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.

 

26-strory bldg engulfed in flames - no collapse

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Those steel columns probably were a few inches thick, so even if the plane had 10 times the fuel, how could it account for melting the steel columns? I didn't see a raging fire after it collided with the building, just the huge fireball (loads of fuel 'wasted').

Dark smoke is said to be an oxygen starved fire which means lower temperatures. Nothing like the raging fire we see in the 26 story building. How could people stand next to the big gap in the building, if the kerosene would cause such a great fire?





posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Not all fires are created equal either.
sorry for the short post.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Yeah, i pretty much think we PWNED this argument.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Basic physics again, if you have a 100-foot lever you can lift more then with a 10-foot lever because the extra distance amplifies the force of your weight.


Are you saying that the engineers of the towers didn't know what moment and torque were? In the 1960's? I'd like you to say that to Leslie Robertson's face and see if you get a reaction like Seymour Butz' avatar.

[edit on 1/22/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

No, the collapse occurred because of major weakening at one point on the building, which allowed the weight of the floors above it to come smashing down on the floor below all at once. Thus causing a chain reaction as each floor was hit by the weight of all the floors above it.


Right. And this happened three times in one day even though it's never happened before or since.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Ya- The WTC buildings were poorly equipped right? Really?

WTC 7 did not have nearly as much damage from pieces of the other towers as other surrounding buildings did. Not even going to find pics for you there are plenty on this site.

This is not a bad post at all, as a matter of fact the OP is clearly a relevant in the case of the WTC collapses.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by jmilla]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
We should compare this steel structure to the twin towers. This building was not complete and still it did not bend like the towers, or WTC 7. The concrete poured between the steel is also made of water. This water would have to evaporate before the concrete then steel could begin the process of burning, but I doubt if the fire would have had enough energy by then because of the black smoke pouring out of both buildings. Each tower contained massive amounts of equipment that had to also catch on fire and burn completely before the steel was reached. There is no accurate time frame given by the 9/11 commission to determine what time these materials can burn.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join