WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers, page 3

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

---

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

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

"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.

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/

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?

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?

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?

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.

Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 11 days ago with 48 member flags

9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 3 days ago with 45 member flags

9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 14 days ago with 43 member flags

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 7 days ago with 17 member flags

Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 15 days ago with 13 member flags

Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 17 days ago with 9 member flags

British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 7 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: