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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


What he really wants to say is that "it crumpled like potato chips".

Bo Dietl said so.

It does not matter that most of the fuel was consumed in the crash.

The molten metal looking stuff wasn't molten metal, it just looked and behaved like molten metal!

The oral histories of bombs, the slurry wall shifting forward a foot, seismic records, Kurt Sonnenfeld photos, whistle blowers like Robert Baer, its all nonsense!

These people would have you believe the towers were made of cheap linguine,

Why the hell would anybody build a 110 story building that cant handle 3 hours of fire?

Those who push the lies are pathetic.




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
To the OP, Can you or anyone give me a clear answer on this.

Why was it on the the morning of 9/11 afternoon in my case when everyone in my office was following this (as an airline we had news TV in our control centre) why was I updating everyone with reports tha's said the first tower was about to collapse.

My family was on red alert as my parents got a call from my brother late night 9/10 saying he was on top of the WTC and the next day, as mothers do, she had visions he was still there!

Anyway, So i was getting updates from them telling me the news was saying the tpower was going to fall, then it did!

The after that I was streaming live news on my PC, and was relaying reports saying that tower 2 was ready to fall, before it did!

Obviously in the heat of the momenbt you don't think about this

But in the harsh light of day, what structural engineer was able to asses the structure sufficiently to say with all confidence that this was going to collapse in such a short time? to give the news outlets time to report the forthcoming falls with 100% accuracy within 5 minuted of it actually happening, just in time to beam it live around the world??

Unless it was fed?

Can anyone please answer that, rationally!???



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





And neither do the fires since fires have never caused steel-structured high-rises to collapse, ever.


Reason this doesn't happen is because the fires are detected and extinguished long before the fire has chance to inflict structural damage

At WTC there was NO FIRE FIGHTING! FDNY because of destroyed
elevators could not get into the impact area where the fires were

The plumbing system to support sprinklers and standpipes were destroyed by the aircraft impacts

No sprinklers mean no means to control the fires until FDNY could arrive

Destroyed standpipes mean no water to fight the fires even if could get there

The design of the WTC also contributed to the spread of the fires - each
floor was large open expanse with no partitions (or very flimsy ones at
best) which allowed fires to grow in size without inhabition

Add to that several thousand gallons of jet fuel being disbursed in the
building creating massive fires on multiple floors - the worlds largest
arson fire,

The last line of defense - the fireproofing applied to steelwork to protect from fire was knocked off the aircraft impact exposing it to the heat until failed



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Steel is steel, whether it is tubular or solid

Melting point of steel is 1370C (2500F)

The open air burning temp of Jet A1 is 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)

Quoting studies Class A Fires can reach temps of around 970C

As an Aviation engineer the temps at constant engine run will hang around at max 800C. which is under constant pressure and air flow.

The only way that a situation like this could act like a blast furnace would be with the constant introduction of accelerate, fuel and air constant air flow.

One the Kerosene burnt off and from the explosion cloud most of it passed through the building. then you are left with a standard out of control Class A Fire.

Possible accelerant, thermite!



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Reason this doesn't happen is because the fires are detected and extinguished long before the fire has chance to inflict structural damage

That would be false again. Another member posted several stories about steel-structured high-rises that were left burning for hours and hours and never collapsed. I'm not going to go digging through the threads for it, but simple research on your part would reveal that.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by samhouston1886
 


They call the things they say proof, but when it comes down to it, nothing of what they say would stand in a court of law!

Very sad to say the least!

Maybe someday the wool will disappear. Who knows.

I still find people standing next to were the planes entered the WTC, we have images, yet the MSM pushers keep telling us that the fires were so hot!

Then all the people should have died rigth away!

Nice post btw...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Steel is steel, whether it is tubular or solid

Melting point of steel is 1370C (2500F)

The open air burning temp of Jet A1 is 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)


In open air. What if it was in what was essentially a low speed wind tunnel?


Quoting studies Class A Fires can reach temps of around 970C


Now this is important. Take a look at the following graph;



According to your numbers , the simple class A fires in WTC would have weakened the steel to about 1/20th of its normal strength.


As an Aviation engineer the temps at constant engine run will hang around at max 800C. which is under constant pressure and air flow.


