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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 40
10
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
But didnt you state earlier that fires were the primary cause of the collapse?


I quoted reports that stated the fires were the main casue of the collapse not the plane impacts.

But the facts and evidence also show the fires were buring out before the collapse and the reports all state that the fires did not get hot enough to melt steel.

So that still leaves the question as to what the heat sorce was that caused the molten steel and kept it molten.




posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Their were temps over 1600 degrees up to 6 weks after the towers collapsed, no fires would have burned that long and hot not getting oxygen through the tons of debis.


That temperature >1600F is in the ballpark with the FEMA study of a piece of eroded steel from the debris field of towers 1 & 2 which had evidence of exposure to a heat of



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
But again I'd ask, what's the conspiracy in a fire burning in the remains of a large building that collapsed with active fires inside it?


No, i am talking about the readings from NASA and the video of the fire chief stating 6 weeks later that the debris was still hotter then 1600 degrees.

A normal fire would not have burned that long and that hot.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
But again I'd ask, what's the conspiracy in a fire burning in the remains of a large building that collapsed with active fires inside it?


No, i am talking about the readings from NASA and the video of the fire chief stating 6 weeks later that the debris was still hotter then 1600 degrees.

A normal fire would not have burned that long and that hot.



Please describe in detail a "normal" fire.
How hot does a "normal" fire burn?
How long does a "normal" fire burn?

What is different between this fire and a "normal" fire?
Why can't a fire burn underground for six weeks?
How long can an underground fire burn?



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What is different between this fire and a "normal" fire?


Very simple.

A normal fire is like the office fire in the towers. The fire that was not hot enough to melt steel and that was burning out before the collapse.

The fire in the debris burned hotter then a normal office fire would have under the debris and not getting oxygen.



[edit on 4-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
What is different between this fire and a "normal" fire?


Very simple.

A normal fire is like the office fire in the towers. The fire that was not hot enough to melt steel and that was burning out before the collapse.

The fire in the debris burned hotter then a normal office fire would have under the debris and not getting oxygen.



[edit on 4-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Well although you didn't answer my questions, here's another-
How do you know that the fires under the debris were not getting enough oxygen?



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
How do you know that the fires under the debris were not getting enough oxygen?


Becasue a normal fire would not burn hot enough and last that long being under tons of debis with mostly steel and concrete dust to burn to melt steel and keep it molten.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
How do you know that the fires under the debris were not getting enough oxygen?


Becasue a normal fire would not burn hot enough and last that long being under tons of debis with mostly steel and concrete dust to burn to melt steel and keep it molten.


Well we know that underground fires can burn for a very long time and there was quite a lot of combustable material in the WTC's so why couldn't that cumbustable material keep an underground fire going?



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well we know that underground fires can burn for a very long time and there was quite a lot of combustable material in the WTC's so why couldn't that cumbustable material keep an underground fire going?


Underground fires only burn for a long time of there is oxygen and plenty of combustables. Most of the combustables in the towers (like furniture)would have been burned up in the first hours, they would not have lasted 6 weeks.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Well we know that underground fires can burn for a very long time and there was quite a lot of combustable material in the WTC's so why couldn't that cumbustable material keep an underground fire going?


Underground fires only burn for a long time of there is oxygen and plenty of combustables. Most of the combustables in the towers (like furniture)would have been burned up in the first hours, they would not have lasted 6 weeks.



Again you're making assumptions. Do you actually KNOW that there was nothing fueling the underground fires.

Also, just because the fires were underground,doesn't mean they didn't have plenty of oxygen. Underground fires can burn a lot longer then 6 weeks.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Also, just because the fires were underground,doesn't mean they didn't have plenty of oxygen. Underground fires can burn a lot longer then 6 weeks.


Not to mention the Subway tunnels beneath the towers. That could also have been a source of oxygen to feed a combustion type fire.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Disclosed
 


Sounds like an ideal situation for a fire doesn't it.
A huge porous pile with compacted flammable material in a jumble of heavy steel preventing it further collapsing in on itself as the fuel was consumed and draft fed from below. That draft would only get better over time as material burnt to ash opened more and more pathways for the air to pass through it.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Again you're making assumptions. Do you actually KNOW that there was nothing fueling the underground fires.


Well don't most of the reports state that the fires in the towers consumend a lot the furniture and carpeting?

So what was left to burn in the debris that would make a fire hot enough to melt steel and keep it molten for 6 weeks?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Not to mention the Subway tunnels beneath the towers. That could also have been a source of oxygen to feed a combustion type fire.


So show me a map of the subway tunnels in relation to where the debris piles were.

Were the subway tunnels roof damaged to get air up into the debris area ?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well don't most of the reports state that the fires in the towers consumend a lot the furniture and carpeting?

So what was left to burn in the debris that would make a fire hot enough to melt steel and keep it molten for 6 weeks?


What about the other, oh, 80 floors of carpeting/furnature/paper that werent part of the impact zone?

Unless you believe the building was burning from floors 1-100+



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Here are your maps:

www.drjudywood.com...

www.drjudywood.com...

Those tunnels could easily provide air to a combustion fire. Especially since there was a subway stup on the subfloors of the WTC complex.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Again you're making assumptions. Do you actually KNOW that there was nothing fueling the underground fires.


Well don't most of the reports state that the fires in the towers consumend a lot the furniture and carpeting?

So what was left to burn in the debris that would make a fire hot enough to melt steel and keep it molten for 6 weeks?



Well were there fires on every floor? How many total floors were there in the buildings? There must have been tons and tons of flammable debris left after collapse.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Fires can burn underground indefinitely if there is enough combustible material. As example, the Centralia, Penn. underground coal fires have been burning since 1962.

That's a 46 year old underground fire!
It didn't even have subway tunnels feeding oxygen into it.

www.offroaders.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
As example, the Centralia, Penn. underground coal fires have been burning since 1962.


Yes that is a coal fire.

Are you stating that there was coal at ground zero that kept the fire burning, because there was not much other combusiables to burn.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
As example, the Centralia, Penn. underground coal fires have been burning since 1962.


Yes that is a coal fire.

Are you stating that there was coal at ground zero that kept the fire burning,

Since I didn't state that, I would have to say NO. As previously stated, I used that as example that underground fires could burn a very long time.


because there was not much other combusiables to burn.

Prove it. Please account for all burned and non-burned combustibles and post the total weight for both so we know your statement is accurate.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join