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.

 

I'm pretty sure this building is going to collapse - Sharjah Skyscraper!

page: 17
63
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by timetothink
 



JET A-1

Flash point......................................................................38C
Auto-ignition temperature..................................................210 C
Freezing point..................................................................-47C
Open air burning temperatures...........................................260C-315C
Maximum burning temperature...........................................980C (1796F)



Open air burning........

2 minutes temperature over 2000 F .......

Stop the presses!

Someone should tell EMERTEC at New Mexico State University, that Jet fuel cant burn that hot

www.youtube.com...


Building 7?



Not even Building 7 SunnyDee -- the ONLY point here is "260C-315C" of open air burning. My oven gets hotter and it's just surrounded by sheet metal. People in this country are really, really bad at science. No wonder a few suits can get on TV and explain to us how a 2 planes caused 3 buildings to collapse at high speed.




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

I was the same way with the wars. Didn't believe in them, couldn't stand bush.....I was unpatriotic then, and shamed whenever I spoke out. Funny how it's fine to speak out against it all now.

You could change your avatar to something like mine, irony is fun.

Ok, sorry, back to subject. Yes, we are a fairly ignorant country in many ways, particularly scientifically speaking.
I don't get caught up in the details like the 230-315 temp, but the bottom line does not escape me, 3 buildings, 2 planes.

edit on 1-5-2012 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Been plenty of cases where tank trucks carrying hydrocarbon fuels overturn and catch fire = heat from
fire warps the overpass/bridge causing it to collapse

I 580 Oakland CA

I 95 Shelton Ct

Hell - 20 years ago in Newark NJ pile of garbage underr I 78 (included discarded tires) caught fire and warped the
highway


Truthers seem to have missed this......



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


So that in the event of a fire it does not spread and kill those inside, it has little to do with a building meant to withstand multiple 707( largest threat at time of construction.) impacts gusts of 150mp/h winds and other typical weather conditions for the area. It still doesn't add up, concrete is laid on top of the corrugated steel floors for both structural and fire proofing reasons. By doing so it prevents fires from leaping from the floor below, to the floor above, as well steel all by itself does not need fire protection. The main support of the building is a concrete center, and steel box columns, you're trying to lead this into an explanation of materials, that irregardless are no means for concern with jet fuel. It should not, and would not have feel from fire and a plane impact. Keep in mind, planes keep their fuel in the wings, and in the belly of the fuselage, all the " Extra" fuel in the wings, which was dispersed and burnt off the moment they collide with the WTC's web like outer structure. Planes typically, burn the fuel in the fuselage first so in the event of a crash the passengers and crew aren't burned alive. Original story pretty much relies on Jet fuel, and we've already given you multiple credible sources stating jet fuel just isn't capable of doing what they claim.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
You know all this impassioned discussion makes me think things may actually be improving in the world.....After all I doubt there were discussions this open after Hitler burned the Reichstag!



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by fleabit
Right.. because a building on fire near the bottom is exactly the same as an incredibly tall building being slammed into by a jumbo jet and then bursting into flames.


It's kind of funny how much of an authority people are on huge jets slamming into buildings, especially as it has never happened before like that.


We've been over this already, the towers were designed to withstand a plane crash, just like the Empire State did.
Also, I'm doubtful planes were even used.

Some info for the Dr. on Fireproofing, I found it quite revealing...

www.structuremag.org...


lets see:

b25:
max takeoff weight: 35,000 lb (15,910 kg)
max speed: 272 mph (237 kn, 438 km/h) at 13,000 ft (3,960 m)

757:
max takeoff weight: 255,000 lb (115,680 kg) to 272,500 lb (123,600 kg)
cruise speed: Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 458 knots, 850 km/h at cruise altitude of 35,000 ft or 10.66 km)

nah no difference in impact energy whatsoever.



B25 biggest thing in the air at that time. Empire state building wasn't designed with aircraft collisions in mind.

