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.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 25
34
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIsraelite777
 


Jet fuel exploded... look at any gas explosion on youtube. It's loud. The WTC explosions were caught on tape as loud after the planes hit.

Jet fuel is a liquid, and the gas of it is what combusts. Liquid likes to travel. There were elevator shafts, one that went the full length of the tower. Liquid goes down, blows out various floors with the combustion, and eventually hits the basement after a couple seconds. (given free-fall and not knowing the position of the elevators, it probably took around 7 seconds to completely finish exploding inside the tower.)

It's really not hard to imagine that some booms were heard when you remember what was inside the planes.
edit on 20-3-2011 by Varemia because: added parenthesis




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 
Also
Fuel explosion could have caused damage
Fire could have caused damage


I think the air fuel explosion would do almost nothing to structural steel besides raise the surface temperature temporarily. The force would not be sufficiently concentrated to bend steel strong enough to support another 29 stories of the south tower. It would blow people and furniture around and set things on fire but fuel and vapor diffused through the air would be relatively weak against one inch thick steel.

And if the steel is that strong how could the fire have weakened it in LESS THAN ONE HOUR?

So why doesn't EVERYBODY want to know the tons of steel that were on every level of the towers?

Why are we arguing year after year and not demanding information that simple? Is it that the people that have chosen to believe the Official Conspiracy Theory don't want to know? And all of the EXPERTS would look silly asking after NINE YEARS of not mentioning it?

I don't see it discussed on the AE911Truth website. Whose side are they on?

psik



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


The tanks in the wings ignited on impact, as shown on TV. Big fireball, that was all the kerosene...it didn't have enough time to go anywhere, much less all the way the elevator shaft. Recall, it took what, about 10 seconds for the whole tower to fall, well that's how long the jet fuel would take to get down there. It didn't do that. It ignited on impact and burnt up.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Varemia
 


The tanks in the wings ignited on impact, as shown on TV. Big fireball, that was all the kerosene...it didn't have enough time to go anywhere, much less all the way the elevator shaft. Recall, it took what, about 10 seconds for the whole tower to fall, well that's how long the jet fuel would take to get down there. It didn't do that. It ignited on impact and burnt up.


How can you claim that? You can't know that every single drop of fuel burnt up instantly. You don't have magical fuel sensing vision. Fuel probably soaked itself into stuff that allowed it to continue burning fervently. It probably did go down the elevator shafts, since it probably flowed faster than the combustion could follow it. Parts of it pool in different areas and then combust as the fire catches up. Boom, you have an elevator blown out. Remember how all the lobbies were blown out when the firefighters got to them?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I can claim it because it is highly flammable jet fuel. That's what it does, ignite...it wouldn't wait even a few seconds, much less enough time to travel downstairs for ten seconds. It is also corroborated by the video. You've seen other videos of plane crashes before, right? Do you see a river of jet fuel, or a fireball?

The first part of the wing tanks would ignite first as they shredded on the steel...meaning the rest of the kerosene would pass through the flames if it had any forward momentum left, before finding it's way to the nearest elevator. And besides, why would you think jet fuel behaves like that anyway?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


They are engineered to withstand earthquakes you quack!

Not thousand degree fires for prolonged durations against bare steal..!!!!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
reply to post by Ben81
 


They are engineered to withstand earthquakes you quack!

Not thousand degree fires for prolonged durations against bare steal..!!!!


Actually they are.

911 wasn't 1000 degree, and it certainly wasn't prolonged, but it is the only time in history, times 3.

Fire Safety Engineering

Skyscraper Fires

Other Sky Scraper Fires



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


psikeyhackr

YOU dont know if the fuel explosion caused no damage to the steelwork or floors, you assume that, we cant know! but what
about damage to the fire protection and sheetrock.

Drawings on the net work out the info yourself re mass!

Anok

Again you look at the events the way YOU want , the Cardington test show that the temperatures in an office fire
can get high enough to cause real problems. Some parts got to 700+c in 23 mins!

But you seem to ignore the fact that the test did not simulate the collapse of the floors above the Cardington
steelwork was not sujected to a massive shock(dynamic) load from above was it!!!!!

You also seem to forget the 700-800 tons of concrete per floor were held onto the core and perimeter steel
with a couple of bolts through a piece of steel angle, did that itself cause problems on the day!

TheIsraelite777
Yes the explosions what could they have been were they actual explosions could things in the building
exploded due to the heat? and could it have been structural items failing can you imagine the noise of
say part of a floor that has 700-800 tons of concrete collapsing. You have to remember these people were
under extreme stress at the time.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
reply to post by Ben81
 


They are engineered to withstand earthquakes you quack!

Not thousand degree fires for prolonged durations against bare steal..!!!!


Actually they are.

911 wasn't 1000 degree, and it certainly wasn't prolonged, but it is the only time in history, times 3.

