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: 18
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by LieBuster
 


Did not fall in its own footprint another MYTH!


WTC 7 did and there is no denying it, look at the pics.

The towers could not have fallen in their own footprint even if it was a controlled demo because they were too tall and thin, not enough room for the footprint to hold all the rubble. This is why the towers would have had to be dismantled piece by piece, not with explosives.

BUT the towers did collapse symmetrically, all the debris was ejected equally in all directions during the collapse wave. This proves there was no resistance to the collapse from undamaged structure, no slowing of the collapse wave. Fire could not have caused any steel it was not in direct contact with to even get warm let alone hot enough to not offer resistance to the collapse. Something took that resistance away, and explosives were heard and described, I can only come to one conclusion, it was controlled.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
my "rebuttal" is in my previous posts...



Nope.

I checked back 5 pages, and nowhere do I see you address how fast steel heats in fires.

Maybe in another thread, or board, but not here.....



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
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.


Thanx.

Jet fuel burns at a lower temp than carbon/room fires so it really wouldn't make any difference to the overall temps, it would only help spread the fire. Jet fuel also evaporates very quickly so it would burn up in minutes, and would not continue to fuel the fire for very long.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
wmd_2008

Hi and sorry i did not see your reply.

The buildings as seen by millions did come stright down with plumes of steel and dust coming out the sides and did not topple sideways so unless you are splitting hairs they fell into their own footprint.

I also saw a picture where the top twenty or so floor came away in a big section and looked like it was going to crash over the side and yet with all this weight removed the building still came down under it's own weight.

if you have done your home work then i'm sure you know the one i'm talking about and maybe it was part of this section that clipped building seven, shorted the electrical system setting light to the diesel used for emergency generators that made that building fall down also.

You see i was once on the other side trying to prove these conspriacy nutters wrong but the more i learned the more i began to realized it was me who was wrong so i'm quite happy to enter into debate.

would you like to mention how the explosion blew away the fire resistance on the steel beams that allowed them to become weakened or how the joints holding the cross beams disconnected so the outer skin could buttle sideways because we might both learn something new.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
LMAO....

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


Haha laugh on buddy.

That chart is from the standard test of non-load bearing beams using direct heat, not radiated heat as in an actual fire. Those temps are only reached in a controlled test, not in real life where you have to include heat transfer and the amount of steel being heated.

Yes one small non load bearing beam if in direct contact with the fire could reach those temps, but we're talking about thousands of tons of steel that had to be weakened, in an hour, to the point of complete failure from non direct heat. I told you to learn about heat transfer.

Hey I strongly suggest you read the whole PFD btw, especially part 6...

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



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
All the evidence indicates, and the burns casualties confirms, that any explosions in the lobby and basement were as a result of jet fuel down the elevator shafts which was ignited.


OK lets assume fuel already on fire can somehow turn 90 degrees whilst it going forwards at 400mph and starts to somehow go down the lift shafts which goes against thermal dynamics because hot air rises.

Trouble is due to the design of the building and fire risks none of the lift shafts went from the 72 floor to the basement because they used what i think they called sky lifts on two or three floors of the towers.

lift shafts are the worse thing in the world for spreading fires upwards due to the chimney effect and yet we are to beleive not only did heat go downwards but it reached the ground floor and blow the windows out at the speed of sound but it also blew a 7 ton press up in the basement.

i'm happy to except a transformer could had blown up in the basement and burnt the man who the janitor reported and this would explain how people in the basement heard a explosion in the basement before the bang from the jet hitting the building but this does not explain the blast on the ground floor that not only blew out windows but blew marble off the walls.

electric travels much faster then sound and transformers contain worm oil so don't say i'm not helping the deniers out.

if you are not aware of any of these facts then please ask and i will dig out the links.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Nice we are on the same side and your doing a fantastic job but your forgot to tell them how a fire becomes starved of air and why the smoke turns black.

i like it when they get to the bit about the fire protection being blown from the suports because they realy get shot to pieces on that one.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Please view the images and can anyone please tell me how jet fuel already on fire could possible go down this lift system from floor seventy two to the basement.



www.911oz.com...



