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.

 

In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

page: 16
10
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by gamma 49
reply to post by okbmd
 

Your smokin way to much crack. Jet fuel does not and will never melt steel and the fuel would have burned up in a matter of minutes next.



It doesn't need to MELT steel do some research NO let me

At about 550° C (1,000° F) Steel is at 50% Strength and at about 800° C (1472° F) structural steel loses 90% of its strength

House fire and office fires how hot can they get

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F.

Read underlined above

ONLY 50% OF ITS STRENGTH AT 1,000° F, house/office fire can reach that as you see.

If fire was not a problem for steel why do they put fire protection around it
See picture below


www.unconventionalsolutions.biz...

Now you have some FACTS think about it.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Room temps do not equate to steel temps, learn about heat transfer.

One hour is not long enough to reach those temps you quote. One tower was only on fire for an hour. That is a LOT of steel to heat up in an hour.


f interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Room temps do not equate to steel temps, learn about heat transfer.

One hour is not long enough to reach those temps you quote. One tower was only on fire for an hour. That is a LOT of steel to heat up in an hour.


f interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...


Excellent source! I know there was jet fuel too. This is a clear indication that I need to do more research about how people estimated the temperature of the WTC fires.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by gamma 49
reply to post by okbmd
 

Your smokin way to much crack. Jet fuel does not and will never melt steel and the fuel would have burned up in a matter of minutes next.



It doesn't need to MELT steel do some research NO let me

At about 550° C (1,000° F) Steel is at 50% Strength and at about 800° C (1472° F) structural steel loses 90% of its strength

House fire and office fires how hot can they get

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F.

Read underlined above

ONLY 50% OF ITS STRENGTH AT 1,000° F, house/office fire can reach that as you see.

If fire was not a problem for steel why do they put fire protection around it
See picture below


www.unconventionalsolutions.biz...

Now you have some FACTS think about it.


You forgot to mention that steel is a very good conductor or heat or that the towers were over engineered or that the first building to be hit was the second one to fall.

Did you not see the images of molton metal dripping out the building and don't try the one about it being aliminium because that does not glow yellow no more than water glows yellow when melted.

if you want to see a building thats on fire then let look at this one.



This one didn't fall down in fact prior to 9/11 no steel reinforced concrent building has ever sucumb to fire and fell over and yet this one did.




Thats dust in the background from the towers with only a little smoke in it.

What about the molton metal in the basement glowing orange for weeks and is this scotch mist.




Why are you ignoring that samples of the metal was tested and it contained all the ingredance for thermite and why do you ignore eye witness accounts.

if you light a fire in the side of a building and metal was weakened then it will fail at that point and the building would fall sideways unless of course it's the twin towers.

The towers were worth about $1bn each and yet the day before they fell over congress was told about $2.3tr had gone missing and much of the documentation was held in building seven so this lost money would build ground zero 500 times over and thats what i call a good return on my money.

Quite simply the physics don't stand up to review from someone with A level physics never mind peer review from a scientist but don't take my word for it.

www.infowars.com...

The earth is round, we travel around the sun no matter what the good book says.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Look at WTC Building 5... On 9/11, that building was heavily damaged, and burnt to a crisp, YET never collapsed... Steel frame buildings dont fall at the speed of gravity b/c of "fire."



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
Look at WTC Building 5... On 9/11, that building was heavily damaged, and burnt to a crisp, YET never collapsed... Steel frame buildings dont fall at the speed of gravity b/c of "fire."


When you say that steel framed buildings don't fall at the speed of gravity b/c of fire I'm going to go ahead and assume you meant the WTC towers. Do you have a source that said that the twin towers collapsed at the speed of gravity?


SOURCE

www.plaguepuppy.net...

