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 Nutter
BTW, there's a huge difference between the temperature of the steel and the temperature of the fire. I'm talking steel temperatures not fire temperatures.
Please point out your calculations that show 33,000 L was enough to do the exact same effect as 90,000 L.
Eager states that since the smoke from the fires was black, it had to be fuel rich. Nist states that the fuel burned off rather quickly.
How can Eager have his fuel rich fire if the fuel burned off quickly?
Originally posted by mmiichael
I would say we know your skill set. Looking at conspiracy websites and videos. Believing anything that lines up with your fantasies.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Didn't we discuss things on another thread and you were telling the story of how the bin Ladens worked on the construction of the WTC in the 60s and pre-planted bombs in the walls?
Originally posted by mmiichael
A Saudi company where no one spoke English which had never worked on anything bigger than a palace or a mosque. But supposedly they were consulted on the tallest most modern most complex structures in history?
Originally posted by mmiichael
But some guy who worked there at a low level drafting job told you so. So it must be true.
Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm sorry for expressing a strong opinion on this story. It's lunacy.
When I type these messages I feel like I'm doing rehab in a Psych Ward.
M
Originally posted by technical difficulties
this isn't about what the terrorists said, this is about the collapse of the twin towers.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So you're trying to say that a fire burning approx. 1000C is NOT going to heat directly exposed steel to at least 600C (the point where the steel would have lost its structural integrity as per both NIST and Eagar), particularly naked steel that had its fireproofing stripped off from the plane impact??
No, actually, I think YOU need to back THAT claim up. That contradicts pretty much every blacksmith in recorded human history.
33,000 liters of aviation fuel spread over a 40,000 square foot floor is enough to burn it down three times, particularly if it's spread as an aerosol.
Add the fact that the floors were chock full of flammable items like carpets, furniture, plastics, wiring, cubicle partitions, etc and the equivalent fuel figure easily triples.
You're really stretching your argument, here.
The two have nothing to do with each other. Fuel rich means that it has a poor air-fuel ratio, meaning, oxygen starved. The fires could have been oxygen starved AND have burned off quickly, particularly if the smoke from the fires contained unburned traces of fuel.
the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available.
This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.
That's not the point, though. As the fuel burned off, it set entire floors' worth of contents on fire simultaneously.
Those were most certainly NOT burned off quickly, as both NIST and Eagar are in agreement that the floor contents are what continuously fed the fires after the fuel was burned off.
Originally posted by billybob
attack my evidence, don't attack me.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I see the debris line catching up to the arrow.
Originally posted by Nutter
The fact that the "collapse" seen coming from the inside of the tower is happening faster than a free falling body at any point in time is absolute direct proof of more than just gravity doing work.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Cuz i KNOW that he cherry picked a sample from early in the collapse, BEFORE the debris has fallen very far.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to post by billybob
You're either a fraud, or you're just copying from stupid conspiracy sites evidence which you haven't vetted yet.
I might be missing something here, but you really aren't making any sense. How is my statement wrong? Here is the post I replied to:
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by technical difficulties
this isn't about what the terrorists said, this is about the collapse of the twin towers.
Wow. This statement is as wrong as it gets.
The crux, the entire raison d'etre of the Truth Movement for years has been to disprove what they call the "Official Story" which states Arab hijackers flew planes into the WTC causing destruction to the towers that resulted in their collapse.
I was talking about the collapse of the towers, and then you reply with how the terrorists admitted that they planned this beforehand, which isn't relevant to how the buildings fell, which as you can see, is what my post was about.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by technical difficulties
I believe in the laws of physics, so naturally, i'm not going to agree with "planes did it" as to why the two towers both collapsed into themselves, therefore, I don't believe in the official story.
Great opportunity for the Truth Movement and it's True Believers.
In the real world (check outside the closest window - unless you're in a basement) Khalid Shekh Mohammed, who with Ramzi Yousef, planned and co-ordinated the 9/11 plane attacks, is coming to the US to stand trial.
You can explain to him how he worked out details, coached hijackers, co-ordinated funds, etc - his team did not really hijack those planes and it was a government false-flag operation.
A real explanation is needed why he confessed and provided details of the plan and how it lines up perfectly with recorded conversation, wire transfers, credit card receipts, photographs, and a few thousand other pieces of evidence gathered in a dozen countries.
Do I think Truthers are dumb? Prove to me otherwise.
M
[edit on 27-11-2009 by mmiichael]
Seriously, why are you still talking about this?
Well I know most people don't want reality to intrude in their fantasies, but one of the planners of these plane attacks who established targets, co-ordinated activities and dealt with the same hiackers personally, is about to go on trial in the US.
I would say without qualification he knows more about what happened on 9/11 and whether there was US govt complicity than your average Youtube analyst.
Originally posted by billybob
you can't even see the west wall (where the ejections i'm pointing out are coming from) in that video you posted.
Originally posted by Nutter
Nice video of the last half of the collapse.
Originally posted by billybob
i was relating what paul laffoley told me.
he didn't say they planted bombs. he said they [bin Ladens] asked the best place to put them
he was the architect in charge of several storeys of one tower. hardly a low level draftsman.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
paul loffoley said the bin ladens' were inspecting the building, and he was an architect for some lower floors. he said the bin laden's asked him where you would put explosives to bring it down. so, the bin laden's construction company were intimate with the design and have known where to put explosives since the sixties.
he says he was shocked by the question at the time, as it wasn't common to think that way, back then.
en.wikipedia.org...
(born August 14, 1940)
“he attended the progressive Mary Lee Burbank School in Belmont, Massachusetts”
“Laffoley matriculated at Brown University, graduating in 1962 with honors in Classics, Philosophy, and Art History.”
“In 1963, he attended the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and apprenticed with the sculptor Mirko Basaldella before being dismissed from the institution.“
“Laffoley worked for 18 months on design for the World Trade Center Tower II (floors 15 to 45) with Emery Roth & Sons under the direction of architect Minoru Yamasaki. Following his suggestion that bridges be constructed between the two towers for safety, he was summarily fired by Yamasaki”
“Laffoley obtained his formal Architectural License in October 1990”
Originally posted by Nutter
First, you have to prove the fireproofing was completely stripped off.
Second, you have to prove that steel would reach this temperature in the given amount of time.
Third, NIST even proves you wrong by their own samples from the fire affected floors.
He also states this....
This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.
Meaning that normal office fires don't get above this either. Unless you can explain why an office fire would be different or hotter than a residential fire. There is, after all, just as much furniture in a residence than there is in an office.
So, now it becomes "several" floors that this 20-25,000 L of fuel spread onto. Well then, that makes the 1/2 liter per square foot from above that much less.