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.

 

WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

page: 18
32
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


What if the jet fuel saturated furnishings and carpet? Wouldn't that make it last for longer?

Check this out:

www.vulcan-solutions.com...


The maximum temperatures recorded were 1213°C (atmosphere) and 1150°C (steel beams).


Those are normal office fire temperatures, not jet fuel fed fires.


It didn't have time to saturate carpet. Look at the graphic of the deformation of the slab in your own reference website - the deformation is limited to the area of the fire. Was the entire floor on fire of either tower? No. Was the entire exterior structure breached by the plane? No. It. Was. Not.... Not. Even. Close.

The exterior structure would have had to be compromised somehow - ALL the way around - for the building to collapse straight down. Otherwise, it would have listed at an angle and the top would have fallen over - and the structure underneath the damage would have remained intact.

Use your heads, people. Seriously. This whole argument is getting so ridiculous. BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE BY THEMSELVES.




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
I love the ever-growing number of "I was a truther and now I'm not" threads.


Does "their" playbook really say that this kind of reverse psychology actually works? I think a third-grader wrote the playbook.

Peace


Seriously. I wonder if there is any correlation between these posters and the ones authoring the "Ron Paul is Unelectable" threads.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


The more times I watch these buildings go down, the more it becomes blatantly obvious that they were brought down by controlled demolition. Anyone with a moderate understanding of engineering and physics like I have, would know better than to think otherwise. I have to believe that people who stand by the official story are just plain stupid, or they are employed by people who want the truth to remain hidden.


Anyone with a moderate understanding of engineering and physics would know that looking at videos is not the right way to figure something out. People with such understanding know that physics can often be very unintuitive. Instead, they rely on calculations and models to figure out what is going on.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Tony Bennet believes we should melt all guns down and also believes everyone in the world at one time use to lIke America.See how the looney conspiracy nonsense happens when people do not believe how dangerous of a world we all live in together is.Some of the liberals after 9/11 and the Iraq war have literaly gone bat # looney in the head.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


That kind of makes sense, but I don't have another plausible explanation other than the OS. Demolitions have no documented evidence yet, and until they do, I cannot support them.

Before it's brought up, hearing explosions is not the same as having evidence of explosives. I've seen plenty of demolition videos, and you can distinguish the charges from the collapse every time. They always start before the collapse, and they are very loud. For some reason, 9/11 is devoid of this characteristic. Therefore, I tend to think explosives were not the culprit.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Those are normal office fire temperatures, not jet fuel fed fires.


Here's where you lose the fight again.

Jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than an average room fire, so how does the jet fuel do anything but accelerate the burn time for the contents of the room?

Jet fuel open air burning temperatures 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)


Flame temperatures in room fires

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. 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.

The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.


www.doctorfire.com...

It doesn't help your case.

Another point from that site you should pay attention to is this...


It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.


Something not discussed for awhile is the OS claim that the fire weakened the steel, in less than an hour in the case of WTC 2. But if you consider heat transfer it becomes obvious that one hour is nowhere near long enough to heat up thousands of tons of steel to anywhere close to failure.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Here is a question; how many controlled demolitions do you know of where the rubble burned for months afterwards? Controlled demolitions are used to remove old buildings and for the most part build a new one where the old ones stood. Builders don't want to wait months to start working on a new building for the fires to go out.


Here is another question:

How many controlled demolitions do you know of where NOTHING was removed from the building prior to the demo?

ANY AND EVERY building that is demo'd by a team will strip the building bare so nothing stays burning after the collapse.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

then what do you say about the metal color to temperature? we've been there before, but i didn't really get an answer. or how the top 15-20 floors did more damage than they took?

both require explosives, or atleast an external energy input/removal respectively.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
reply to post by Gando702
 


Those buildings were designed to take a dozen hits each.... FACT!


There is absolutely no evidence for your claim. FACT!


How about some of the architects and engineers that were involved with the design of the building that said so! Go ahead, stick your foot in your mouth again.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by prizim
 


but most of it was underground, so if it were furniture and carpet. a) steel wouldn't have melted, and b) it couldn't burn without oxygen, whereas a thermitic reaction supplies it's own oxygen.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


That kind of makes sense, but I don't have another plausible explanation other than the OS. Demolitions have no documented evidence yet, and until they do, I cannot support them.

Before it's brought up, hearing explosions is not the same as having evidence of explosives. I've seen plenty of demolition videos, and you can distinguish the charges from the collapse every time. They always start before the collapse, and they are very loud. For some reason, 9/11 is devoid of this characteristic. Therefore, I tend to think explosives were not the culprit.


It is entirely plausible. Open your mind a little more yet. Think thermite... the nanothermite that was found in the dust can cut through steel without the loud KABOOM of traditional explosives. Also realize that the fires were hundreds of feet from ground level. The distance and the street noise may have made it difficult to hear, and by the time the buildings were coming down... I am sure the collisions of hundreds of tons of debris didn't fall without a thunderous roar that would have surely masked any explosions.



edit on 21-9-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I want a credible source of nanothermite claims. And i don'w want some youtube videos about those 9 "scientists".
I want an approved by AIP/APS document.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


If it does not make the noise, then it is not an explosive. An explosive is something that explodes, and the explosion is what causes the noise.

If it were to be thermite, then it would not be an explosive. It would be more along the lines of a chemical reaction. Still, without proof of the charges, there is no story.

The elements were already present within the tower to mix aluminum and rust in the dust. What is not clear is whether there were actual charges anywhere.

I have an open mind, but my brains have not yet fallen out. I need evidence to say conclusively one way or the other.

Also, I admit that I make mistakes. I make mistakes often, and I own up to them. For example, I was skimming the fire article, and missed the part where it said that in broad fires, the temperatures varied widely, but that the difference in temperatures still led to deformations within the steel.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Something not discussed for awhile is the OS claim that the fire weakened the steel, in less than an hour in the case of WTC 2. But if you consider heat transfer it becomes obvious that one hour is nowhere near long enough to heat up thousands of tons of steel to anywhere close to failure.


Or you can just read this:

www.nist.gov...

I think pages 129 to 131 in particluar.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xBWOMPx
 


Here is what the design engineer said:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Note that this is not some port authority guy trying to cover up but the person who designed the building. You are wrong, once again.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Gando702
 


Interesting Leni Liebenstahl, Cass Sunstein inspired piece of propaganda.

Now do us all a favor and go to the mirror and say the words "nano thermate" a thousand times.

You are either way behind the curve, in collusion with the criminals that pulled it off, or in need of some ADD medication.

The forensic evidence is in and it is indisputable. Try to stay up with the news.

911 was an inside job.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
I love the ever-growing number of "I was a truther and now I'm not" threads.


Does "their" playbook really say that this kind of reverse psychology actually works? I think a third-grader wrote the playbook.

Peace


They got to give up. They are trying to stop any discussion. Really what it does is turn users, and readers away. It really does.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by piotrburz
I want a credible source of nanothermite claims. And i don'w want some youtube videos about those 9 "scientists".
I want an approved by AIP/APS document.


Why do you need that?

What caused the collapses really doesn't matter that much, at this point, it's much easier to prove that fire and gravity didn't. If that can be proven, and imo it has, then is it that important, in order to know the OS is wrong, what was actually used?

We'd all love to know, but that really won't be known until there is a new official unbiased investigation.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by prizim
 


but most of it was underground, so if it were furniture and carpet. a) steel wouldn't have melted, and b) it couldn't burn without oxygen, whereas a thermitic reaction supplies it's own oxygen.


Thermite reacts quickly, not over weeks.
Oxygen was present.
There is no evidence of melted steel.
Combustion in a closed space can get much hotter than in the open air because of the insulating properties of the rubble.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by piotrburz
I want a credible source of nanothermite claims. And i don'w want some youtube videos about those 9 "scientists".
I want an approved by AIP/APS document.


Why do you need that?

What caused the collapses really doesn't matter that much, at this point, it's much easier to prove that fire and gravity didn't. If that can be proven, and imo it has, then is it that important, in order to know the OS is wrong, what was actually used?

We'd all love to know, but that really won't be known until there is a new official unbiased investigation.


edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


It is needed, because proving an alternative possibility is very important. If the nano-thermite paper was published in a peer review journal, for example, rather than one reviewed by other believers, I would consider it as a possibility.

As it is, it is a very non-credible resource.




top topics



 
32
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join