Has nothing to do with anything. Jet engines are not designed to produce heat, they are designed to minimize it while maximizing thrust.


The only way that a situation like this could act like a blast furnace would be with the constant introduction of accelerate, fuel and air constant air flow.


You mean like thousands of gallons of jet fuel and what is essentally a wind tunnel in the sky above New York?


One the Kerosene burnt off and from the explosion cloud most of it passed through the building. then you are left with a standard out of control Class A Fire.


The fire you already admitted will weaken steel to 5% of its normal strength? Do you really expect any building to stand if you go around and remove 95% of the support?


Possible accelerant, thermite!



Really leaping there huh? A building can't stand with 95% of it's support removed so thermite must have been used?

Don't get me wrong, I was one of the first people on this site posting about thermite being used, until I was able to actually try and learn and not stick to preconceived opinions.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Tiloke]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Pretty hilarious.

Especially coming from a guy that in that very post made 2 factual statements that AREN'T supported with facts and evidence, and are only opinions.

NIST's estimates were just guesses or estimates, so I'll give you that part isn't "factual".

What is absolutely factual is that no steel-structured high-rise has been brought down from fire. Please, try to prove that wrong.



See, now you chickened out of your previous statement.

You said that:

1- the damage doesn't count
2- the fires don't count

This is where YOU FAIL.

ROFLMMFAOPIMP



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by thedman
Reason this doesn't happen is because the fires are detected and extinguished long before the fire has chance to inflict structural damage

That would be false again. Another member posted several stories about steel-structured high-rises that were left burning for hours and hours and never collapsed. I'm not going to go digging through the threads for it, but simple research on your part would reveal that.


How weak.

I hope everybody notices how the TM must narrow the scope to only high rise steel structures.

Any ratioanl person can see that this is nothing more than a weak attempt to handwave away the very simple fact that other structures HAVE failed due to fire.

The reason that no high rises have failed is that there are very few of them that have been on fire. None that I'm aware of that had their fires started over several floors simultaneously.

But that's beside the point. the only thing that can be taken away from this is that fire science and engineering is well understood, and so buildings are well designed to prohibit collapse.

But I guess that truthers will just handwave away the very existence of the fire protection engineers....



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


All your questions are easily answered on the site I gave! Also you failed to give one reason why your questions were valid in the first place. Like the 90,000 tons of concrete turning to dust. Your supposed answer is; it was a thin coat of concrete on the outside of the steel. So what, how did it turn to dust from just fire and collapse? When most of it was not touched by the fire and the fact that it had heavy steel between it and the fire. That is just simple logic. Not that you will answer because you failed to go to the site so I doubt you will do anything more then you have...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Tiloke
 


Do you mean the thousands of gallons of kerosene that were blow out of the the other side of the building, due to the inertia of the high speed impact of aircraft impacting the building. and igniting evaporating and continuing onward out of the building.

The tanks on this planes will not have just dumped all of its contents in side the building with nothing escaping. and what there was would just burn off or seep down

So why was there no dire on lower floors.

Don;t even get me started on the speed of gravity descent of the building

And why oh why did both building go straight down.

By this reasoning the empire state building should have collapsed too in 1945! but whi didn't it

And what about the beam cuts at a 45 degree angle seen and photographed, which are a standard demolition technique

Sorry too many things about his whole things do not add up

Again I ask, Why was I told that both towers would fall by the MSM before they did!, Whi knew???



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Tiloke
 


Do you mean the thousands of gallons of kerosene that were blow out of the the other side of the building, due to the inertia of the high speed impact of aircraft impacting the building. and igniting evaporating and continuing onward out of the building.


So, according to you no jet fuel stayed in the buildings. I doubt it. Anyways, the point is moot since you yourself have already stated that the fires the jet fuel started were hot enough to weaken the steel to only 5% of its normal strength.


The tanks on this planes will not have just dumped all of its contents in side the building with nothing escaping. and what there was would just burn off or seep down


No doubt, but it also didn't run clean through the building leaving nothing behind as you are contending.


So why was there no dire on lower floors.


I assume you mean "fire", and there was. It erupted from exactly where you would expect it to, the elevator shafts, since that was the only uninterrupted path to ground level. Or do you expect us to believe that it would have magically passed through 80 stories of offices uninhibited?



