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.

 

Until 911 - Fire has never collapsed a skyscraper

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Dramey
 





but you're telling me a fire that a fireman on the scene at the wtc said 2 lines could knock down, caused the building to collapse


A favorite of the conspiracy loons.....

1) The firemen (Battalion CFhief Orio Palmer) only got as far as the 78th
floor sky lobby. The bulk of the fires were on the floors ABOVE them
on the floors 80 to 84.

2) 78th floor is a skylobby - floor were people changed elevators from
express to elevators stopping on each floor. As a skylobby there
were only few offices with combustible furniture, carpets and paper
Most of floor was built of non combustible marble and tile

3) Floor was on the lowest point of impact zone - wingtip of plane raked
through floor. Most of the impact damage and jet fuel were ABOVE
this floor - as were the fires




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Why do you guys insist on continuing to call people names?

seriously.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Psycontagious
 


Not cheaply. Cheaper. Corners can be cut without a building blowing over in the wind.


Watcher, can you provide a link to the fact that the buildings had "corners cut"?

The only thing that I have read that could possibly be what you are referring to is that the asbestos was applied only 3/4 of the way up the building.

Please, if you don't mind (I ask because you seem to accept the "no assistance" theory) can you explain how you feel the steel was compromised in equal application across the various buildings and why you believe that?

Also, as I do know you from other threads I will ask you before someone else...In regards to the two towers, do you find it at least slightly unusual that they fell in almost identical fashion?

They are two different equations. Each building had variants in construction, in the location of impact, in the amount of jet fuel remaining, duration of the fire, interior design of the building, etc. and yet both towers and WTC7 fell in an almost identical (I hate this word) "pancake" collapse.

To argue that all is "normal" in this scenario is to argue that with two entirely different sets of variants and only one constant where the constant is the structural design itself will produce an equal reaction. While not impossible, that is fantastic and defies the chance of any exponential sensitivities.

That's just amazing to me.

Add to that WTC7 which you say had "debris" fall upon it, again, more and more wonderously odd that given an additional variable to the equation it is able to produce the same effect.

I have so many questions on this subject matter that I cannot even imagine calling for a verdict.

Again, will you be kind enough to supply the links? I love problem solving, especially when math and physics are involved.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 

Yes they were. They had not to long ago taken off.



Watcher,
Your information is false, The planes that hit 1 & 2 were not full of fuel, far from it in fact. I am not suggesting that you intentionally post misleading data, perhaps your research was flawed, so please allow me to explain;

A boeing 767-222 has a design fuel capacity of 24,000 gallons. In the popular imagination, the jet fuel was the biggest factor in bringing down the towers. News reports emphasized that the transcontinental flights were fully loaded with fuel. This was not so as airlines do not make a habit of carrying extra fuel as it is uneconomical. They put just enough for the flying time plus about 45 mins extra and a little extra for a safety contingency.

Later government reports stated that the 767s were carrying about 10,000 of their 24,000-gallon capacity, and that most of the jet fuel likely burned off within five minutes. Thus, the jet fuel primarily served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.

On WTC 2 especially, the aspect of the collision was such that the majority of the atomised fuel escaped and ignited on the outside of the building. Remember the big orange fireball OUTSIDE??

So you see the fuel tanks were less than half full on impact.

you can check it out here:

www.911review.com...

PEACE,
rk



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stinkhorn1
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


First of all, there are no other buildings in the world that are or have been designed and built the way the entire complex of buildings was built. Structurally they were not the strongest or best design. The were designed for spaciousness and a feeling of greater space. The outer walls were the support system. There were no steelbox girders like most buildings.

How fast were the planes traveling when they struck? Between 400 and 250 knots? Maybe faster? The floor that gave way was the one struck with the most damage, up above that were how many floors 13? So how much does each floor weight, concrete, pipes, wires, furniture, walls combined? Now add 13 + floors to the weight. If you look at the video, the top floors were leaning towards the direction of the impact right before collapse, this was reported by several helos in the area. Remember, we are talking about 10 million pounds above the damaged floor. Its not the steel beams that are the problem first off, its the bolts that hold them together.

Were those bolts the same grade as the steel beams or were they less? How many bolts would need to be compromised before the beams let loose? No one has ever mentioned the bolts, why is that?

Try dropping a 100 thousand pounds 1 inch from the ground and tell me the effects. Now try dropping that same weight 20ft onto the next 100 thousand pounds and onto the next and so on.

Why can't people believe that crazy muslims crashed planes into the twin towers? I think that idea is more truthful since they attacked the same damn buildings in 1993 and said they would be back again to finish the job.



240 perimiter box columns can clearly be seen in the blueprint of the 94/95th floor here

911research.wtc7.net...

