that the firefighters inside heard would bring the buildings down or keep the steel hot as it was.
Originally posted by totallyhuman
reply to post by Haroki
I am not disagreeing with this.I am just stating that from personal experience and fire trianing that the fires were not what brought down the WTC towers.If you wish,you can go to Firehouse.com and click on the 9/11 link to see the video of the FDNY firefighters that were inside talking about explosions on the lower floors.
Originally posted by totallyhuman
So you agree that the columns could have been heated to beyond 500C, where they lose 1/2 their strength, but this still couldn't have caused the collapse? Wouldn't you say that a building that wasn't on fire, but had 1/2 of its columns removed would fail?
The steel was heated past 500 degrees.
But,for steel to melt it has to be heated to the melting point.I may be mistaken but I believe I read on a site a while back that the heat from the fire was about 18-2000 degrees.
The steel members had to be heated to 2300 in order to cause the collapse.
Originally posted by Disclosed
So you are stating that a professional fireman, who works every day with the same type of equipment the fireman at 911 use, doesnt make him knowledgable about policies regarding how fireman work?
Also, have you found information regarding the actual size comparison between the Empire State Building, and the WTC towers? I want to make sure you understand that the two buildings were more similar in size than had been discussed earlier. Just want to make sure everyone had the proper information provided...
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Damocles
so by simple comparison, take two buildings, identical would be ideal, and light one on fire, slam a jet into the other then light it on fire. (in the same manner as the first) which should in theory suffer more damage?
But if the building hit by the jet has a fire that only burns for an hour and the other building has a fire that lasted over 12 hours wouldn't the building with the 12 hour fire have just as much or more damage then the building with the jet hitting it?
Originally posted by Disclosed I think Six has more than answered the OP's questions, with real life and professional experience. It would be hard pressed to find someone else with that kind of experience...
Just becasue Six has some experience as a firemen does not make him an expert in what happened to the buidlings that day.
I also have a lot professional experience, over 25 years combined military and government service.
[edit on 13-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As far as the difference between the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center please see Wikipedia for square footage.
Empire State Building Floor area 2 million square feet
World Trade Center Floor area 8 million square feet.
Still want to stick to your post about the buildings being close to the same size?
The building is 1,453 feet, 8 9/16 inches or 443.2 meters to the top of the lightning rod.
Area of Site: 79,288 square feet (7,240 meters) or about two acres. East to west, 424 feet (129 meters), north to south, 187 feet (56.9 meters.)
Foundation: 55 feet (16.7 meters) below ground
Basement: 35 feet (10.6 meters) below ground
Lobby: 47 feet (14.3 meters) above sea level
Originally posted by totallyhuman
Actually,I was answering a post by Haroki.The very first partof the post you have highlighted is theirs,not mine.
Originally posted by totallyhuman
Sorry,but I am not a mathmetician.I am just your average experienced firefighter who has worked with C4,dynomite to blast stone and buildings for new public projects.I am just giving my point of view and not trying to make anybody wrong or right.I am sure your experience with this stuff is extensive and my hat's off to you for it.I am just here to give my observations and my research on different things.That's all.
Originally posted by totallyhuman
No.The proof of controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings are the explosions the FDNY firefighters heard while they were inside.Go to Firehouse.com and you can find the video of them telling this under the 9/11 link.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As far as the difference between the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center please see Wikipedia for square footage.
Empire State Building Floor area 2 million square feet
World Trade Center Floor area 8 million square feet.
Originally posted by Damocles
but as to being on topic for a change. IF the fuel burned off within minutes as NIST states, and since thats ONE area that most with an "alternative theory" will agree to, does it matter if the fuel did in fact make the fires cooler...wouldnt the "cooler" period only have been that few minutes?