Don;t even get me started on the speed of gravity descent of the building


Yeah, don't start because it is complete hogwash and you know it. There are dozens and dozens of photographs that show debris falling past the still standing building, if it collapsed at free-fall speeds then these pictures would not exist.





And why oh why did both building go straight down.


Well, they didn't. As you can see from the above photo where a large peice is about to hit a neighboring building. The debris was piled hundreds of feet away from their foundations, so how did they fall straight down?


By this reasoning the empire state building should have collapsed too in 1945! but whi didn't it


Well, without getting too far into it, the Empire State building was hit by a far smaller plane that did not damage the supporting structure, is constructed of much sturdier materials and firefighters were able put it out rather quickly.


And what about the beam cuts at a 45 degree angle seen and photographed, which are a standard demolition technique


Maybe because there were friggin demolition teams cleaning up ground zero genius. It has been proven that the pictures of cut beams were taken after the demo teams started the clean up.


Sorry too many things about his whole things do not add up


Only if you don't bother to even look at the math.


Again I ask, Why was I told that both towers would fall by the MSM before they did!, Whi knew???


Are you serious? Everybody who was looking at the towers could tell that they were going to collapse. The damn thing was leaning over like it had a hernia.



[edit on 29-4-2010 by Tiloke]

[edit on 29-4-2010 by Tiloke]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


WOW The Empire State Building HIT by a smaller aircraft at slower speeds but thats not the only difference IF you actually knew anything about construction you would KNOW HOW the Empire State Building was DIFFERENT from THE WTC BUILDINGS go find out before comparing APPLES WITH ORANGES!

[edit on 29-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


All your questions are easily answered on the site I gave! Also you failed to give one reason why your questions were valid in the first place. Like the 90,000 tons of concrete turning to dust. Your supposed answer is; it was a thin coat of concrete on the outside of the steel. So what, how did it turn to dust from just fire and collapse? When most of it was not touched by the fire and the fact that it had heavy steel between it and the fire. That is just simple logic. Not that you will answer because you failed to go to the site so I doubt you will do anything more then you have...




Look at the distance it fell look how much load from other floors as they fell THE DUST seen during the collapse would BE JUST AS MUCH IF NOT MORE "SHEETROCK" or do think that would't break apart



Plane hits building cause structural damage fires breakout wasnt just aircraft fuel what about plastics, paper carpets etc etc.
Steel loses strength DOESN'T NEED TO MELT! HUGE imposed load above impact point 1500 TONS PER FLOOR!.


Fires were not bad


www.debunking911.com...


Re all the controlled demolition believers links below.


www.demolitionnews.com...


This appeared on a program on the Discovery Channel iirc
Many problems here primary school within a 250ft of towers ,road and rail links nearby the other towers.
Many months of planning and many weeks of preperation for this job removing windows supporting
walls inside to ensure it DID collapse in its footprint UNLIKE the towers WHICH DIDN'T.
No damage to school no damage to roads/rail link or other buildings


[edit on 29-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
All of this talk about fire is irrelevant. Suppose we just grant that the airliner impact and fire could start the collapse to eliminate the trivial arguments. A WTC tower could be divided into 7 15-story sections with 5 left over.

So suppose we could remove 5 levels below the top 15 stories of the north tower and then simulate if those 15 could crush the remaining 90. That 60 foot gap would mean 15 stories falling for 2 seconds and impacting on the top of the lower 6 15-story sections at 44 mph. I think everyone would have to agree that totally removing 5 stories is more damage than the airliner and fires could possibly have done. So all discussion of collapse initiation is eliminated.

But that analysis would require knowing the mass on each level of the building and the strength of steel that would have to be crushed/bent/broken/dislocated or whatever terminology anyone wants to use. But it is the MASS that would have to be accelerated downward that would affect the collapse time. The bottom of the falling 15 stories would get crushed against the top of the 90 stories. Those 90 stories consist of SIX 15-story sections and each one had to be stronger and heavier than the one above.

The JREF nitwits make a BIG DEAL of Static and Dynamic loads like the words are magic but just because static capacity of a support is exceeded does not mean it had zero resistance and therefore it slowed the falling mass down and the next support had to contend with less dynamic load. Of coure then they will say the mass incresed but that increased mass also slowed down the falling mass due to the Conservation of Momentum.