SOURCE

layscience.net.../124


In both photos you can clearly see debri, falling at free fall speed, next to the building. Notice how the free falling debri is traveling faster than the collapse? Notice how several floors below the collapse there is debri? Notice how next to undamaged, uncollapsed floors of the WTC there are large chunks of the building that fell from above? This is because the collapse is being slowed down by the resistance offered by the lower floors and causing the building to collapse slower than the speed of gravity (free fall speed)

Having shown evidence that the WTC towers collapsed SLOWER than the speed of gravity I presnt you a question.

Is it possible for steel framed building to be hit with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane and then get set on fire and collapse slower than the speed of gravity?

[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
iamcpc

The term used for the towers in most cases is near free fail speed and from what i remember a stone would take 10 seconds to hit the floor from the top and the building took 12 seconds.

Does not leave much room for the pancake theory.

911blimp.net...

side blasts from the building came out 15-20 floors below the main colapse and they say this was due to air presures created by the colapsing floors.

Lets run with this theroy and ignore the facts that air would take the least path of resitance and go out the sides of the colapsing floor.

if indeed each floor had a cushion of air used to explain these side blasts then each floor would be acting like a massive air cusion and that would had slown the builing colapse down never mind conetic resistance between the masses.

The offical story wants it's cake and to eat it.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
"Is it possible for steel framed building to be hit with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane and then get set on fire and collapse slower than the speed of gravity? "

Lets do the maths

i think it was a 100 tons and this was not dead weight due to the crimple zone on the plane so the energy would had taken two seconds to be obsorbed by the structure of the building.

lets say we have a 100mph wind hitting a 4m2 section of the building then that alone would produce a dead weight force of 1 ton on the building so lets times that by 63 for the width of the building and assume each floor is 4m high and times that by let say 50 floors because other buildings stop the wind on the lower floors.

63 X 50 = 3150 Tons dead weight and the building would take this without a window even falling out so i don't except something made so light as to fly like a bird realy accounted for much more then the 3-4 outer suport beans it took out.

maybe we need more unique curcumstance like it was a windy hot day and this helped the steel get hot and wind added extra energy to the impact of the plane and the concrent had concrent cancer and was not mixed right or maybe we should stick to the arguments about it fell down due to fire and 4 outer clad beams being cut by the impact.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster
iamcpc

from what i remember a stone would take 10 seconds to hit the floor


911blimp.net...




According to your website:
"The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height."

I found this nifty website that lets you put in variables and find out the speed at wich of an object will fall.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Now lets just say this is a piece of concrete that is 2 meters wide
and we will do it again with a piece of steel that is 2 meters wide.

The density of concrete is 2.3-2.4 g/CM^3
SOURCE: hypertextbook.com...

The density of steel is 7.75 between 8.05 g/CM^3

SOURCE: hypertextbook.com...

Now the tallest building would have the longest fall time so I used the taller of the two buildings which is 1360 feet.

At sea level and 20 °C, air has a density of approximately 1.2 kg/m3

SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org...


The concrete would hit in 9.22 seconds
The steel would hit in 9.20 seconds.

the drag coefficient of a long flat plate is 1.98

SOURCE: www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

The wtc towers were 63 meters wide

SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center

SO a long flat plate of concrete that is 63 meters wide like a floor of the WTC tower would hit the ground in 9.2 seconds.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Room temps do not equate to steel temps, learn about heat transfer.

One hour is not long enough to reach those temps you quote. One tower was only on fire for an hour. That is a LOT of steel to heat up in an hour.




LMAO....

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...





posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 
That's incorrect...
.
.
.





posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster
"Is it possible for steel framed building to be hit with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane and then get set on fire and collapse slower than the speed of gravity? "

Lets do the maths

i think it was a 100 tons and this was not dead weight due to the crimple zone on the plane so the energy would had taken two seconds to be obsorbed by the structure of the building.

lets say we have a 100mph wind hitting a 4m2 section of the building then that alone would produce a dead weight force of 1 ton on the building so lets times that by 63 for the width of the building and assume each floor is 4m high and times that by let say 50 floors because other buildings stop the wind on the lower floors.