757 to 707 pretty much like comparing peanuts to cashews. WTC was designed to withstand multiple impacts of 707s I've already posted data, witnesses, wikipedia links, as well as other links when that wouldn't do. Seriously, question this. I'm not about to continue posting links and data if people will not read... IF you continue I will resort to asking you to provide data, outside of the Original report, it's the only source that says it should happen that way. I've gone through tensile strength, melting points, design, structure, the likeliness someone could fly a plane traveling 550mph into the WTC with minimal training. Commercial airline pilots with years of experience don't think they could have done it. It's ridiculous, and people's ignorance is starting to sicken me. I've posted tons of credible data no one reads it, and if they can't find something wrong they try to lead the topic into remedial, pointless directions. The fire could not have got that hot, PERIOD! The damage to the building combined with the updraft would have caused suction with in the building suffocating the flames, thus the thick dark smoke! Lack of oxygen = dark smoke, yes things like plastic make dark smoke, but they also do not burn hot enough to cause the events that took place, and they still need oxygen hello, am I the only one who understands this? It doesn't take much to realize the " Original story " doesn't add up, I'm not claiming anything in particular I'm just stating what they said, isn't true. As far as explaining what really happened, well we would have to investigate further, but we can't they cleaned it up and shipped it away ASAP. So, unfortunately we can't check for any evidence to explain what really did happen.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Open air refers to just that...open air. It does not refer to fires inside buildings.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



This type of demolition is for concrete structures, not steel. Steel bends, it doesn't crumble so the pancake idea just wouldn't work, the concrete floors could possibly detach and fall a few floors but likely would not travel the length of the building, and because of the structure and design of the building, the materials used, the likeliness for steal to bend rather than disintegrate, a perfect column collapse the whole way down just doesn't make sense, if a pancake started to occur, the steel would resist the weight above tipping it to one side, and sleuthing debris out further. IE, not a completely collapse into it's own footprint. If these towers were going to come down, they should have damaged way more than they did, and wouldn't anyone else think terrorist would want this massive structure to fall into the surrounding structures causing the maximum amount of damage? If I was going to attack the biggest prick on the planet I would want to decimate as much of that city as possible, and guess what the lovely towering WTC's make sense, but only if they fall into something else.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Okay, so put it in a tall tower, cut a hole in the side, now blow air past it at speeds of up to 150mp/h, take the internal temperature. Given this where would you expect the hottest point to be? outside the building right? where is the support structure? inside... right....not gonna happen...
Wind direction> __________hole____
tower bottom ...._________________top

Here's some reading, for you. en.wikipedia.org...

Gas and fluid dynamics are very similar. As the wind passes by the hole along the structure it will cause suction with in. What happens when you suck the air out of a fire???? Yeah that's what I thought, if you suffocate a fair it travels the path of least resistance to a source of oxygen. No where near the center of the building... I can't remember how many floors it was but how does the weight of 15 floors, crush the 95 below? how ? The structure below is designed to exceed the load of the weight of those 15 floors. The further down you get, the more weight it's designed to support!

en.wikipedia.org...

read structural design. In itself the damage sustained would not have brought the structure down, nor would the plane have damaged the internal structure holding the building up.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 

Your idea has a flaw.
The towers were chimneys.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 


What happens when you force feed oxygen rich air to a fire in an enclosed area? ...it doesnt cool off.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
im done. have fun kids



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Ilyich
 


What happens when you force feed oxygen rich air to a fire in an enclosed area? ...it doesnt cool off.


but the fire wouldn't be forced oxygen, the air rushing past the opening creates a vacuum and sucks the air out. No air, no fire. Thick dark smoke = lack of oxygen, so this theory is confirmed by every video and photo. I can't handle this I'm getting a head ache. Seriously people, ask questions. I did the very same and found these conclusions on my own, they weren't put there.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


How is an airtight building a chimney?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

You totally disregard chimney effect.


