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 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
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 )
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 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.
Originally posted by RipCurl
Other than, no the collapses wouldn't be extremely different.
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?"
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.
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)
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...
Originally posted by RipCurl
WTC 7 was hit by the falling debris and collapse of WTC 1.
Originally posted by RipCurl
Fires raged withing the building and Firefighters called the building FULLY engulfed.
Originally posted by RipCurl
Pull it in that instance was to remove all Firefighters from the area
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.
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.
Originally posted by RipCurl
NIST and everyone knows that...A normal office fire can reach up to temperatures that is enough to weaken steel.
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
#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.
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.
Originally posted by RipCurl
All this information can be easily found online. Wonder why you couldn't be bothered to find it.
Originally posted by RipCurl
THE FIRES were continued to be FUELED by the contents of the OFFICES affected by the impact.
Originally posted by ANOK
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.
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?
A normal office fire can reach up to temperatures that is enough to weaken steel.