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
Please post the statement that says it was a combination of impact and fire that caused the collapse.
"The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building."
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i will keep on posting statments to the fact that it was not a combination of impact and fire that caused the collapse. Lets see how much i can post that prove that it was not a combination.
This is usually a one sided debate anyway, since no one ealse wants to post information when asked.
To enter the debate as to whether the plane crashes or the resultant fires caused the collapse of World Trade Center Towers I and 2, I would like to weigh in on the side of the fires. These buildings were designed to take the impacts of large plane crashes, and I doubt whether either building would have collapsed and whether multitudes of people would have been trapped above the crash floors except for the fire, smoke and heat. Apparently the effects of the inevitable explosion and fire after the simulated plane crashes were not considered in the design of the building. The point is; these buildings didnt immediately collapse, they took almost an hour for Tower 2 and well over an hour for Tower 1 the North Tower to collapse. According to Ronald Hamburger a structural engineer investigating the disaster, We have reason to believe that, without the fire, the buildings could have stood indefinitely and been repaired. The fire caused most of the life loss and building damage and the buildings were evidently deficient in fire protection.
Originally posted by Disclosed
"The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building."
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Gee and eveyone bitches at me for not posting from actual reports.
How about you post from a report then a summary.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
tezza...200 pounds of fuel is about 3 gallons.....
weedwhacker
The continued distraction and misstatements, by the so-called 'truthers', is the real problem. Instead of learning, they follow, like lemmings......
Following the aircraft impact into the building, the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. This return to a stable condition is suggested by the preliminary analysis and also evidenced by the fact tha the structure remained standing for 1 hour and 43 minutes following the impact.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes lets look at what the FEMA report states about the aircraft impacts shall we.
Please see page 21, Chapter 2 of the FEMA report to see the following statment that the buidling withstood the plane impact SO NO COMBINATION.
Following the aircraft impact into the building, the structure was able to successfully redistribute the building weight to the remaining elements and to maintain a stable condition. This return to a stable condition is suggested by the preliminary analysis and also evidenced by the fact tha the structure remained standing for 1 hour and 43 minutes following the impact.
Originally posted by _Del_
Excellent. I'd prefer a link, but atleast you're trying. Now, explain how that quote means the aircraft impact had no contributing effect on the collapse. In your own words please.
when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising.
Originally posted by Disclosed
Did I say the aircraft impact alone brought down the buildings? Think hard, ULTIMA1....I know it's tough to do.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Basically from what i have been reading from several different sources is that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts without much of a problem and would have kept standing if something else major would not have happened like a fire, thermite reactions, or explosions that would have taken out more supports.
So basically its hard to see how a combination of impact and fire would have caused the collapse since most sources say the buidlings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You state that it was s combinations that brought down the buildings. Only problem is most reports state that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.
So that means that only the fire brought down the buildings since they withstood the plane impacts according to most reports.
Originally posted by _Del_
You see no link here between a the two events?
Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm curious why you always leave that part out?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i am going by sourcves that support the fact that there was no link between the 2 events since several sources agree the buidlings withstood the planes impacts.