LOL -- is this some kind of "effect" like a draft that is present in most any office fire -- ever? Even the stairwells in offices have a positive air flow to keep them clear during a fire -- of COURSE I know that air gets to the fire. The fuel from the airplanes would have burned out in 15 to 30 minutes -- AND, it would not burn any hotter than any other material in the office with equal air flow. The Black Smoke witnessed at WTC indicated that the fires were mostly Oxygen starved!

Your idea about Kerosene in ideal conditions with REALLY GOOD AIR FLOW -- that's been considered -- thanks for trying.




How do shipboard oil fires melt steel deck plates and bulkheads when efforts are taken to keep air from entering the space?


I don't really know -- aren't we trying to discuss Office Buildings and you ALREADY having a REALLY HARD TIME keeping the fact that there was no Jet Fuel in WTC 7 separate from your "Jet Fuel magically collapses buildings" theory in WTC 1 and 2?

Let's keep the complex, merely complex, and deal with steel supported buildings collapsing at free fall speeds with a few hours of a typical office fire -- with or without Kerosene as an accelerant -- it just wouldn't impact the amount of heat much either way.




How did they manufacture steel 4,000 years ago without jet engines to get temps high enough to melt steel?

I could make jokes about you MISSING the whole point of the Bronze age -- but I think the blast furnace, the use of Coke -- and something quite a bit hotter than Kerosene helped the Romans work with "iron." They didn't have steel until later -- but you know, this isn't that much further off the mark than any other comment I've dealt with tonight so, um,...

... sorry to avoid these hard-hitting questions but I've got to go to bed now, night night all -- and just feel safe to know that NOBODY who actually helped rig the WTC to blow will ever see justice. But we will see a LOT MORE fascist laws like the Patriot Act and NDAA and the only thing we need fear is Corporate Prisons and Thought Crimes. OH, and having no job and getting evicted.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Where did the airplane impact that building? What size aircraft was it? Traveling how fast? Carrying how much fuel? How much energy did the impact impart into the structure? How was the structure deformed by said impact? How long we're these malformed, damaged & weakened structural beams heated by fire? How hot did that fire get?

Oh wait, none of this happened in your example. So, the only thing in common with the WTCs and this building is that fire was involved in both incidents.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Open air refers to just that...open air. It does not refer to fires inside buildings.


Right you are!

We can all admit that things in an enclosed space get hotter because of insulation -- right?

So what is the "open air" burning temperature of wood? LINK
" Oak will burn at around 900 - 1200 degrees in the center of the fire"
>> That's in an OPEN FIRE PIT -- that's around 60% hotter than Jet Fuel!

By the way, the The EcoFire Super-Grate Burns at Temperatures from 1600 - 2000 degrees -- that's as hot as Jet Fuel in a Jet engine -- and nobody is actually compressing it to increase the heat. So basically WOOD IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN JET FUEL!!!!

OMG -- why are all the steel buildings with office furniture not just falling down everywhere!


Here's a video comparing Wood to Kerosene on the heating of metal; LINK
Simple answer; Jet Fuel would have acted to spread fire quickly in the cavernous spaces inside the WTC 1 and 2 -- but it just isn't going to reach higher temperatures than the materials like wood and plastic that might burn inside an office.

People really WANT to believe the Government Theory of 911 -- but physics and thermodynamics are not on their side.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 


wouldn't anyone else think terrorist would want this massive structure to fall into the surrounding structures causing the maximum amount of damage?

I gave that some thought. Here is why I think it might not work as well. If toppling the building like a tree was planned for, they would have to hit the base of the building, right? Because of other buildings in the area, that might be harder for those "pilots". They would have to come in steeper and that might be more difficult. Not sure if a direct hit would cave in enough of the base of the building to make it topple over. Plus if impact was at or near ground level, the firefighters might have a better chance of putting the fires out before burn damage weakened the structure further from the heat.

