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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
"1) were hit by nearly fully fueled commercial jets hitting at 500 mph"

The fuel contributing to the ensuing chaos argument kind of loses steam once you visualize that the total amount of fuel that got deposited in the tower(s) was probably enough to only fill a mid sized Uhaul truck and likely burned off within minutes. Or a common office cubicle if it were 9ft high. That is not very impressive considering the volume of the towers




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
"1) were hit by nearly fully fueled commercial jets hitting at 500 mph"

The fuel contributing to the ensuing chaos argument kind of loses steam once you visualize that the total amount of fuel that got deposited in the tower(s) was probably enough to only fill a mid sized Uhaul truck and likely burned off within minutes. Or a common office cubicle if it were 9ft high. That is not very impressive considering the volume of the towers


Please support this with your calculations. Both planes were only 1 - 1 1/2 hours into their flight total for a transcontinental flight. Thereby only using up 1/4 th of the total fuel aboard.


also the fuel did contribute to the start of the fires, but its well known that even in an average office fire (where there are no sprinkler systems or any firefighting efforts ot stop the fire) that there are a ton of fuel to keep a fire going (carpeting, computers, chemicals, clothing, drywall, etc) and can reach to temperatures that would be enough to weaken the steel in the buildings.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by RipCurl]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


There is a big difference between an iceberg and a skyscraper.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


This argument is well documented in dozens of threads on ATS, hundreds of YouTube videos, documentaries, and published reports, there is really no need for me to repeat it here. (Plus I don't feel like looking it all up again
)

There was a similar "tube style" "exoskeleton" building totally engulfed in fire in Greece or Italy I believe, it was the victim of a much hotter chemical (paint and paint thinners) fire that engulfed every floor, and after it was all over, there was no twisted or melted steel, and the building was still standing. There was another building, same style, controlled demolition, but the lower floors didn't buckle the top collapsed, and slid off to the side. It didn't "pancake."

Plus, all of those tons of kerosene were extremely damped (not getting good air flow), in a best case scenario (blast furnace) kerosene is a relatively cool burning fuel, in a damped situation, it is a very poor fuel source, and as the black smoke shows, it was burning very inefficiently, and the majority of those tons of kerosene went up as fuel vapor and were carried away.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by RipCurl
 


This argument is well documented in dozens of threads on ATS, hundreds of YouTube videos, documentaries, and published reports, there is really no need for me to repeat it here. (Plus I don't feel like looking it all up again
)


Oh you mean unsupported un researched claims backed by no evidence. You could have just said that instead. List hte published reports, and they have to be in respected peer reviewed journals. Not some hack journal where an editor QUIT or ones that were created by the truthers themselves.

Please provide a list of all buildings similar to the WTC towers and WTC 7 that were hit by nearly fully fueled airplanes with the equivalent fore of 150 tons of TNT, and had fires rage without being fought?



There was a similar "tube style" "exoskeleton" building totally engulfed in fire in Greece or Italy I believe, it was the victim of a much hotter chemical (paint and paint thinners) fire that engulfed every floor, and after it was all over, there was no twisted or melted steel, and the building was still standing. There was another building, same style, controlled demolition, but the lower floors didn't buckle the top collapsed, and slid off to the side. It didn't "pancake."



Of course, you would be able to list those buildings if you knew them. Give the exact name of the building its location and nature of construction and fire. You'll quickly find out how disimilar to the WTC they actually were.


Plus, all of those tons of kerosene were extremely damped (not getting good air flow), in a best case scenario (blast furnace) kerosene is a relatively cool burning fuel, in a damped situation, it is a very poor fuel source, and as the black smoke shows, it was burning very inefficiently, and the majority of those tons of kerosene went up as fuel vapor and were carried away.



NIST and everyone knows that hte jet fuel was burned off quickly. what kept the fires going was the the OFFICe CONTENTS (carpeting, fire, chemicals, chairs, humans, palstics, dry wall, etc etc).

