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.

 

911 is joke in your town...CDI bought to make you cry

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Thread with sources and details

Many people posted videos and rebuttals in that thread, but each one of them only worked to support my theory that it was entirely impossible for fire to have caused an equilateral collapse without any torque in any direction as the top part began to fall.

Here are some excepts:



Now, before we even get to that point of the discussion, we first have to believe that a Diesel fire, in an extremely damped situation, burning very inefficiently would have enough heat to liquefy even one piece of steel. There just isn't any science to even get that far, so how the building fell is really a moot point until we figure out how a Diesel Fire melted steel? If we give the OS a whole bunch of unlikely what-ifs regarding other fuel sources and wind-tunnel effects, and superheated drywall and paint, and stress fractures in the steel from the impact, even if we jump through all those unlikely hoops to an almost impossible conclusion, then we have to continue letting the OS speculate that all of the hundreds of beams were affected equally by this unlikely scenario?



So, looking at the information below, and remembering that there is not sufficient airflow in this fire to get to ideal temperatures, and remembering that there are numerous walls and insulating factors between the fires and the steel, and remembering that the building is designed with certain "worst-case scenario" safety factors involved to withstand an impact, or a high wind, or a deep freeze, or an intense fire, or an earthquake, and remembering that the radiating heat would be absorbed / reflected differently as it encountered each layer of insulating material in a number of directions and distances, how can anyone conclude that hundreds of steel beams melted and collapsed simultaneously from a kerosene fire?

Melting Temperature of Steel 1100-1600 deg. Cast Iron 1200-1350 deg. Pure Iron 1535 deg.

Ignition Temperature of Kerosene 229 deg. Diesel 399 deg. Acetone 465 deg. Asphault 538 deg.

At 550 degrees, the steel loses approx. 50% of structural integrity. Wall Masonry collapses at 760 deg. (Remember Kerosene burns at 229 deg.)

www.tcforensic.com.au...



We know about the fire ratings of concrete block walls, and it would be approximately 4 hours before dangerous heat would transfer to the far side. It would surely be longer than that for sufficient heat to melt steel would transfer! PreCast or Pre-stressed Concrete walls have even higher ratings.

www.masonrybc.org...


The fire resistance ratings of masonry walls are determined by heat
transmission measured by temperature rise on the cold side. A masonry
wall will not let flames or smoke through even after the temperature of
the wall on the cold side has risen above required levels. Few walls fail
due to load during the fire test, during cooling under the fire hose, or
during the double load test that follows.



Read "Double Load" test that follows on a second or subsequent fire after surviving an initial fire and a cold blast from a fire hose.

The fire rating is a little lower on that page linked.

Architects and Engineers design in a lot of redundant safety factors, so I would guess that even if the fire had raged for a full day, and even if several beams finally reached 50% structural integrity, that the building would still stand. I would also remind us that there is no way a damped kerosene fire gets us to that point in any amount of time, but especially in the short time span of 9/11.



Here is some interesting testing for Steel structures in PetroChemical plants where intense fires have the added heat of petrochemicals. 2000 degrees within 5 minutes is tested and the steel maintains structural integrity!

Petrochemical plant fire testing




The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) tested and reported
fire resistance ratings of load bearing steel stud walls with
gypsum wallboard protection (with or without cavity insulation) in the early 1980s. The study was conducted to develop an
analytical method making it possible to predict the structural
behavior of cold-formed steel framing in load-bearing walls under the conditions in the ASTM E119 Standard Fire Test. As a result, fire-resistant ratings, construction and material details are provided in UL Fire Resistance Directory as Design U425.


www.bfrl.nist.gov...

As noted previously, large buildings located in urban areas could be classified in higher performance groups than similar buildings located in less concentrated areas, thus justifying higher fire resistances for buildings located in concentrated urban areas. While the severity of the fires in such similar buildings would be expected to be similar regardless of the building location, the potential consequences of building collapse would be different based on the building location. Consequently, it would be reasonable to require a higher level of fire resistance for buildings located in urban areas than for similar buildings in isolated locations




I hope this helps! After reading all of this, and making an informed decision, I hope to get more than a one word response? Two words would be ok (i.e. "I agree")!




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Care to elaborate? My information came from fire code in NYC, and from plans of the world trade centers. The post with all the pertinent links and sources exists on ATS. I am personally tired of reposting it, but you don't have to take my word for it. find my original post follow the links and see for yourself.


There was zero concrete encasement of the core columns.