Fire Safety Engineering

Skyscraper Fires

Other Sky Scraper Fires



You do KNOW or do you NOT that a lot of your skyscraper fires were NOT steelframe


Take this one for instance on your second link!




So lets see what is said re this fire

www.mediabistro.com...

From this page


planning to remove most of the steel and decorative portions of the building and reconstructing it based on the original plans using its still-intact and relatively healthy concrete bones


Also out of interest Yankee451 how many of those fires were caused by the impact of a passenger plane traveling a few hundred miles per hour


Anymore on your concrete core
thought NOT



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


So you ARE claiming the Oxford quote is inaccurate.

Why are you so fixated with the concrete core?

Is it central to the OS? Over in the Pentagon threads, the OSers fight tooth and nail to deny the lightwell walls are reinforced concrete too…makes one wonder why this lie is so important to you. Does it imply that with a reinforced concrete core, the OS becomes so ridiculous that even faked video won’t be enough to dupe the masses?


Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

algoxy.com...


It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

www.ncsea.com...


At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

www.blythe.org...:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse

I guess we’ll just need to let the readers decide.

Speaking of faked video, now that we’ve beaten your concrete core to death, are you ready to comment about Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehl and Robert Clark yet?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Cardington proved that steel will not fail from fire as they claimed it did on 911.


The Cardington Fire Tests

There are good reasons why fire-ravaged steel buildings typically do not collapse. In a series of fire tests completed in 1996 at the Cardington Lab in the UK the Building Research Establishment (BRE) showed that even unprotected steel frame buildings have large reserves of stability during extreme fire events.[83] In physical tests lasting 2-4 hours–––considerably longer than the fires of 9/11–––lab scientists subjected steel beams, columns and composite steel/concrete floors to fires that at times exceeded 1,000°C. In test after test the unprotected steel beams or columns bowed, buckled and sagged, but not a one of them collapsed

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Why do you keep insisting that the Cardington tests support your claims?


Because you're assuming the th WTC steel had to fail. It doesn't. Go read the NIST report.

Two words you need to keep in mind.

Thermal

Expansion



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The damage to the building is not consistent with the OS. The gashes are outside-in slices, not inside-out as the OS requires.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIsraelite777
We have firsthand accounts of people inside the world trade center before it went down. They gave their accounts saying they heard what sounded like big explosions after the two planes had hit. This was many firemen, business people, and police.


Now, you have these accounts of explosions.

Can you rule out any of the dozens of things that would go BOOM in a fire that would be found in ABINDANCE in the WTC?

I'll give you a few examples.

HVAC equipment including compressors

Large oil-filled motors

Tube type monitors and tv's.


Can you rule them out?

If so, please list why, and include any assumptions.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Why don't you explain to us all how it happened, mister eye witness.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I think the air fuel explosion would do almost nothing to structural steel besides raise the surface temperature temporarily. The force would not be sufficiently concentrated to bend steel strong enough to support another 29 stories of the south tower. It would blow people and furniture around and set things on fire but fuel and vapor diffused through the air would be relatively weak against one inch thick steel.

And if the steel is that strong how could the fire have weakened it in LESS THAN ONE HOUR?


You're correct in that a FAE would do very little to the massive core columns. However, to the lightwight steel trusses that held the floors most likely could be damaged by a FAE. How much, it really depends. I don't have access to an FEA tool, as that would be the best place to start.

Now, how could a fire that was producing something in the area of 1,000,000 MJ per hour, (which, btw, is 100,000,000,000,000 [100 TRILLION]) joules of heat energy. 4.184 joules will heat 1 g. of water 1 deg (C)

So, you do the math.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


The damage to the columns is left to right. You do the math.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


The damage to the columns is left to right. You do the math.


Consider this. The wings of a Boeing are not perfectly straight. They are at an angle. In this way, if you imagine it impacting in slow motion (such as on the show Timewarp) you might be able to imagine the plane wing coming into contact with the column and first being dented against it, causing the column facing to crack. Then, the continuing forward motion of the plane causes the material to kind of pull to the right, especially if the plane was even slightly off perpendicular with the building.

Here's a link to an image of a Boeing 767-222
www.airliners.net...
edit on 21-3-2011 by Varemia because: added link



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


The slicing motion would be opposite what the evidence shows.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Yes the Oxford quote is wrong NO CONCRETE no drawing shows it and NO PHOTOGRAPH during construction shows it.

Provided links to the gypsum plank details and the story of the people in the lift sheetrock round the steel as fire protection.

The sheetrock was blown of section round the core into the stairwells if you check links on net!

Also a little tip Your SORRY Jims video fakery thread had be closed ( and rightly so) because of his WACKO no plane ideas!!

Right what are you on about with this Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehl and Robert Clark .

LET ME KNOW!!!
edit on 21-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Are you throwing a fit little girl?

If you don't like the plethora of examples of photos and statements I provided with my links, then it's time to let the readers decide.

If you don't want to discuss the faked images, that's no surprise.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join