A normal office fire can reach up to temperatures that is enough to weaken steel.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Finalized
 


Exactly how many different ways are there to fall other than down? And exactly why is it improbable when two virtually identical buildings suffer damage in virtually identical manner to then finally react in virtually the same manner. What would be improbable is if one building eventually failed and one did not.


Just an understanding of basic Newton laws would answer your question. Maybe you should go do the 'research' you actually claim to have done?

First thing you should look at is 'the path of least resistance'.

But I believe you are not interested in facts, or understanding what really happened. You're here to simply argue with 'truthers', or whatever it is you call intelligent educated people these days...



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
Other than, no the collapses wouldn't be extremely different.


Yet I could argue that the collapses were completely different.

The top of WTC1 did not tilt out of true.

What the top of WTC2 did was completely different to what happened to the top of WTC1. It incorporated a whole different set of physics to get WTC2, with the tilting top, to globally collapse the same as WTC1.

People seem to keep ignoring the tilt of WTC2, and how important it is in understanding that the official story given by the government is not correct, in that it fails to explain what happened past their collapse initiation hypothesis.
It totally fails to explain how the buildings actually collapsed, only how the collapses initiated (which is also highly in question). So the government offers no explanation for the top of WTC2 and how angular momentum became vertical momentum. It offers no explanation for the lack of resistance from undamaged structure etc...

But of course those that swear by the NIST report fail to realise these points as being important, because they have no clue as to their importance, and if it's not in the NIST report then they believe it doesn't matter and just ignore it. This is how the PTB fool people....



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


Even if all the jet fuel in New York was poured over the towers the jet fuel would still burn at the same temperature, and it would not create enough thermal energy to transfer heat to that amount of steel in order to initiate a complete and sudden global failure.

Jet fuel burns, in open air, at around 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).
Gasoline 1500° E (945° C)

It's simply unrealistic and you can test this easily for yourself. Get hold of some construction steel and I'll even let you use Gasoline (gas, petrol) which burns a lot hotter, throw the steel in a barrel of burning fuel, see what happens. That is real scientific research, but I very much doubt you'll even pay it any attention...



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Last I knew, it was the Titanic that was designed by engineers, not the iceberg. but thanks for playing.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
"Please provide a list of all buildings similar to the WTC towers and WTC 7 that were hit by nearly fully fueled airplanes"

#1 Can you please provide evidence that WTC 7 was hit by an airplane?

#2 Can you please provide evidence as to how much fuel was in the airplanes which allegedly struck the two towers?

#3 Do you think a 767 requires a full tank of fuel to fly cross country? If so, please provide your evidence.


The following song is dedicated to the Official StoryBoarders, who have struck an iceberg and are quickly going down with the ship.






posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are right, my first question to the engineer that stated only fire brought down the Towers would be..."Did you miss the airplanes that crashed into them?"

The planes were irrelevant. The buildings were designed to withstand jetliners traveling at 600mph and NIST even stated that only 14% to 15% of the columns in the impact zones were severed or damaged. That means 85% of the structure in the impact zones was intact.

And office fires have never felled a steel-structured highrise before, so there wasn't even a remote chance of collapse. Sorry, but you're lacking in logic and physics.



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I have always said to do the research yourself, rather than believe everything that comes from Loose Change, DRG, Craig and Aldo etc.

Many of us have done the research ourselves. And not only does the research prove you and the official fairy-tale wrong, the witnesses, first responders, and evidence all prove you wrong as well.

Continuously typing words onto your screen will not make the truthers, or the evidence go away.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by RipCurl
 


Even if all the jet fuel in New York was poured over the towers the jet fuel would still burn at the same temperature, and it would not create enough thermal energy to transfer heat to that amount of steel in order to initiate a complete and sudden global failure.

Jet fuel burns, in open air, at around 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).
Gasoline 1500° E (945° C)



I know what temperatures that jet fuel burns. Did you read the part where Jet fuel contributed to the fires, but wasn't the factor that lead the collapse. THE FIRES were continued to be FUELED by the contents of the OFFICES affected by the impact.


