It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, please...."only possible with explosives"??! Explosives that were planted, "how"? On the inside...but, blew "inward" too???
Originally posted by Logical one
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, please...."only possible with explosives"??! Explosives that were planted, "how"? On the inside...but, blew "inward" too???
Yep the "truthers" and their supporters made the same mistake with the Pentagon wreckage, they can't quite seem to grasp that explosions from inside a building which blows outwards would look VERY different from impact damage!
And all the photos of the twin towers and Pentagon show impact damage NOT internal outward explosion damage.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Logical one
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, please...."only possible with explosives"??! Explosives that were planted, "how"? On the inside...but, blew "inward" too???
Yep the "truthers" and their supporters made the same mistake with the Pentagon wreckage, they can't quite seem to grasp that explosions from inside a building which blows outwards would look VERY different from impact damage!
And all the photos of the twin towers and Pentagon show impact damage NOT internal outward explosion damage.
Originally posted by Logical one
.remember the Twin Towers were one of the first to employ the tube-frame structural design.
Tube structures have since been used in many other later skyscrapers, including the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[5] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.[4]
Originally posted by iSunTzu
Originally posted by Yankee451
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by FDNY343
One hour of hydrocarbon fire, even with chimney effect, is not enough to weaken thousands of tons of steel to the point of complete failure, period. Not even enough time for the heat to transfer to the steel.
With all that steel acting like a gigantic heat sink, the OS is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.
Go ahead replace your CPU heat-sink with a super Steel Heat-sink. WARNING, this will cook your CPU; don't do it.
Steel is not a heat sink; look it up. Wiki knows! One hour of an office fire is enough to destroy the strength of steel after the insulation was knocked off due to Kinetic energy impact. Physics prove it.
.... or a wall breaching kit ....
Originally posted by iSunTzu
Steel is not a heat sink; look it up. Wiki knows! One hour of an office fire is enough to destroy the strength of steel after the insulation was knocked off due to Kinetic energy impact. Physics prove it.
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
According to Malott, before the advent of the World Trade Center
towers, high-rise buildings shared two vital characteristics: one,
they were supported by a grid of steel columns, and two, the columns
were encased in a tough cladding of reinforced concrete. This
concrete created a fireproof skin designed to withstand a four-hour
inferno. (The four-hour rating is a building industry standard for
fireproofing) As designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki the Twin
Towers incorporated neither of these traditional features. These
features were found in most tall buildings before the Twin Towers
came along and changed the equation. Malott claims that it was the
failure to use the traditional steel column grid design and concrete
coating on the steel columns that was the fatal flaw of the
buildings--not the initial crashes, not the exploding jet fuel and
not the subsequent fire alone.
In an attempt to cut weight--which is the enemy of all high-rise
buildings--the designers of the Towers eliminated the traditional
steel column grid. Instead, Yamasaki placed the steel columns in the
perimeter of the outer walls of the buildings and in the perimeter of
the small inner core of the buildings that housed the elevator
shafts. This design allowed every floor to have unobstructed floor
space with no interior supporting columns or beams.
In further attempts to save weight, time and money designers were
allowed to fireproof the steel columns with spray-on mineral-wool
fiber and layers of sheetrock instead of the traditional method of
using reinforced concrete. The elevator shaft and the steel columns
in those shaft walls were covered with sheetrock as well.
As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. . .
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Logical one
.remember the Twin Towers were one of the first to employ the tube-frame structural design.
The tube design was not as unique to the twin towers as we are led to believe.
These are all tube design buildings...
DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963.
John Hancock Center at 875 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, completed in 1968.
Willis Tower (formerly named, and still commonly referred to as Sears Tower) 108-story, Chicago, completed in 1974.
Petronas Towers (also known as the Petronas Twin Towers or KLCC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998.
Jin Mao Tower, 88-story skyscraper Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Burj Khalifa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and is currently the tallest man-made structure ever built, at 828 m (2,717 ft).
It had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the towers.
edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob
Originally posted by Yankee451
[Looks like shaped charges or a wall breaching kit went bad thanks to a pipe and more re-bar than expected:
Originally posted by Logical one
Do they also employ the spray on fire retardant that the twin towers had?
And how many of those buildings that you list have similarly been hit by speeding commercial fuel laden jets?
Originally posted by ANOK
What has the spray on fire proofing got to do with anything? You claimed the towers were a unique design, I showed you they weren't, now you change the subject.
Why don't you relax and slow down, you have come here with your mind already made up, and you are obviously not listening to anything anyone is saying, just spreading BS that has already been covered a few thousand times.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
So explain exactly how fast can heat from a 30ft long truss transfer into the remaining steel through two 5/8" bolts in slotted holes on both ends, into a seat, from the top chord of the truss
Originally posted by Logical one
Originally posted by Yankee451
[Looks like shaped charges or a wall breaching kit went bad thanks to a pipe and more re-bar than expected:
First you "truther" guys try to convince us that the Pentagon was hit by a missile........but when that theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny it's now a "wall breaching kit!"
Well which is it a missile?........a wall breaching kit?edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)
Looks like shaped charges or a wall breaching kit went bad thanks to a pipe and more re-bar than expected
Originally posted by Yankee451
Have we met?
Originally posted by Logical one
Perhaps you would do well to read my post a little more carefully, I NEVER claimed they were of "unique "design I said they were ONE of the first to be constructed like this as opposed to the traditional method.
Now enough with your BS please!
But let's just say for arguments sake it was a controlled demolition........any demolition professional will tell you that there will always be cables, strapping and anchors left over in the rubble........any controlled demolition of such tall buildings would have been littered with these items.
How come there is no evidence of such items in the rubble?