The twin 110-story New York World Trade Center (WTC) towers are a perfect example of stacked office building applications. Each 33-story portion is serviced by four zones ­ each with six single-deck local lifts, with the local lifts of zone II and III separated by two sky lobbies. Building tenants or visitors desiring elevator transport to the floors of zone II or III must first travel on a sky-lobby shuttle elevator to the upper sky-lobby and then transfer to the appropriate local lift for final transport to their destination. A passenger departing an upper-zone floor must first travel via a local lift to the sky-lobby and then transfer to a sky-lobby shuttle elevator for final travel to the ground floor.


Look at this picture and tell me this steel suport was not cut with thermite and before you say it was cut using a cutters tourch during the clean up operations than tell me thats not a fireman standing in from of the picture.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster

Originally posted by Alfie1
All the evidence indicates, and the burns casualties confirms, that any explosions in the lobby and basement were as a result of jet fuel down the elevator shafts which was ignited.


OK lets assume fuel already on fire can somehow turn 90 degrees whilst it going forwards at 400mph and starts to somehow go down the lift shafts which goes against thermal dynamics because hot air rises.



I would love your links to everything you said. ESPECIALLY this gem. Who said that burning fuel does not fall because hot air rises?

One time I played with fire and gasoline. We did things like soak a roll of toilet paper in gas and set it on fire and kick it around. Needless to say flaming drops of gas FELL from the toilet paper even though they were on fire because the liquid fuel is more dense than air. Hence the hot air from the burning toilet paper rising in the form of smoke and the dense liquid fuel falling and setting things on fire.

So yeah please cite that source so I can e-mail them. Cite your sources for a lot of your information. I notice, quite frequently, You post gems like this that make no sense to me at all.




[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by LieBuster
 


Did not fall in its own footprint another MYTH!


WTC 7 did and there is no denying it, look at the pics.

The towers could not have fallen in their own footprint even if it was a controlled demo because they were too tall and thin, not enough room for the footprint to hold all the rubble. This is why the towers would have had to be dismantled piece by piece, not with explosives.

BUT the towers did collapse symmetrically, all the debris was ejected equally in all directions during the collapse wave. This proves there was no resistance to the collapse from undamaged structure, no slowing of the collapse wave. Fire could not have caused any steel it was not in direct contact with to even get warm let alone hot enough to not offer resistance to the collapse. Something took that resistance away, and explosives were heard and described, I can only come to one conclusion, it was controlled.




Or how about the MASSIVE load of the floors above ,I doubt the debris was ejected equally in all directions , but if you think about the construction of those towers YOU can see why it would look like that.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster
reply to post by iamcpc
 


Thats a lot of names lets see what they say in the offical report
www.9-11commission.gov...



At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.156


Thats right ten seconds so am i to beleive steel offer next to no resitance compared to air ?

You say 52% of the structual damage was to the central core and yet on the outside of the building only 3-4 beams were cut by the impact and the central core has 64 much thicker upright steel beans ? Would you care to explain this because one of the planes hit at an angle so much of the energy went out the side of the building as could be seen by the fireball.

Since you brough up a lot of names to suport your argument then let me bring up 1199 architectural and engineering professionals
cms.ae911truth.org...

maybe we should see what the architect who designed the buildings has to say about the planes



This is by far my favorite post from you because it really makes me think. You put forth logical arguments backed by expert sources! GREAT JOB!

The WTC towers were mostly air (remember the source i just gave you saying the WTC towers were 95% air). You could believe that something that is 95% air offers as much resistance as something that is 95% air.

(think about crushing a pop can or two stacked on each other with a cinderblock.)

