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: 63
10
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Was the fire fueled by tons of jet fuel? Do you have measurements of the intensity of the fire in 1975?


1. Please get back to me after you read all the reports that state most of the jet fuel burned off in the intial explosion so there were no tons of jet fuel fueling the fire, it only started the fire, what was left after the initial explosion burned of quickly.

2. Gee, i guess i have to do all the research for you guys since you are so scared of finding facts that show your so called official story wrong.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the North Tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned. Fire Department Captain Harold Kull described the three-hour effort to extinguish it as “like fighting a blowtorch.” [WTC Environmental Assessment Working Group, 9/2002, pp. 10 ; New York Times, 5/8/2003; Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 213, 214, 324; Kuligowski, Evans, and Peacock, 9/2005, pp. 1] An article in Fire Engineering magazine will later summarize, “[A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.”



911research.wtc7.net...

Seldom mentioned in the literature about the September 11th attack is the fact that the North Tower experienced a serious fire in 1975, when it was only sparsely occupied. On February 13, 1975, a fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor and spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours. Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing. 1

The fire, which broke out just before midnight, did not kill anyone but forced the evacuation of fifty people, consisting mostly of maintenance staff. The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch." One hundred thirty-two firefighters fought the fire, which burned primarily on the 11th floor. Sixteen men were treated for smoke inhalation. The New York Times reported that "flames could be seen pouring out of the 11th-floor windows" on the tower's east side, but described damage to the tower's core as "apparently confined to electrical wiring." 2 The fire spread to portions of the core beyond the 11th floor via telephone cables in a cable shaft.







[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Please get back to me after you read all the reports that state most of the jet fuel burned off in the intial explosion so there were no tons of jet fuel fueling the fire, it only started the fire, what was left after the initial explosion burned of quickly.


Right so the fire was fueled by jet fuel. And what measurements are provided for the heat of the 1975 fire. I didn't see anything that actually answered the question. And were the columns under a heavier load for some reason in 1975 then their "normal" or designed load? You neglected that bit as well...



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Right so the fire was fueled by jet fuel.


NO, please read my post.

THE FIRE WAS STARTED BY JET FUEL, NOT FUELED, SINCE THE FUEL BURNED OFF QUICKLY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'm sorry, did the jet fuel not burn? I'm having a problem deciphering your comment.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm sorry, did the jet fuel not burn? I'm having a problem deciphering your comment.


Let me make this as simple as a i can since you seem to have such a hard time and cannot do the research and read it from several reports.

MOST OF THE JET FUEL BURNED OFF IN THE INITIAL EXPLOSION. (NOT MUCH FUEL TO BURN IN THE FIRE)

WHAT WAS LEFT BURNED OFF QUICKLY. (NOT MUCH FUEL TO BURN IN THE FIRE)

ALL THAT WAS LEFT WAS A NORMAL OFFICE FIRE, SINCE THE JET FUEL WAS BURNED OFF AND WAS NOT FUELING THE FIRE.



[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Fuel -- ammunition, sustenance, impetus, stimulus.

To burn is to consume, wholly or in part, by contact with fire or excessive heat.


How did this jet fuel magically burn without burning in the fire?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Actually, a majority of the fuel did not burn off during the initial explosion. This has been discussed previously in MANY threads and proven wrong. Even the official reports show a percentage burning off in the initial explosion, but clearly not a majority.

I can post the links again, but clearly ULTIMA1 is posting dis-information by stating it burned off a majority of the fuel.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
How did this jet fuel magically burn without burning in the fire?


Last post on this.

Most of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion. what was left burned off quickly.

SO THE JET FUEL DID NOT CASUE THE FIRE IN THE TOWERS TO GET ANY HOTTER THEN A NORMAL OFFICE FIRE.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
I can post the links again, but clearly ULTIMA1 is posting dis-information by stating it burned off a majority of the fuel.