Why is it that truthers want to separate out events, when it was the EVENTS in total that contributed to the collapses?


The jet fuel was burned off in a few minutes after impact. THIS IS known. The fire that resulted in the crash was further fueled by the contents within the buildings. NORMAL office fires CAN REACH temperatures high enough to WEAKEN steel.

The weakening of the steel is what contributed to the WTC towers instability. Once a building becomes unstable, and the way the WTC towers were constructed (where the weight relied on the outer columns that connected truses to the INNER columns), there was nothing that was going to stop the inevitable.

The steel didn't need to be melted. It only need to be heated to a temperature that was half its melting point. A temperature that was easily reached by the resulting fires.



It's simply unrealistic and you can test this easily for yourself. Get hold of some construction steel and I'll even let you use Gasoline (gas, petrol) which burns a lot hotter, throw the steel in a barrel of burning fuel, see what happens. That is real scientific research, but I very much doubt you'll even pay it any attention...


This "test" is unrealistic to what occured in the WTC towers. To even suggest this shows that you do not know what happened. REad the NIST reports and subsequent reports that followed. They explain clearly what happened/



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


Hey RipCurl, whatever happened to the blown-out WTC1 lobby, dangling marble tiles and burned pedestrians being caused by the firefighters breaking the glass windows to 'gain easier entry' to the building?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
WTC 7 was hit by the falling debris and collapse of WTC 1.

NIST says the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on the collapse of WTC 7.



Originally posted by RipCurl
Fires raged withing the building and Firefighters called the building FULLY engulfed.

You want to know what "fully engulfed" looks like?

Fully Engulfed Images

I have not seen a single image of WTC 7 that shows it "fully engulfed". There's hardly nothing to see on the north side, east side or west side and there's just a bunch of smoke on the south side. Please show an image of WTC 7 "fully engulfed" in flames, thanks.



Originally posted by RipCurl
Pull it in that instance was to remove all Firefighters from the area

Pull IT, singular, means "the building". Larry didn't say "pull them". Pull it, i.e., pull the building, period.



Originally posted by RipCurl
No the buildings were not BUILT to withstand the impacts of planes equivalent to the force of 150 tons of TNT. That was an opinion by an engineer; an opinion is not based in fact.

That's your opinion that you think it's an opinion. John Skilling and his firm had a 1200-page analysis to back their claims up. Keep making things up to explain away the evidence.



Originally posted by RipCurl
its well known that even in an average office fire that there are a ton of fuel to keep a fire going (carpeting, computers, chemicals, clothing, drywall, etc) and can reach to temperatures that would be enough to weaken the steel in the buildings.

And yet there has never been a single office fire that has felled a steel-structured highrise in history, before 9/11 or after. Now we're back to square one. You know the truth, you just refuse to accept it. Read the definition of "denial disorder" in my signature.




Originally posted by RipCurl
NIST and everyone knows that...A normal office fire can reach up to temperatures that is enough to weaken steel.

And everyone also knows that there has never been an office fire in history that has actually weakened the steel in a steel-structured highrise to cause it collapse. You were saying?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


#1 Can you please provide evidence that WTC 7 was hit by an airplane?


I never claimed it was hit by a plane. However, you purposely ignored that WTC 1, collapsed onto WTC 7, sending debris and fire reigning down upon the building. WTC & was heavily damaged by the collapsed of wtc 1.


#2 Can you please provide evidence as to how much fuel was in the airplanes which allegedly struck the two towers?


At the least each flight at 8,000-10,000 gallons of fuel in order to make the flights across the US. FAR's requires at least 30 minutes to 45 minutes of extra fuel for emergency reasons (redirect to another airport due to inclement weather at destination airport for instance). 767 can hold up to 11,000 gallons of fuel.

US 175 was a flight heading to LAX. It left the aiport at 8:00 am, and impacted WTC 2 at 9:03 in the morning.