You bring up the fireball going out the side of the building. I can copy and paste that but I can tell that, as a direct result from our posts, that you're getting much better at putting together logical arguements I think you should read it for yourself. I'm not an expert. but that same team of experts that analyzed the airplane impact explained, in detal, what those were, how much force they had, and all that kind of stuff. Read the report about airplane impact damage.


cms.ae911truth.org...

Yes those are a lot of names of people who want a new investigation. There are even some people on there who believe that the WTC towers were demolished. I admit they offer much credibility to the demolished by explosives theories.

I'm going based on people who have done actual investigations rather than people who have signed a petition. But thank you so much for citing your sources!



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster
Please view the images and can anyone please tell me how jet fuel already on fire could possible go down this lift system from floor seventy two to the basement.



Look at this picture and tell me this steel suport was not cut with thermite and before you say it was cut using a cutters tourch during the clean up operations than tell me thats not a fireman standing in from of the picture.



Actually someone did an expirment on steel to find out what it looks like when steel is cut with a torch.

SOURCE:
11-settembre.blogspot.com...

"To understand the situation more clearly, I acquired photographs taken by Joel Meyerowitz, the only professional photographer allowed at Ground Zero. I have verified that in Meyerowitz's panoramic views, taken very shortly after the collapses from many locations at Ground Zero, there are absolutely no columns which bear the markings of straight or diagonal thermal cuts, contrary to the claims of the supporters of alternative theories. "


"The pictures below show many examples of diagonal cutting in the material saved by NIST: "

"These pictures are already quite significant, but in order to obtain really definitive evidence I chose to check out in person how these tools work.
With kind assistance from an Italian company specialized in the demolition of metal articles, I was able to document the thermal cutting capabilities offered by this technology during a truly impressive public demonstration"

I think that piece of steel looks very similar to a piece of steel that was cut with a torch.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
LMAO....

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


Haha laugh on buddy.

That chart is from the standard test of non-load bearing beams using direct heat, not radiated heat as in an actual fire. Those temps are only reached in a controlled test, not in real life where you have to include heat transfer and the amount of steel being heated.

Yes one small non load bearing beam if in direct contact with the fire could reach those temps, but we're talking about thousands of tons of steel that had to be weakened, in an hour, to the point of complete failure from non direct heat. I told you to learn about heat transfer.

Hey I strongly suggest you read the whole PFD btw, especially part 6...

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



This part?


"The basic high temperature strength curve shown in Figure 31 has been generated by testing a series of small samples of steel in the laboratory, where the whole of each test sample is at a uniform temperature and is axially loaded.
When these conditions are repeated in full scale member tests, e.g. unprotected axially loaded columns, then failure does indeed occur at 550°C."

Or this?

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...(Colin%20Bailey-one-stop-shop).pdf

"Due to its high thermal conductivity steel heats up very quickly when exposed to a fire"



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by LieBuster
 

there was no resistance to the collapse from undamaged structure, no slowing of the collapse wave.




I can't believe people are still saying this. It's almost like they didn't look at the pictures of the collapse. It's almost like they don't read the forums. Here I go again.

www.plaguepuppy.net...


layscience.net.../124


In both photos you can clearly see debris, falling at free fall speed, next to the building. The debri that is falling is only being resisted by air. Anything falling slower that that is being met with air resistance AND the resistance of something else. Did you read my source that explained that the WTC towers were 95% air? Notice how the free falling debris is traveling faster than the collapse? Notice how several floors below the collapse there is debris? 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 something other than air. I would guess the collapse is being slowed by the resistance offered by the lower floors and not just air resistance causing the building to collapse slower than the free fall speed.

Having shown evidence that the WTC towers collapsed SLOWER than the free fall speed and that the lower floors did present more than just air resistance I present 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 free fall speed??

Is it possible for a collapse to have a small amount of resistance when its 95% air below it?

[edit on 28-5-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 


Doing as you requested , I looked at the picture (for the umpteenth time) and I am telling you , that column was cut with a cutting torch .

I explained it here : www.abovetopsecret.com... , on page three .