All of the construction blueprints for WTC can be downloaded and reviewed here

911research.wtc7.net...

if you do not understand blueprints then you can watch them being installed on this promo video made during the construction:

www.ae911truth.org...

The jet impacts destroyed sections of perimeter wall columns on the faces of the towers they hit. Although the collisions left imprints that extended out to the wingtips of the jets, the ends of the wings destroyed only the aluminum cladding covering the perimeter columns, not the steel columns themselves. The South Tower's wall was damaged less than the North Tower's, since the columns at its impact zone were made of thicker steel.

According to FEMA's damage estimates, The North Tower impact destroyed from 31 to 36 of its perimeter columns, and the South Tower impact destroyed about 23 of its perimeter columns. Since each tower had 240 perimeter columns, the impacts destroyed only about 13 and 10 percent of the towers' perimeter columns, and only on a few floors.

www.911review.com...

There is no credible evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the jetliners, and considerable evidence to the contrary.

None of the passenger lists published by the airlines contained any of the alleged hijackers' names.
No airport video shows any of the alleged hijackers boarding the flights.
Several of the alleged hijackers turned up alive after the attack.
The hijacker scenario was operationally almost impossible.
None of the alleged hijackers were good pilots, and none had flown jet airplanes, let alone large jetliners. Yet they are supposed to have piloted jetliners into small targets. The maneuvers of the jet that targeted the Pentagon required top-gun piloting, if they were even humanly possible.

www.911review.com...

The world's media has reported that many of the so-called hijackers "fingered" by the FBI are still alive. For example as soon as 21st September 2001 the BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation) carried this report:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Since then other so called hijackers have come forward in their own countries to plead their innocence.

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive:

Satam al Suqami, Wail and Waleed al Shehri (two brothers) Both Alive , Abdul Aziz al Omari Alive , Fayez Banihammad (from the UAE), Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri Alive , Saeed al Ghamdi Alive , Ahmad al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami Alive , Majed Moqed, and Salem al Hazmi Alive (the brother of Nawaf al Hazmi).

Hope this has answered some of your questions,

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


ESDAD,
I have been in one of the towers to the upper floors where the viewing gallery used to be, can not remember the exact floor, perhaps 109? it was back in January of 1980 and I can still remember the lateral movement due to the wind.

Having said that, this is natural for tall buildings, they are even designed to "sway." I have also experienced this atop of the post office tower in London and other tall structures, so please believe me when I say it is in no way an indication of poor build quality . Steel and concrete always flex in such circumstances. If they were totally stiff, there would be more likelyhood of the concrete and or steel cracking due to fatigue.

In steel, the property that allows it to deform without cracking is called "ductility" and in most structural/fabrication applications where "in service" stresses are present, it is a desired quality.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by wisdomnotemotion
 


Free oil? when and where did you get "free oil" I was paying $5 a gallon for something that was free somewhere else?
People here think this country is the land of the free, it's more like the land of the freeloaders.
Everybody wants everything for free.
People here run up hugh debts and then file chapter 7, or die and leave their debts behind.
We all need to cut up our creditcards, pay off the balances.
Then we'll know who the have and the havenots are.
Credit card companies holding payments till latefees ought to be burned to the ground and then pissed on.
Madoff/wife and sons should be on a road repair crew somewhere in NYC.
working for free.
Freeks like that child molester that had that girl for 18 years should be dropped into a volcano head first, saving that state money on his prison free room and board.
The U.S. is in trouble because of credit.
we might be called the United States of China if we don't do something right....and soon.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


I never said that this attributed to poor build quality. Sorry, again I was misunderstood I guess. I was trying to make a point that it is was a unique structure and it caused some people to get 'sick'. The design was unique. I do not think the tower of london does that
. Thanks for the quick lesson but I was I aware of the ability to allow for movement.

I was more interested in the viscoelastic dampers that were designed for the sway itself.



[edit on 21-9-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
reply to post by hooper
 


Please check the link to see at least 5 other skyscraper fires;

911research.wtc7.net...

The official party line is that fire caused catastrophic failure of the steel columns which had already been damaged by the airoplane impacts. I have already explained that design engineers vastly over designed these buildings for strength and to withstand such impacts. So this "damage" should not even be part of the equation.

Also WTC was not hit by any aircraft but still collapsed due to fire. How do you explain this when you compare it against the absolute Inferno that was the Beijing Mandarin Oriental?

All skyscrapers are reinforced with steel columns either intenally, externally or composite. so I think I can draw comparisons.