There is zero requirement for buildings to withstand 10-12 hrs of fire.

The posts with all the pertinent links and sources exists on ATS. I am personally tired of reposting it, but you don't have to take my word for it.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Look at pictures of the fires you can see the full length of a floor
ON FIRE,not in one area to allow heat to dissipate along the steel as you claim


Another thing some posters (getreadyalready) on this thread still keep going on
about the steel melting IT DOESN'T have to see graph in link below.
IF YOU cant understand what it means ask someone who does!

As for 10-12 hour fire (getreadyalready) care to point to a reference for that!

Office fires can burn at 900-1000C kerosene started the fires but you had paper,
wood, plastics etc all burning NOT just kerosene NICE TRY!

www.elephantowners.com...

LOOK at this video of the south tower collapse AND I mean LOOK at it !

WHAT DO YOU SEE WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK!!!!!

Then try to tell ANYONE the top section of the South tower doesn't
fall as one section!


www.youtube.com...

SO what kind of loads do you want to talk about ANOK

DEAD,IMPOSED,WIND,STATIC,DYNAMIC,SIESMIC,SHEAR, PULLOUT
PRYOUT LOADS ,BENDING MOMENTS,LIVE LOADS, ENVIRONMENTAL OR EVEN SHOCK LOADS



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
We know it can't have been bombs that caused the collapse because, as shown in ANOK's video above, the destruction begins at the point of entry.

So if the Truth Movement's maths and engineering work is correct they're going to have to find another explanation. At least the DEW/noplane crowd exhibit intellectual honesty.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I posted link for the concrete encasement and the fire wall ratings. Go read them. The beams were encased, and they were coated with fire retardant, and it is correct that the steel doesn't have to "melt" all of my links I posted are tested to 50% integrity loss. A petrochemical fire of the hottest imagineable type would take more than 4 hours in a basic highrise building before the steel lost 50% integrity.

This was not a very hot petrochemical fire, and this was not a basic highrise building. THis building was held to the most extreme standards, and this fire was an extremely inefficient fuel source with limited air flow.

It would never, ever have gotten the steel to drop even 50% in integrity, and if by some miracle it did burn that hot, it would have taken more than 12 hours.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I posted link for the concrete encasement


It doesn't matter if you have a link that says the core columns were encased in concrete. They weren't. The closest you can come is that they had cementious planks around some of them as fire protection, that were rated at 3-4 hrs. That's it.

But I understanf you totally. You know that the plane impacts would have removed the fire protection. But your fantasies/incredulity can't accept the fact that plane impacts and fire damage caused the falls. And the removal of the fire protection means that your delusions cannot proceed, cuz it exposes the steel to fires and 1000C gases.

Therefore, you MUST find an erromeous link that says that the core columns were encased in concrete, cuz the planes would have had a tougher time removing that, thereby preserving your fantasy.


BTW, you still haven't provided the city code that states that buildings are REQUIRED to withstand 10-12 hrs of fire, making you a liar until you do so.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

It would never, ever have gotten the steel to drop even 50% in integrity, and if by some miracle it did burn that hot, it would have taken more than 12 hours.



This needs to be addressed separately.

NIST doesn't say that "the hot steel lost 50% of its load bearing capability, therefore the towers fell."

You do not understand what's in it. Making your arguement a strawman.

Only moderate temperatures - 260C or so - is necessary for the steel to experience a condition called viscoplastic creep. It is basically a slow deformation of columns that results in load transfer to other load bearing structures. Eventually, the cumulative load transfers result in whatever columns are left to be overloaded, and the buildings failed.

And 250C is easily attainable for unprotected steel while in the presence of 1000C gasses.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I searched on YouTube for examples of "top down demolition".

Found this one, it was pulled by cables, according to the description.

Seems that the point of failure (where the cables compromise the structural integrity) is the point that allows collapse initiation...and gravity does the rest. Seems very reminscent of WTC Towers...reason for initial damage is different, but point is...NO EXPLOSIVES were necessary.





