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 Pilgrum
I saw nothing like napalm in the WTC strikes and why would any additional incendiary devices be needed when you're delivering 10000 gallons of kerosene at 500mph?
...I saw nothing like napalm in the WTC strikes...
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Too bad a large quanity of the fuel was burned off in the intail explosion OUTSIDE the building, and what was left burned off in a few minutes.
So you basically had a normal office fire, not hot enough to cause all the molten metal and steel found.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
It's been proven that office fires can achieve temperatures approaching in excess of 1000C
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.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
I don't know why windload even gets a mention as 9/11 was a very calm day weatherwise and it wouldn't amount to even 10% (probably less than 5%) of the design rating.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Now you are beginning to see the facts. Because even the plane impacts and the fires would not have much effect on the building due to the design of the building to take a high windload.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have never stated anything about napalm, so why are you asking me?
Originally posted by Pilgrum
In short: no visible characteristics of napalm recorded, no logical reason to use napalm and it wouldn't have made any difference anyway.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
How much strength does steel lose at 1000C which is some 50% hotter than the 650C mentioned in your quote?
Originally posted by JDN24
Did a search, nothing came up so here it is - Napalm
Napalm2
Interesting, never came across these pictures before.. What do you guys think? Anything is possible, the Napalm could explain why the buildings melted so quickly..also check link 1, and scroll down untill you get to the mysterious white jet "controlling drone aircraft" ... Interesting read.
Well thats all for now..
Originally posted by alienstar
Napalm been banned like 30 years.Napalm-Bombs are against the international law and are banned by the Geneva-Conventions.You would have better luck seeing a purple elf then napalm.