63 X 50 = 3150 Tons dead weight and the building would take this without a window even falling out so i don't except something made so light as to fly like a bird realy accounted for much more then the 3-4 outer suport beans it took out.

maybe we need more unique curcumstance like it was a windy hot day and this helped the steel get hot and wind added extra energy to the impact of the plane and the concrent had concrent cancer and was not mixed right or maybe we should stick to the arguments about it fell down due to fire and 4 outer clad beams being cut by the impact.




I don't usually get involved in these calculations questions because there is so much unqualified opinion flying about.

However, your post seems to be so blatantly missing the point. The 100 ton aircraft was travelling at 4-500 mph and you appear to have made no attempt to take account of the energy that adds to the equation.

Its a bit like saying a bullet could never splatter a man's brains because it it only weighs half an ounce.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Room temps do not equate to steel temps, learn about heat transfer.

One hour is not long enough to reach those temps you quote. One tower was only on fire for an hour. That is a LOT of steel to heat up in an hour.


f interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...



LOOK at the temps C or F dont get them mixed!!!!!!

At about 550° C (1,000° F) Steel is at 50% Strength and at about 800° C (1472° F) structural steel loses 90% of its strength

House fire and office fires how hot can they get

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 




Your quote
My ANSWERS BOLD AND UNDERLINED



Originally posted by LieBuster

You forgot to mention that steel is a very good conductor or heat or that the towers were over engineered or that the first building to be hit was the second one to fall.

The first building to fall had the HIGHEST LOAD ABOVE IMPACT POINT

Did you not see the images of molton metal dripping out the building and don't try the one about it being aliminium because that does not glow yellow no more than water glows yellow when melted.

Prove its molten METAL STEEL and not something else. Look at this aluminium after a fire. www.debunking911.com...

if you want to see a building thats on fire then let look at this one.



This one didn't fall down in fact prior to 9/11 no steel reinforced concrent building has ever sucumb to fire and fell over and yet this one did.


Were any of those buildings HIT WITH A PLANE FIRST






Thats dust in the background from the towers with only a little smoke in it.

What about the molton metal in the basement glowing orange for weeks and is this scotch mist.

READ here www.debunking911.com...




Why are you ignoring that samples of the metal was tested and it contained all the ingredance for thermite and why do you ignore eye witness accounts.


Read Here www.debunking911.com...

if you light a fire in the side of a building and metal was weakened then it will fail at that point and the building would fall sideways unless of course it's the twin towers.

You mean sideways like THIS
911review.org...
g

The towers were worth about $1bn each and yet the day before they fell over congress was told about $2.3tr had gone missing and much of the documentation was held in building seven so this lost money would build ground zero 500 times over and thats what i call a good return on my money.

Quite simply the physics don't stand up to review from someone with A level physics never mind peer review from a scientist but don't take my word for it.

www.infowars.com...

The earth is round, we travel around the sun no matter what the good book says.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster

prior to 9/11 no steel reinforced concrent building has ever sucumb to fire and fell over and yet this one did.



What about the kader toy factory fire. A steel framed building which collapsed only from fire.

Building One collapsed completely at approximately
5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward
the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings
Two and Three before the fire brigade could
effectively defend them. Building Two reportedly
collapsed at 5:30 p.m. and Building Three at 6:05
p.m.

What about:

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

What about:

The Wolftrap Farm Theater and Pavilion fire in Fairfax County Virginia in 1988 suffered a total loss in the stage, props, dressing rooms and storage area. The pre-construction recommendation for a fire sprinkler system had not been heeded. When the facility was rebuilt, it was totally sprinkled.

What about:

The McCormick Place exhibition hall fire in Chicago, Illinois in 1967 was a public assembly occupancy built with fire protected steel construction and no sprinkler system. “Fortunately the fire started in the early morning hours; the possibility of life loss would have been staggering had the fire occurred during the day”.1 This fast burning, high rate of heat production fire caused complete collapse of the building.