I have and can post many links that state a large majority (most)of the fuel was burned off in the initial explosion and what was left burned off quickly.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
How did this jet fuel magically burn without burning in the fire?


Last post on this.

Most of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion. what was left burned off quickly.

SO THE JET FUEL DID NOT CASUE THE FIRE IN THE TOWERS TO GET ANY HOTTER THEN A NORMAL OFFICE FIRE.


How much was burnt off in the initial explosion? How much was left? When you're done tying yourself in circles, we can go back to the 1975 fire if you'd like, as you didn't answer all the questions there either...



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
How much was burnt off in the initial explosion? How much was left? When you're done tying yourself in circles, we can go back to the 1975 fire if you'd like, as you didn't answer all the questions there either...


I posted several links about the 1975 fire, but then we all know you would not read them since they disagree with what you believe.

Well i am still waiting for you to post any evidence to debate what i have posted about the jet fuel and the 1975 fire. But then again we all know you wont.

If you cannot understand whats posted you are beyond my help.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I'm still waiting to hear about how the jet fuel burnt but without producing heat. And the apparent rest of it that burnt without burning.
Why are you comparing a fire in 1975 that damaged roughly a fifth of a floor with fires that damaged the structure of building on 5 or 7 floors depending on which tower we use? Don't you think that's disingenuous? If the smaller fire caused some damage, don't you think the much larger event might cause even more damage?



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm still waiting to hear about how the jet fuel burnt but without producing heat.

Why are you comparing a fire in 1975 that damaged roughly a fifth of a floor with fires that damaged the structure of building on 5 or 7 floors depending on which tower we use?


1. The jet fuel was burned up in the fire few minutes, not causing the fire to get that much hotter then a normal office fire, according to most reports. But you would know that if you did any reserch.

2. Lets look at the facts.

The 1975 fire burned for 3 hours causing very minor damage.

The 9/11 fires burned for less then hour and we are supposed to beleive it casused so much damage as to cause the towers to collapse.



[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm still waiting to hear about how the jet fuel burnt but without producing heat.

Why are you comparing a fire in 1975 that damaged roughly a fifth of a floor with fires that damaged the structure of building on 5 or 7 floors depending on which tower we use?


1. The jet fuel was burned up in the fire few minutes, not causing the fire to get that much hotter then a normal office fire, according to most reports. But you would know that if you did any reserch.


There are several conflicting stories, and you cherry pick your information when you reserch[sic]. Even in your version the resulting fire likely results in a larger area covered in flames than in 1975. According to NIST 3000 gallons are consumed in a fire ball. The remaining 7000 or so gallons spread throughout the damaged area. Fuel is consumed in approximately 10 minutes. If you can't see how this raises the amount of heat in the building, you are dimmer than supposed.



2. Lets look at the facts.

The 1975 fire burned for 3 hours causing very minor damage.

The 9/11 fires burned for less then hour and we are supposed to beleive it casused so much damage as to cause the towers to collapse.


You think a fire covering a fifth of one floor is equivalent to a plane damaging 5 or 7 floors resulting in larger fires and adding stress to the building? We are supposed to beleive[sic] that casused[sic] less damage?


[edit on 3-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Fuel is consumed in approximately 10 minutes. If you can't see how this raises the amount of heat in the building, you are dimmer than supposed.

You think a fire covering a fifth of one floor is equivalent to a plane damaging 5 or 7 floors resulting in larger fires and adding stress to the building?


1. So you agree that the jet fuel was burned up in the first 10 minutes. That would not have raised the heat of the fire that much according to most of the reports. Not enough to melt steel and casue the molten steel found in the basements and debris..

2. You really should read the facts about the 1975 fire. It was on more the just a fifth of 1 floor.


spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours.


In case you cannot count 6 floors is more then a fifth of 1 floor as you kepp stating.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Fuel is consumed in approximately 10 minutes. If you can't see how this raises the amount of heat in the building, you are dimmer than supposed.