I think they also decided this prior to that day. Hit the buildings horizontally up high and where the fires could rage unchecked. Hit them up high and fast, but not too high. That way the weight of the floors above would aid in the collapse once the fires weakened the structure enough to initiate the collapse. Then gravity does the rest.

That is the only way they could have done this whole thing and I bet not even the planners themselves had the foggiest that both buildings would collapse as they did. That the impacts would blow away all the fire protection foam. That the temperatures from the fires would be hot enough. That both buildings would completely collapse.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ilyich

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Ilyich
 


What happens when you force feed oxygen rich air to a fire in an enclosed area? ...it doesnt cool off.


but the fire wouldn't be forced oxygen, the air rushing past the opening creates a vacuum and sucks the air out. No air, no fire. Thick dark smoke = lack of oxygen, so this theory is confirmed by every video and photo. I can't handle this I'm getting a head ache. Seriously people, ask questions. I did the very same and found these conclusions on my own, they weren't put there.


The simple point is; we can "create" all kinds of ideal scenarios to pump up the heat of Jet Fuel -- but the simple fact is that if it's "open air" burning temperature is LOWER than most hardwoods and plastics -- it isn't going to make the PEAK temperature inside the WTC any hotter. It would ACCELERATE the spreading of fire and THAT might make things get hot.

Your point about the Black Smoke is well known, and it also should END the ideas about "IDEAL CONDITIONS." Anything other than using a compressed turbine or a blast furnace, you are LUCKY (or unlucky) to get anything above 800ºF from Jet Fuel (normal Jet Fuel is slightly less volatile than Kerosene).

>> The TWO things that remotely makes the WTC an anomaly are the fact of being hit by an airplane (they were designed to receive strikes from THREE large aircraft), and the structure of the building.

However, NOTHING happened to make the lower floors below the aircraft strike weaker. If the structure were so compromised by the strike -- it would have started breaking WHERE THE STRUCTURE WAS COMPROMISED -- right? RIGHT?

WTC 7 was just a NORMAL steel supported structure that got hit by some I-beam and put on fire.

In all three cases, the buildings collapsed from the top down, with no difference in speed at the sections that were allegedly destroyed to start the collapse in the first place, and showing NO RESISTANCE to the collapsing floors. Remember -- areas totally unaffected by fire are collapsing without resistance when they USED to hold the entire weight of the building above them. Just because something is collapsing -- it only has the force of the objects that reached velocity adding any extra downward force.

If nothing is slowed below FREE FALL SPEED -- that means that the floor is being destroyed BEFORE the floor above can really add more force than existed before the collapse. This is only possible in a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

There is no magic change from Kerosene or Planes that makes any building act like a controlled demolition. We MIGHT entertain a "house of cards" collapse with the WTC curtain walls on buildings 1 & 2, but the base did NOT have this structure -- and building 7 DID NOT HAVE THIS STRUCTURE.

These buildings had some sort of prepping for them to fall the way they did. Bin Laden also could not have controlled the White House's response and subsequent coverup -- nor forced them to wrongfully invade countries and pass fascist policies.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Where did the airplane impact that building? What size aircraft was it? Traveling how fast? Carrying how much fuel? How much energy did the impact impart into the structure? How was the structure deformed by said impact? How long we're these malformed, damaged & weakened structural beams heated by fire? How hot did that fire get?

Oh wait, none of this happened in your example. So, the only thing in common with the WTCs and this building is that fire was involved in both incidents.


I understand this thread is long and most won't read every page, but I have answered that a couple times. I was referring to building 7 for the most part, still I take my digs at WTC 1&2.

No planes hit 7, no planes hit this inferno... 7 fell around 4pm, burned several hours then tanked into itself.

Sharjah building cooked many hours, remained intact as a skeletal structure, no collapse into it's own footprint. If you have a retort to that, please check my responses to similar retorts somewhere prior to page 13. The picture of the remains of the Sharjah tower is at the beginning of page 3 I believe.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 1-5-2012 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
63
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join