But the energy to do that crushing would have to come from the kinetic energy of the falling mass. JUST LIKE IN MY MODEL!!! The top portion would SLOW DOWN. The stronger and heavier levels further down the tower would continue the deceleration until it stopped.

www.youtube.com...

But regardless of what happened this cannot be analyzed without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the buildings. So why should we listen to people who claim they know physics talk about Black Holes and String Theory if they have not resolved a measly problem of an airliner crashing into a skyscraper in EIGHT YEARS. But then they need the government to finance their research with super colliders and telescopes in space, etc., etc. so they have a vested interest in not rocking the government's boat.

When have they even demanded to know the weight of a complete floor assembly, the 205 foot square concrete slab plus the corrugated steel pans plus the 35 and 60 foot trusses. There were more than 80 of them in each tower plust the technical floors that were even heavier. Doing physics without data, what a JOKE!

psik



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Of coure then they will say the mass incresed but that increased mass also slowed down the falling mass due to the Conservation of Momentum.



How in the world can you make this statement and expect to be taken seriously?

The resistance can be there, and be in sufficent quantity to slow the acceleration of that mass to less than g, but STILL be insufficent to slow it down.

This is such a simple mistake. It is generally accepted at truther sites with a little more rigor to their thinking, like over at Greg's, that the collapse accelerated at .7g.

This indicates resistance, but less than what is needed to slow it down.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How in the world can you make this statement and expect to be taken seriously?

The resistance can be there, and be in sufficent quantity to slow the acceleration of that mass to less than g, but STILL be insufficent to slow it down.

This is such a simple mistake. It is generally accepted at truther sites with a little more rigor to their thinking, like over at Greg's, that the collapse accelerated at .7g.

This indicates resistance, but less than what is needed to slow it down.


So where is the data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building? Yeah we have the collapse time. But that could be the result of something knocking out the supports from below. Where is the PROOF it could be crushed in that time from above. Where is the distribution of steel and concrete data and why don't we even know the weight of a floor assembly?

All you are doing is repeating BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE TOLD and don't ask obvious questions.

I have already done a calculation of how mass alone slows a collapse without supports having to be broken.

www.thenakedscientists.com...

psik



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How in the world can you make this statement and expect to be taken seriously?

The resistance can be there, and be in sufficent quantity to slow the acceleration of that mass to less than g, but STILL be insufficent to slow it down.

This is such a simple mistake. It is generally accepted at truther sites with a little more rigor to their thinking, like over at Greg's, that the collapse accelerated at .7g.

This indicates resistance, but less than what is needed to slow it down.


psik


I notice that you avoided addressing your glaring mistake.

Any reason for that, other than embarassment?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


South tower fell first although struck second WHY? because of the load of over 40,000 tons above the impact point thats WHY!

Each floor weighed of 1500 tons LOOK at any video of the collapse you see the FLOORS ABOVE THE IMPACT drop as one unit.

Look at this picture to see what I mean.

www.uphaa.com...

It kind off F&^S up your calculations as the towers didn't collapse from top but from the floor above the impact point



Re collapse of buildings this happend in the UK.

www.bdonline.co.uk...

May 1968 gas explosion in kitchen ,floors collapsed on one another after that due to the deaths of 4 people a major rethink happened in the construction of precast concrete tower blocks.




[edit on 30-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

South tower fell first although struck second WHY? because of the load of over 40,000 tons above the impact point thats WHY!


It is curious how people pick and choose their facts but ignore those that do not serve their purposes.

This is a very interesting video:

www.youtube.com...

Why did the bottom of the broken top portion move sideways so fast? It moved at least 20 feet in about 3 seconds. Just the concrete in a floor assembly was 600 tons. How could that much mass move so fast? But gravity pulls down not sideways. What provided the energy to do that?

But you want to claim the south tower came down sooner because of more weight while ignoring that sideways motion. But being farther down means there had to be more steel to support that weight. Which also means that more steel would be more difficult for the fire to heat up and weaken.

But no, you want to claim arguments are plausible on the basis of superficial analysis that is downright stupid while ignoring glaring anomalies. People that claim to know physics should be beaten with sticks because of all of the things they are not raising hell about over 9/11.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join