You think a fire covering a fifth of one floor is equivalent to a plane damaging 5 or 7 floors resulting in larger fires and adding stress to the building?


1. So you agree that the jet fuel was burned up in the first 10 minutes. That would not have raised the heat of the fire that much according to most of the reports. Not enough to melt steel and casue the molten steel found in the basements and debris..

2. You really should read the facts about the 1975 fire. It was on more the just a fifth of 1 floor.


spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours.


In case you cannot count 6 floors is more then a fifth of 1 floor as you kepp stating.


If the primary fire is only a fifth of a floor and other floors have "limited" portions of fire damage how does this compare to a huge fireball of combustable liquid spread through a building with previous (or concurrent) structural damage to 5 or 7 floors?
Your only defining words are things like "most" (which apparently never means 50% as shown in this thread), "much" and "more" without clarity. When challenged you change the subject. I'm glad we now agree that most of the jet fuel fed the fire inside the buildings and that the temperature was hot enough to heat the structure higher than the 500degrees necessary to weaken steal.
I'm glad we're finding so much common ground...



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
If the primary fire is only a fifth of a floor and other floors have "limited" portions of fire damage how does this compare to a huge fireball of combustable liquid spread through a building with previous (or concurrent) structural damage to 5 or 7 floors?..


Maybe you can explain how a fire burning for less the an hour can produce more heat then a fire burning for 3 hours?

Even the NIST computer model states the fires did not cause enough damage to casue the collapse.

Oh in case you forgot the buidlings survived the plane impacts according to all reports and the NIST computer model.



[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Maybe you can explain how a fire burning for less the an hour can produce more heat then a fire burning for 3 hours?

Even the NIST computer model states the fires did not cause enough damage to casue the collapse.

Oh in case you forgot the buidlings survived the plane impacts according to all reports and the NIST computer model.


If you really can't figure out the first one, I doubt I can explain it to you sufficiently for your comprehension. The amount and type of fuel for a fire is more important than the length of burning. You may as well say, explain why the fire in the fireplace raised the temperature in the house when it was only lit for an hour, while my lantern burned for three hours and the room barely heated. For the north tower, for example, the model states that 35 perimeter columns are severed and two damaged. According to the model 3 core columns are severed and ten more are damaged. That reduces the buildings strength by roughly 15% according to the NIST. This damage was not present in 1975. Steel only needs to reach 500° to lose substantial strength. The jet fuel was not the only thing flammable in the building(s). NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. The combined effect of structural damage and weakened/heated steel caused the collapse according to the NIST. Please show me evidence that this did not happen.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
The combined effect of structural damage and weakened/heated steel caused the collapse according to the NIST. Please show me evidence that this did not happen.


I can show you all day but you will not accept it becasue you are living in a fantasy world and cannot accept reallity that the official story might be wrong.

wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.


[edit on 3-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
You wouldn't be cherry picking from a preliminary report from June of 2004 when the final report is available would you? Because that would be dishonest, wouldn't you agree?

From the final report over a year later:


Seven major factors led to the collapse of WTC 1:

Structural damage from aircraft impact;

Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior that ignited widespread fires over several floors;

Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact that enabled rapid heating of the unprotected structural steel;

Open paths for fire spread resulting from the open plan of the impact floors and the breaking of partition walls by impact debris;

Weakened core columns that increased the load on the perimeter walls;

Sagging of the south floors that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns; and

Bowed south perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads.


After the building withstood the initial aircraft damage, the timing of the collapse was largely determined by the time it took for the fires to weaken the core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the columns and floor assemblies there.


wtc.nist.gov...


Really, it'd be laughable that you'd use an incomplete report when a complete one is available if it wasn't so stomach churning. **SNIP** The only reason you use that report is so that you can cherry pick the data to make it seem like the final report was inconclusive. **SNIP**

_________________________________________________________________________

Mode Note:
Civility and Decorum are Required:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4-5-2008 by NGC2736]




top topics



 
10
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join