AA 11 was also a flight heading to LAX. It left the airport at 7:59. The plane impacted WTC 1 at 8:46 am.

All this information can be easily found online. Wonder why you couldn't be bothered to find it.




#3 Do you think a 767 requires a full tank of fuel to fly cross country? If so, please provide your evidence.


767 requires at least 8000 gallons in order to make the transcontinental flight.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
I never claimed it was hit by a plane. However, you purposely ignored that WTC 1, collapsed onto WTC 7, sending debris and fire reigning down upon the building. WTC & was heavily damaged by the collapsed of wtc 1.

WTC 7 was not heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. It was moderately damaged at most.

You purposely ignore the fact that NIST states that the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on causing WTC 7 to collapse. In otherwords, the damage to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1 was irrelevant.



Originally posted by RipCurl
All this information can be easily found online. Wonder why you couldn't be bothered to find it.

All of the above information from NIST is also easily found online. Wonder why you couldn't be bothered to find it and rather spread disinformation instead?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
THE FIRES were continued to be FUELED by the contents of the OFFICES affected by the impact.


And did what?


At WHAT temperature does A carbon FIRE burn IN open air? (yes my caps make about as much sense as yours did)

And when you have found that answer, explain the mechanism that could transfer enough thermal energy from those 'office fires' to cause thousands of tons of construction steel to globally fail.

Thank you...



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


And did what?


you read the rest of my post didn't you? i stated exactly what happened. which is what NIST and several other independent reports that reached the same conclusions.

The steel got hot enough to be weakened. When steel weakens, IT can no longer perform the job its supposed to do.


At WHAT temperature does A carbon FIRE burn IN open air? (yes my caps make about as much sense as yours did)


Office fires can range between 500 - 650 degrees Celsius. Carbon based fires in open air can reach up to 1000 degress Celsius.
Steel starts to soften at 425 degrees Celsius.
NIST charted the fires throughout the floors and ranged them between 300 - 600 degrees Celcius (the 300 was temperatures that were on the lower edge of the impact zones).


And when you have found that answer, explain the mechanism that could transfer enough thermal energy from those 'office fires' to cause thousands of tons of construction steel to globally fail.


Did you forget that a planes impacted the buildings through SEVERAL floors, exposing steel to the fires?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


Oh you mean unsupported un researched claims backed by no evidence. You could have just said that instead. List hte published reports, and they have to be in respected peer reviewed journals. Not some hack journal where an editor QUIT or ones that were created by the truthers themselves.


What? Make some sense here? Who are you talking about?


Please provide a list of all buildings similar to the WTC towers and WTC 7 that were hit by nearly fully fueled airplanes with the equivalent fore of 150 tons of TNT, and had fires rage without being fought?


No one can provide an answer to this questions, and asking it only shows how desperate you are.


A normal office fire can reach up to temperatures that is enough to weaken steel.


Care to prove that?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


I asked for an explanation as to how office fires on a few floors could transfer enough heat energy to the steel. NIST did not answer that question and neither have you.

Showing the temp of an office fire is irrelevant when no one can explain the mechanism for the heat transferal. Even if the office fires reached 1000c it doesn't mean the steel is going to get anywhere near that temperature. When heat transfers to a colder object the temperature of the hear source goes down, and the colder object will dispel that heat along it's length.

Ask yourself why no other steel structure has collapsed from fire? Also if you think engineers would use a material that could not withstand an office fire, to build offices, then you know nothing about how the industry works.

Only a small percentage of the steel in the towers was directly effected by fires, yet thousands of tons of steel that was NO WHERE NEAR THE FIRES somehow got just as hot? In an hour? You believe NIST when they tell you this? Against all the common sense God gave you? Why have you not done as I suggest and TRY IT YOURSELF? Do you really believe you could get a piece of construction steel to fail from applying even a direct open air carbon fire? Then DO IT and prove me wrong, stop quoting NIST at me. You don't need to keep appealing to authority when it's simple testable physics.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join