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.

 

Undebunkable 911 Truths - Official Story Destroyed (again)

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Plus, products of combustion were escaping as evidenced by the smoke exiting the building.


The smoke also contained the same fumes and gases you need to collect for a flashover.


More of the hole was used for the inflow of oxygen than the exiting of gases. The set up was just right for it to be a very hot fire.


All I'm seeing is a lot of handwaving. I'm not even going to respond anymore after this unless you bring something new to the table and stop repeating the same nonsense in different words. You can't just pump a lot of air into some place and not expect an equal amount of gases to leave there. Air pressure would build up and you would no longer be able to move a current of less dense air through there. If you have a lot of air going in, you have a lot of air (and heat) coming out.

You would like to think that the WTC fires were intense as all, and you imagine everything happening in that building to support that premise. You don't offer anything to support what you're saying but your own biased opinion, and anyone unfamiliar with the subject that happens to have two eyes and a brain would most likely tell you that the Windsor Tower suffered a fire that was obviously much more intense, regardless of the building itself being constructed differently.

If you want to talk about mushrooming, look at the Windsor Tower fire. If you want to talk about a lot of air being accessible to the fire, look at the Windsor Tower's fire. When it comes to the WTC you are just catering to your imagination.



six

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



The smoke also contained the same fumes and gases you need to collect for a flashover.



en.wikipedia.org...

You can flash even if the products of combustion are escaping. You have any experience? You can state unequivically that flashover did not happen? You recognize the signs? Show me it didnt happen. You even been up close to a flashover? Been there, done that, have the T-shirt, collectable spoon, and snow globe. Wanna trade stories?


but your own biased opinion


And your opinion is not?


If you want to talk about mushrooming, look at the Windsor Tower fire.


There was no place for mushrooming to take place. The fire had already vented itself. For mushrooming to take place there has to be some enclosure. You obviously dont understand the concept. I had already tried to explain to you, but as usual, you dont want to listen because someone disagrees and you know better.


happens to have two eyes and a brain would most likely tell you that the Windsor Tower suffered a fire that was obviously much more intense, regardless of the building itself being constructed differently.


Yes. Just what I would expect someone, such as yourself, with no fire experience to say. Spectacular yes, more intense, no. Key words there...most likely.

Thats fine, you can get all pissy if you want too. Take your toys and go play somewhere else if you want too. I thought we were having a good genuine discussion. I am sorry that you feel that way. I have alway respected what you have had to say in the past. I have even learned from what you have had to say. I am telling you what I see from my professional point of view. I am glad that you have soooo much more fire experience than I to tell me that I am wrong in what I see. Kinda like me trying to grade you on your math.....











[edit on 5-12-2008 by six]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



The First Interstate Bank also suffered intense fire, longer than either of the towers did, fully involved in places, but it was repaired and is still standing today. And it's steel only. And it uses exterior columns, and then has a core structure in the center, just like the WTC Towers. It didn't need concrete columns. Drawing black-and-white conclusions like that isn't logical.


Big difference between the WTC and FIB, the floors were not supported by light steel trusses, but steel I-beams. Thats #1. In fact they mention the steel truss behavior here too:
www.firesafeconstruction.org...

Also a little more info on steel in fires here:
www.aisc.org...



So what? It's going to break off on all connections simultaneously and fall down like a pancake onto the next floor? Because you know NIST says in their own report that that scenario is highly unlikely. They even said in one of their FAQs that they don't support "pancake theory," that their hypothesis has nothing to do with that.

NIST's hypothesis is the trusses expanding from being heated, pushing the perimeter columns outward, and then sagging, pulling them inward, and then enough perimeter columns buckled a significant enough amount to cause everything to start moving. That's when they stop, no more analysis.

So, when the floors fail, what happens to them? Do they magically stay floating in mid air? No they fall. And when one drops onto another, what is that called? Pancaking. This would explain why firefighters and clean up crews discovered entire sections of about 4-5 floors pancaked together and fused in a small pile. True, floor pancaking may have not been the trigger to collapse, but the floors sure as hell did pancake onto each other once the collapse started.