PEACE,
RK


Just my point- 5. Not exactly a database of experience. No two of the buildings constructed exactly alike and they all suffered damaged in different ways. I am sorry, but your personal explanations do not hold any water. All the buildings suffred different degress of damage because they are different. Simply creating commonalities (all had steel, all had concrete, etc). Does not mean by any stretch of the imagination, that you can look at the experience of one building and extrapolate that experience to other buildings just because your are able to semantically and not scientifically, link the buildings.

All engineers "over design" everything. But even that has its limits.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 





Why do you guys insist on continuing to call people names?

seriously.


Why?

Because they keep parroting the same old nonsense...

Who was it said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over expecting different result

Truthers seem to believe posting same crap over and over will change the
results

It has been explained repeatedly why the "2 small pockets of fire" is
not relevant. Some people just dont want to learn.....



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Who was it said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over expecting different result


I don't know, but I believe it was Einstein who said "It's a fine line between Insanity and Genius".


I hear he was considered a smart sort of chap.......



[edit on 21/9/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.


FALSE.

Hundreds upon hundreds of steel-framed buildings collapsed due to fire alone during the firebombings of cities in World War II, including Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo.

These are documented and preserved in museums in those cities as well as in photographs at the Imperial War Museum in London and preserved steel at the Edo Museum in Tokyo.

This subject has been beatened to death and settled years ago.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


While a lot of your information is mostly correct, it is laden with the same old already "debunked" stuff -- which seems to have been taken from the multitude of conspiracy sites out there, who haven't yet (or care not to) update their info.


There is no credible evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the jetliners, and considerable evidence to the contrary.


Wrong. This comes from the blaoney repeated below...


None of the passenger lists published by the airlines contained any of the alleged hijackers' names.


What has happened, repeatedly, is the CT'ers use the VICTIMS LIST of passengers and crew, provided by the airlines...and play that off as "SEE!! Missing the hijacker's names!!" That is not proof other than they left off the names of the criminals...they were not "victims".



No airport video shows any of the alleged hijackers boarding the flights.


Again...hyperbole, and misdirection via red herring. There IS video at the security checkpoints (X-Ray and magnetometers) of the Muslim hijackers...the fact that NO AIRLINE has cameras at the boarding gates is conveniently left out by the CT'ers...they make statements like this, and leave it just vague enough to leave the wrong impression in people's minds.



Several of the alleged hijackers turned up alive after the attack.


Already explained, countless times. It's like if a hijacker named "John Smith" commited the crime...then a lot of other John Smiths out there are sure to stand up and say "It's not me!!! See? I'm still alive!"

Of course, the CT'ers don't want people to realize that different Saudis and Arabs will often have the same names. OR, that they may use aliases.....



The hijacker scenario was operationally almost impossible.


Wrong



None of the alleged hijackers were good pilots...


Did you actually fly with any of them? They all had been licensed, and even some BAD pilots still get licenses...just like BAD drivers.


... and none had flown jet airplanes, let alone large jetliners.


**sigh**

Experience in a simulator is sufficient. Heck, I don't know if you're a pilot or not (would help if you were) but if not, I could teach YOU in just a few hours the basics to complete the tasks required that day, by the criminals.

Modern Level D simulators are VERY good. IN FACT, in a structured airline syllabus for pilots transitioning to a new type of equipment (ex, from a B737 to a B757) the entire training can consist of the gournd school portion (now done in a computer-training mode, without a Human instructor), the CPT (cockpit procedures trainer) sessions, now WITH an instructor. THIS for checklist procedures, and normal and emergency operations and cockpit layout familiarity. THEN to the 20 hours or so in the full-motion Sim. The best designs that are "landing certified" Level D Sims means that the first time the pilot touches a real jet is on a line flight, with passengers, along with a Check Captain insturctor pilot for the 25 hours of initial Operating Experience requirement.

Now, all of that paragraph was just to point out to those who didn't already know, how realistic the Simulators are. The FAA has waived the requirement for the three actual in-aircraft landings prior to the IOE sessions. This was expensive for the airlines, both in fuel and wear and tear (cycles) on the airplanes.



The maneuvers of the jet that targeted the Pentagon required top-gun piloting, if they were even humanly possible.


More nonsense from the CT sites.



The world's media has reported that many of the so-called hijackers "fingered" by the FBI are still alive. For example as soon as 21st September 2001 the BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation) carried this report:


Yeah. Look at the date there. BBC retracted and amended that story. Research is your friend.


Since then other so called hijackers have come forward in their own countries to plead their innocence.


Ibid.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.


FALSE.

Hundreds upon hundreds of steel-framed buildings collapsed due to fire alone during the firebombings of cities in World War II, including Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo.

These are documented and preserved in museums in those cities as well as in photographs at the Imperial War Museum in London and preserved steel at the Edo Museum in Tokyo.

This subject has been beatened to death and settled years ago.