Oh, and this one --- same youtuber. Better up close view, shows the cable removal of outer wall support, and the result of the intact portion above as it begins to accelerate in free fall!!!:



~~~~~~

Whilst rummaging around in YouTube, found this interesting clip:



Comments????



[edit on 21 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Regarding the F18 crash, I want to know who planted the bombs.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Interesting that there's such a resounding silence in the face of that video.

Interesting also that this building collapsed, and the school of architecture at Delft collapsed. The latter even had explosions coming from it.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Interesting that there's such a resounding silence in the face of that video.


Cause there's not much to say.

Neither buildings were steel framed, and neither building collapsed symmetrically into their own footprints.

The demolition, you have no idea what they did inside to pre-weaken the structure, and it was only a local collapse.

The plane crash also a localized collapse, not complete, and not a 110 story tower with, as you all painstakingly point out when it suits your argument, a completely different design.

You have to match what actually happened to the WTC buildings to have a valid point.

[edit on 7/25/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


My point is that there's no way that building should have fallen down, even partially. What happened to make it come down?

And the WTC didn't fall into its own footprint anyway. Remember the sections being "blown 400ft"?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
You would think that the fact that there were no flashes or sounds of explosives going off, plus the debris coming out of the top of the buildings would be an indication that it was not controlled demolition. I guess not.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
We know it can't have been bombs that caused the collapse because, as shown in ANOK's video above, the destruction begins at the point of entry.


So this is your proof of no explosives used - because the collapse initiation started at the point of plane entry? CDI have proven to us that demolition charges can quite happily survive an inferno without detonation. They put on pyrotechnic displays including setting fires on multiple floors with incendiary charges without interfering or setting off any of the actual demolition charges.

More likely the collapse was initated from the point of impact to make it look as if the plane caused the collapse. It would of looked stupid if the collapse initiation started anywhere else BUT there, the planes would of been pointless and demolition obvious. Such things are considered and are the very nature of a deceptive covert operation.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Even when faced with irrefutable evidence of the inanity of the "demolition" claims, the convoluted explanations still persist???


NOW (and again, seen this one before...) these "evil, evil perps" somehow predicted WITH INCREDIBLE ACCURACY exactly where two lunatic terrorist hijackers, each flying a B-767, would hit the buildings???

AND you expect reasoning, thinking people to believe in that "explanation"?
?

I smell desperation....



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
It's not inconceivable that the collapse could be initiated from any floor the 'evil perps' wanted, to do the top down demolition of the twin towers would probably require every other floor to be rigged. If it were computer controlled it would be a simple job of re-collaborating the sequence of detonations to start from which ever floors the plane punched in to. They had a whole hour to do this which would be enough time. Perhaps this is also why the buildings weren't demolished immediately.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And the WTC didn't fall into its own footprint anyway. Remember the sections being "blown 400ft"?


I was referring to WTC7.

It was impossible for the towers to land in their own footprint, too tall and thin for that to happen. But the debris was ejected symmetrically in all directions, showing that there was no asymmetrical resistance.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


As I said...

...the smell of desperation. Just make up any explanation, no matter there isn't any proof at all...make it up, and hope someone will believe in it.




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


Look at pictures of the fires you can see the full length of a floor
ON FIRE,not in one area to allow heat to dissipate along the steel as you claim


You miss the point. The steel the towers were made from was connected throughout the building, floors were not independent of the rest of the building.


Another thing some posters (getreadyalready) on this thread still keep going on about the steel melting IT DOESN'T have to see graph in link below. IF YOU cant understand what it means ask someone who does!


No it doesn't have to melt but it does have to reach the point of equilibrium before it will get hot enough to fail.
LOL there is not enough heat generated in an hours worth of office fire to heat steel to failure. Even if it did cause some floor trusses to fail it is not going to cause a complete global symmetrical collapse of the central core.


Of 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...

Now go learn how heat transfer works and why the steel could not reach the same temperature as the room, or even close to failure, in an hour.


Office fires can burn at 900-1000C kerosene started the fires but you had paper,
wood, plastics etc all burning NOT just kerosene NICE TRY!


See above for room fire temps, and yes that includes room furniture, wood, paper etc. WTC 2 collapsed in less than an hour..


LOOK at this video of the south tower collapse AND I mean LOOK at it !

WHAT DO YOU SEE WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK!!!!!

Then try to tell ANYONE the top section of the South tower doesn't
fall as one section!


You should also note it is tilting, it wasn't even sitting square on top when it supposedly crushed the rest of the building. Learn about angular momentum, the top should have continued it's path.


SO what kind of loads do you want to talk about ANOK

DEAD,IMPOSED,WIND,STATIC,DYNAMIC,SIESMIC,SHEAR, PULLOUT
PRYOUT LOADS ,BENDING MOMENTS,LIVE LOADS, ENVIRONMENTAL OR EVEN SHOCK LOADS


LOL what are you on about? How about the loads the building was designed to hold, like an Fos of at least 2?

[edit on 7/25/2010 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join