I will also tell you that YES , that is very obviously a fireman . Meaning what ? Firemen were not there during the cleanup operations ? You can't seriously believe that ?

It is posts such as this that have caused me to stay away from my own thread , as I don't intend to debate this type of nonsense .

Have you ever been around a cutting torch ? Have you ever used one ?
I have used them all my life , that is a cut by a torch .

Hopefully , a welder will come along on this thread to substantiate this .



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This part?


What you are really misunderstanding is the test is done with NON-RADIATING heat, in other words they use the most extreme condition they can which is controlled direct heat, not RADIATED heat as in a real world fire, again you have to consider heat transfer which the bs476 test does not do. Your chart does not show steel temps over time from radiated heat, which is why you have to consider heat transfer, my link showed room fire temperatures over time, which shows the room cannot get hot enough in an hour to also heat up thousands of tons of steel to anywhere near failure.

A very small percentage of the core would have been in direct contact with fire, seeing as only about 20% of the floors were on fire and even those were not fully engulfed. Not enough direct controlled heat to get the effects of your chart.

Here is how a test is actually done, note they use a furnace with controlled DIRECT heat and temperature...

www.itw-industry.com...



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
I can't believe people are still saying this. It's almost like they didn't look at the pictures of the collapse. It's almost like they don't read the forums. Here I go again.


That's because you misunderstand what I'm saying. Free-fall speed is NOT what proves symmetry.

All 3 buildings fell with all four corners falling at the same time. Any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapses, no matter how fast it was. Resistance cannot be equal throughout the building from asymmetrical damage. Any amount of resistance would cause the collapse to fall to the path of LEAST resistance, the only way for the whole undamaged lower structure to be the path of LEAST resistance would be to remove that resistance ahead of the collapse wave in a controlled manner. Resistance is a much stronger force than gravity.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by iamcpc
I can't believe people are still saying this. It's almost like they didn't look at the pictures of the collapse. It's almost like they don't read the forums. Here I go again.


That's because you misunderstand what I'm saying. Free-fall speed is NOT what proves symmetry.



I may have misunderstood what you said but what part of:

"there was no resistance to the collapse from undamaged structure"

did I not understand?




1. All 3 buildings fell with all four corners falling at the same time.

2.Any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapses.

3. Resistance cannot be equal throughout the building from asymmetrical damage.

4. Any amount of resistance would cause the collapse to fall to the path of LEAST resistance, the only way for the whole undamaged lower structure to be the path of LEAST resistance would be to remove that resistance ahead of the collapse wave in a controlled manner.

5. Resistance is a much stronger force than gravity.


1. I believe this is true.

2 and 3. Do you have a source that confirms this? I'm not an expert but I think both of those statements very well might be true. I have done unofficial "path of least resistance" testing in my driveway. I used small metal towers. Pop cans. I caused asymmetrical damage to a pop can. I used a knife to cut out part of it. I then used a cinderblock to cause the collapse of the pop can. I also used a cinderblock to cause the collapse of an undamaged pop can.

The end result was the same. Two symmetrical collapses of pop cans.

If statements 2 and 3 are correct then, after you cite your source where you got that information so I can read it for myself and then use it to strengthen truther theories, can you help me find the source that explains these two questions:

Why does the statement "Any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapse" not apply to pop cans if it is true with larger metal structures?


Wh does the statement "Resistance cannot be equal throughout the building from asymmetrical damage. " not apply to pop cans if it is true with larger metal structures?


4. Do you have a source that confirms this? I'm not an expert but I think that this statements very well might be true.

Again the cinderblock causes the pop can to collapse through the path of the MOST resistance. I remember one time my friend made a skyscraper out of building blocks. We caused them to collapse with our feet. When we pushed down on them from the top they always fell downward through the path of the greatest resistance.

www.globalnational.com...

A stronger structure than a pop can. A car. The collapse of the car is downward through the path of the most resistance. Actually the more pictures of things I see getting crushed by things the more I think that statements 2 and 4 might be incorrect. I won't make up my mind until Iill I read what your source (or sources) say.