I just looked into that, I examined another post of yours jthomas HERE where you link to the wikipedia page on the Bombing of Dresdon. Here, i'll quote it again....

en.wikipedia.org...

The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945 remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 39 square kilometres (15 sq mi) of the city center, and killed up to 135,000 civilians.[1] Estimates of civilian casualties vary greatly, but recent publications place the figure between 24,000 and 40,000.[2]


In 4 raids, 1300 bombers dropped over 3900 tons of HIGH-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS and Incendiary devices. Hmm. Would it not stand to reason that the HIGH-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS might have caused just a widdle bit of damage?

Unlike your claim that only incendiary devices were dropped and fire alone dropped the city.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.


FALSE.

Hundreds upon hundreds of steel-framed buildings collapsed due to fire alone during the firebombings of cities in World War II, including Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo.

These are documented and preserved in museums in those cities as well as in photographs at the Imperial War Museum in London and preserved steel at the Edo Museum in Tokyo.

This subject has been beatened to death and settled years ago.



I just looked into that, I examined another post of yours jthomas HERE where you link to the wikipedia page on the Bombing of Dresdon. Here, i'll quote it again....

en.wikipedia.org...

The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945 remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 39 square kilometres (15 sq mi) of the city center, and killed up to 135,000 civilians.[1] Estimates of civilian casualties vary greatly, but recent publications place the figure between 24,000 and 40,000.[2]


In 4 raids, 1300 bombers dropped over 3900 tons of HIGH-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS and Incendiary devices. Hmm. Would it not stand to reason that the HIGH-EXPLOSIVE BOMBS might have caused just a widdle bit of damage?



Do you know what the purpose of "firebombing" was and how the idea was to create a "firestorm" to destroy far more of a city than any high-explosive bombs ever could?

You'd better do some research on how much geographic area was destroyed by fire alone versus that destroyed by bombs alone, don't you think?


Unlike your claim that only incendiary devices were dropped and fire alone dropped the city.


Which is not a claim I made. Particularly since I am the one who originally quoted the wikipedia article above

Tsk... tsk... Kryties. Please don't fib from now on.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


No skyscraper fire has ever been fueled by large quantities of JP-5 (Jet fuel). What is fueling a fire has a great impact on the heat of said fire, and JP-5 burns HOT... I'm mean really HOT! Like 2000 degrees fahrenheit HOT!

Until 9/11 - No one has crashed a fully fueled jetliner into a skyscraper

Thus, your premise is moot....



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Your reference to the Tower of London made me laugh. If I ever hed to go there it would be ME who was shaking (that is where they used to inprison people 100's of yrs ago before they were beheaded....


my reference was to the Post Office Tower in London...

www.lightstraw.co.uk...

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.


FALSE.

Hundreds upon hundreds of steel-framed buildings collapsed due to fire alone during the firebombings of cities in World War II, including Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo.

These are documented and preserved in museums in those cities as well as in photographs at the Imperial War Museum in London and preserved steel at the Edo Museum in Tokyo.

This subject has been beatened to death and settled years ago.



I dont deny that many buildings collapsed in these places but they were as a result of sustained aerial bombardment with high explosive fire incendiary bombs and the majority had lots of timber in their roofs which will ultimately collapse in fires under the weight of the tiles. Brick walls become unstable when the fllorboards and supporting joists burn away as they are no longer "tied-in" and therefore collapse.

The subject of this thread is about steel framed skyscrapers not buildings made from brick, cement and wood.

In 1945 I do not know of any steel reinforced skyscrapers in the cities that you named. If you can provide references that show such buildings collapsed as a result of fire I would be happy to review it,

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


No skyscraper fire has ever been fueled by large quantities of JP-5 (Jet fuel). What is fueling a fire has a great impact on the heat of said fire, and JP-5 burns HOT... I'm mean really HOT! Like 2000 degrees fahrenheit HOT!

Until 9/11 - No one has crashed a fully fueled jetliner into a skyscraper

Thus, your premise is moot....


I do not dispute that Jet fuel burns hot... never have,

That big orange fire ball was the jet fuel burning off in minutes if not seconds.
Once that vaaaayporrr has burned off, all you have as fuel is carbon based combustibles in the form of office furnishings, supplies & plastics.

Have you ever tried to heat thick sections of carbon steel? It takes time. The maximum heat you can obtain with a big propane gas heating torch is approx 180 deg C.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Perhaps you saw the National Geographic special on 9/11 conspiracies? They conducted several scientific tests to prove or disprove various theories. One such experiment involved beams just like those in the WTC, and a jet fuel fire. In less than 5 minutes, the beam lost it's structural integrity. Now, while some of the fuel burned away instantly, most did not. The fireball would have been 5 times the size had it all burned off at once.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join