The planes didn't weigh that much compared to how much weight was being supported by each floor already, and they are actually built with redundancy.

Damaged trusses aren't redistributing loads anywhere except their own dead weight where they lie. The damaged and the destroyed columns were still greatly outnumbered by the intact ones, which again were built redundant and to be able to take additional loading.


The floor trusses are what gave the building the strength to stay up. If you only had the core alone or the xterior alone, no way it would have survived. The floor trusses are what gae the building the strength. If they fail, its only a matter of time.



The entire truss itself is a heat sink, and the columns, concrete slabs, and surrounding air all absorb heat that might otherwise go to the trusses as well.

But are you aware of the connections of oth ends of the truss? The area connecting the floor truss to the columns was way too small to have any effect on heatsinking.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So, when the floors fail, what happens to them? Do they magically stay floating in mid air? No they fall.


First of all what does "fail" mean? A permanent deformation is a "failure." That's what happens to steel: it warps, buckles, deforms. At the ultimate strength, it breaks. Nowhere is it shown that all of the truss connections would have been ripped apart at the exact same instant so all the trusses could just start coming down perfectly symmetrically like that. Like I said, even NIST says this is highly unlikely. Take their word for what it's worth. It's how they did their whole "investigation," not even analyzing the entire collapses.


And when one drops onto another, what is that called? Pancaking.


You mean the same kind NIST, a government agency, says it doesn't support? Because if the floors have already fallen, they can't still sag and pull on the exterior columns to hypothetically fail the entire exterior structure. So you would have floors shearing but four big walls of exterior columns standing around behind them until they become unstable (which NIST modeled to require at least 5 floors worth of gutted trusses before the columns become significantly unstable). This theory contradicts what you can actually see when the towers come down.

As far as the global collapse theory NIST did offer, they never analyzed the global collapses.


This would explain why firefighters and clean up crews discovered entire sections of about 4-5 floors pancaked together and fused in a small pile.


You have the sources on this? Unless this is the "meteorite" (steel and concrete that was melted together) then this is news to me.


If you only had the core alone or the xterior alone, no way it would have survived.


Somewhere on NIST's website they have a .pdf of preliminary modeling they did on the towers, and they found you could remove at least 5 entire floors worth of trusses and nothing catastrophic would result. I'm not going to bust my butt trying to find it again, so if you don't believe me that's ok.


But are you aware of the connections of oth ends of the truss? The area connecting the floor truss to the columns was way too small to have any effect on heatsinking.


I know, but the trusses weren't puny, and the fires still heated perimeter and core columns, and concrete, and air, smoke, and all that.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
You can flash even if the products of combustion are escaping.


I never said you couldn't, but you're still losing fuel for it and therefore potential energy.


You have any experience?


Fighting fires? No. Thinking for myself? Yes. I never said a flashover couldn't happen but it seems like you were just waiting on somewhere to run with about your experience, so I wonder if it's out of your system. I know firefighters, I know they teach firefighters about fires, but I know what they teach them doesn't fly in the face of thermodynamics, which I have a much better intuitive grasp of than fighting fires.

I know heat essentially moves like a fluid in the air, because as such it's a property of a fluid, that fire is a chemical reaction that needs a specific ratio of fuel to air, that the surrounding air temperature plays into the equation. I realize that the heat has to travel through the air, from the fire, to the steel, and that while it's in the air, not only does it lose energy but a significant portion of that energy isn't going to make it directly to the steel. And then even when it does, the heat immediately begins expanding through the rest steel. What you are ultimately looking for is very, very hot steel, so hot that it's expanded significantly enough to cause serious buckling. It has never seemed realistic to me that so much steel so be consistently to such a high temperature in the given circumstances from this perspective, and more importantly, NIST never offered any details at all on how much deformation we are looking for ultimately or how much force a sagging truss could exert to pull a perimeter column inward despite its bolts and spandrel plates. Pretty much they never tested their hypothesis to even see if it was valid in the first place.


Kinda like me trying to grade you on your math.....


You can if you want. It's not like I don't screw up. If I can't defend myself, so be it.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics
 
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join