What about:

Kyriakos Papaioannoa, 1986.4 These fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed (see Figure 1). The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections.

What about:

On May 21, 1987, Sao Paulo had one of the biggest fires in Brazil, which precipitated a substantial partial collapse of the central core of the tall CESP Building 2.5 This was a 21-story office building, headquarters of the Sao Paulo Power Company (CESP), after whom the building was named. Buildings 1 and 2 of this office complex were both of reinforced concrete framing, with ribbed slab floors. These two buildings had several unique internal features and contents. Both buildings still retained their original wood forms used for pouring the concrete floor slabs, which were never removed. Low-height plywood partition walls were also used in the interiors. Approximately two hours after the beginning of the fire in CESP 2, its structural core area throughout the full building height collapsed. This collapse was attributed to the thermal expansion of the horizontal concrete T-beam frames under the elevated fire temperatures, which led to the fracture of the vertical framing elements and their connections in the middle of the building, and the consequent progressive loss of gravity load-carrying capacity

What about:

A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000.6 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people. Figure 3 shows a photograph of this collapse.


Keep in mind that none of these buildings were hit by 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplanes. Feel free to research them yourself instead of being spoon fed misinformation and blindly accepting other's claims as truth.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster
"Is it possible for steel framed building to be hit with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane and then get set on fire and collapse slower than the speed of gravity? "

Lets do the maths

i think it was a 100 tons and this was not dead weight due to the crimple zone on the plane so the energy would had taken two seconds to be obsorbed by the structure of the building.

lets say we have a 100mph wind hitting a 4m2 section of the building then that alone would produce a dead weight force of 1 ton on the building so lets times that by 63 for the width of the building and assume each floor is 4m high and times that by let say 50 floors because other buildings stop the wind on the lower floors.

63 X 50 = 3150 Tons dead weight and the building would take this without a window even falling out so i don't except something made so light as to fly like a bird realy accounted for much more then the 3-4 outer suport beans it took out.

maybe we need more unique curcumstance like it was a windy hot day and this helped the steel get hot and wind added extra energy to the impact of the plane and the concrent had concrent cancer and was not mixed right or maybe we should stick to the arguments about it fell down due to fire and 4 outer clad beams being cut by the impact.





Soft hand hard concrete watch the HAND in slow motion

www.youtube.com...

You seem to forget a plane is designed to fly at 400-500 mph
with passengers luggage and fuel be able to bank and turn also check what some aircraft components are made of before you decide how strong it is


An engineer would call the load produced by the wind, WIND LOAD not dead so do you want to talk about loads what type dead, shear, tension, imposed ,static, oblique,dynamic or shock
or how about seismic,rain,snow,ice live loads lots of different ones that have to be taken into consideration due to location climate etc.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOWILLFALL
 



Always the same every thread a comment with NO INFO you really make a fool of yourself.


[edit on 27-5-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 
That's incorrect...
.
.
.




Totally awesome rebuttal dude.

Is there a place on ATS that one can nominate a post for conciseness and the amount of exhaustive research put into a post?

Cuz with this awesome display of perfection, I may have to jump onto the delusional side and claim that 9/11 was an inside job.......



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc


What about the kader toy factory fire. A steel framed building which collapsed only from fire.


IIRC, that factory was found to be NOT built to code.

The ironic thing, is that their code specified concrete columns, cuz steel fails in fires......



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 
That's incorrect...
.
.
.




Totally awesome rebuttal dude.

Is there a place on ATS that one can nominate a post for conciseness and the amount of exhaustive research put into a post?

Cuz with this awesome display of perfection, I may have to jump onto the delusional side and claim that 9/11 was an inside job.......


He is the same on every thread never posts anything but a smarta** comment his teachers must be so proud




top topics



 
10
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join