5. That is not always true. If it was then it would be impossible to crush a pop can with a cinderblock and the picture that I linked would be fake. It depends on the amount of force that gravity has or the falling object has vs the amount of force the object that is doing the "catching" is able to support.

Now assuming:

any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapse

I ask the question:

Why did the WTC have a resistance greater than air resistance (as shown by my previous post with clear pictures of debri only falling against air resistance falling faster than the collapse) and have a symmetrical collapse?

Wait in asking this question I just realized that I don't think that statement 2 (any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapse) is true. If it was true then the WTC would not have had a symmetrical collapse because it was falling against the resistance of something greater than air resistance!

Now after having this eureka moment I'm going to really have to look into the source that gave you that information.

You bring up some points that i think very well may be true and some I think very well may be untrue (or taken out of context). I won't say which points I believe are true or untrue untill you cite your source and I read it for myself.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Here is how a test is actually done, note they use a furnace with controlled DIRECT heat and temperature...



Yes, they control the heat:

www.itw-industry.com...

"The furnace was controlled so that the mean temperature followed the time/temperature relationship specified in BS 476
art 20:1987"

Because:

www.chilternfire.co.uk...

The time/temperature and pressure regime within the standard is intended to
represent a post flashover condition. Flashover is the point at which all objects in
the fire compartment have ignited. In a real fire, the time period to flashover can be extremely long or extremely short. It is
controlled by aspects such as the nature of the fire load, compartment size and shape and the
available ventilation. Given the unknown time to flashover, it is therefore only reasonable to
represent a fire from the point of flashover and not to consider the fire growth period.


IOW, they're doing science in a controlled manner, based on temps actually seen by actual steel and other construction materials in real world fires.

This is NOT because they want to see at what temp steel fails at alone, they are doing the experiments to examine the effectiveness of insulating materials.

Such as this resl test:

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

However:

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

"The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire."


But in the end, what you're really argueing against is fire destabilizing buildings. Your own links prove that there is indeed a complex industry that focuses on preventing buildings - including steel framed buildings - from failing in fire.

Therefore, your position that fire can't fail a steel framed building to be untenable.

This is undeniable.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I was trying to find sources that confirmed your statements. I found a source that, after investigating the collapsed published a report

"confirming that a gravity driven collapse of WTC 1 was in fact
sustainable."

Dr. Frank R. Greening
Physical Chemistry
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

SOURCE www.journalof911studies.com...


"Thus, if there is no resistance to the collapse the Towers would fall in 9.2 seconds"

SOURCE

www.911myths.com...

This confirms the calculations you can do yourself on

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

that if the towers had no resistance from lower floors then they would have fallen in 9.2 seconds and they fell slower than 9.2 seconds therefore had resistance from the lower floors.

Yet you said

"Any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapses."

Well everything points to the fact that the twin towers fell slower than free fall speed. Since the evidence shows they fell slower than free fall speed then they met some resistance to cause them to collapse slower.

How come they collapse was met with resistance (as shown by pictures of falling debri, the calculations using the hyperphysics link, and the calculations by dr greening) and they collapsed symmetricaly and "Any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapses."?

I really need your sources for those statements:

2.Any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapses.

3. Resistance cannot be equal throughout the building from asymmetrical damage.

4. Any amount of resistance would cause the collapse to fall to the path of LEAST resistance, the only way for the whole undamaged lower structure to be the path of LEAST resistance would be to remove that resistance ahead of the collapse wave in a controlled manner.

5. Resistance is a much stronger force than gravity.



I feel like i'm being told that 1+1=3 by someone and I need to find out who is telling me that 1+1=3. It's either than i'm being told by someone that 1+1=3 or I'm not understanding when you say 1+1=2 and I need to find your source that will explain in detail so I can understand better.


[edit on 1-6-2010 by iamcpc]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join