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: 18
63
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

There is a lot of controversy about temperatures and weakening steel, etc. I wanted to bring this to your attention and you can make up your own mind about it. There are a variety of Blast Furnaces that use certain principles to heat ore and flux in combination with inrush of air. Older furnaces use a natural convection of air into the furnace to aid in raising temperatures overall within the furnace. As the fire sucks air in thru openings it increases in speed and this racing air or "blast" of air is part of the reason why they call it a blast furnace. There are many types. Heres a link to some pictures of how these older styles work.

Puddling Furnace

The one thing I think a lot of people fail to realize is that the winds aloft that day were steady and the holes and broken windows on the impacted burning floors behaved just like a blast furnace in certain regards. The fires sucked in oxygen thru window openings and other holes accelerating or blasting the air into the flames. Internal temperatures would be expected to steadily rise as a result.

Older puddling furnaces were less efficient than todays modern technology but still sufficed in smelting iron from ore using fuel such as wood and later charcoal and "coke", which is residue from oil refining. Interior office furniture is made from plastic which reduces like coke in a fire. So fuel for the fire matters less than the speed of the inrushing air as far as "smelting" is concerned. Like blowing on a pile of coals makes them hotter...

The steady air supply at altitude rushing into the center of the buildings fires whipped the flames and steadily raised the internal temperatures enough to weaken the already compromised structure enough to initiate the collapse. The evidence of molten metal pouring out the bottom of the fires has got to lead one to preclude that this is indeed what happened.


edit on 1-5-2012 by intrptr because: added pic and YouTube




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


They are overused worn out words used to invoke an emotional response instead of just speaking your mind or having a discussion......everyone on this site is a shill...if that were true we would all be rich. I just can't stand the name calling anymore...just discuss. I used surreal just because it is overused in the media and in entertainment and it is just as insincere.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Just go to the link where I got the info....don't blame the messenger. 2 minutes??? the building didn't collapse for over an hour. If you watch the videos of the collapse you can clearly see it falling from the top down, getting heavier and heavier as it goes......what is the favorite saying around here?? Occum's razor?

The building may have been built in a shoddy manor but it was not brought down with demolitions. My husband and many close friends searched those burning piles right after the collapse...there were no molten drips of steel or explosives or any of the other crazy stuff 9/11 deniers come up with.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Excellent post....I believe it is also what they refer to as backdraft?




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Read the link by the Petrol manfacturer..it is right off their website...Jet fuel A-1 burns at a maximum temp of 1796F

dang hot even wit my limited brain that you tink I be workin wit..heyna???


I did not make it up...I took it from the manufacturers site...and their is a more volatile version that is used in colder temperatures....which Sept in the northeast can be at times.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by intrptr
 


Excellent post....I believe it is also what they refer to as backdraft?


Thankyou. I might make a thread of that post. A "backdraft" is slightly different. If you open a door on an enclosed fire in a room say, the initial blast of heat and flame released out the door is called a backdraft. Back in your face. Then drafting into the fire begins thru the same door. Very dangerous. Always touch a door first before opening it. Or look underneath for flame glow.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   



Building 7 fell in a completely different way than the others.....building 7 was weakened from below I believe from the tremor and heat.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ilyich

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.


tensile strength?? why did you go through tensile strength??? the buildings fell they didnt get pulled apart.. perhaps you should look into buckling vs temperature its a little more relevant.. depending on its length alot of materials will fail before its nominal buckling rate, due to non-uniform axial loads, which is a little hard to re-enact.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 





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!

Ever been to a keg party?
You know, the kind with an 'open air' wood fire?

I have. I have observed glass bottles (standard soda-lime glass) the kind that wine coolers come in, melt in an open air wood fire. The melting point of soda- lime glass: 2700 Degrees F. How is that possible, if a wood fire temp tops out at 1200 degrees?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by butcherguy
 


How is an airtight building a chimney?

I guess I should ask how the towers were air-tight?

I imagine that you think that the windows removed by people trapped in the building made it airtight, or the huge airplane holes in the sides of the building. Stairwells, open elevator shafts and service and piping chaises are built-in chimneys, once an airplane crashes through them and opens them up.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Maybe some of the 'jet fuel can't burn that hot' crowd should take up the argument with Stanford University:


In the combustion chamber, fuel is mixed with air to produce the bang, which is responsible for the expansion that forces the air into the turbine. Inside the typical commercial jet engine, the fuel burns in the combustion chamber at up to 2000 degrees Celsius. The temperature at which metals in this part of the engine start to melt is 1300 degrees Celsius, so advanced cooling techniques must be used.

Stanford University Source

Jet fuel can't burn that hot?

Yes it can burn that hot in a combustion chamber, but the WTC towers were not combustion chambers!

Combustion chambers and blast furnaces are designed to optimise heat, with the fuel being constantly fed.
If we were to believe there were planes that day, then the fuel would have ignited and burnt off fairly soon after impact, so there was not enough fuel being constantly fed to the fires to simulate those conditions, or achieve those temperatures.

Also, the airflow needs to be efficient, and designed a certain way, to enable constant fed fuel to climb to those assisted temperatures. So these can not really be compared with each other. Steel is also fireproofed, so if you have this protective layer all over steel it will increase the temperature required to weaken/melt it.

It was fairly evident from the black smoke that the fire was oxygen starved, which would have reduced the intensity and overall temperature of the fire. The collapse itself could not have happened that fast, resistance would have played a bigger part, and if we are to believe a pancake collapse it would take a lot longer for a 100 story building to collapse each floor, one at a time. Admittedly it would speed up over time, but the first half would have been way slower. The top 25-50 floors should definitely have left larger intact chunks amongst the rubble because they had less load above them.





posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Here are the names of the five ..... One obviously is Murdoch, and the other four are Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, and Bertelsmann. Obviously, these other four companies have OWNERS. No matter how you choose to obfuscate the facts, they each have CEO's calling the shots. These five corporations now own 90 percent of the GLOBAL media.... which is now PRIVATIZED. Yes, that means China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.... and everywhere else. Go and prove me a liar with evidence to the contrary, you nasty little twit.

I really didn't think you shills were stupid enough to deny concentration of media ownership, but there is no level you will not sink to in order to try and do your disgusting job.

How do you lying sacks of moose manure live with yourselves....


This is brilliant. You think that those companies are each owned by one person? And that one of them controls the media in North Korea? Too much...

So Rupert Murdoch is able to cover up a vast international conspiracy to murder hundreds of thousands for profit but he can't stop his editor and news staff screwing up one of the oldest media organisations in the world by breaking the law? And he can't prevent a few MPs from dragging him over the coals for it, even though he's apparently in a club which can disguise the 9/11 conspiracy?

What a strange world you live in.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 



Yes it can burn that hot in a combustion chamber, but the WTC towers were not combustion chambers!

A fireplace has a combustion chamber. The WTC towers were huge combustion chambers, with chimney effect occurring in those tall buildings.

We have a member that tells us that an open-air wood fire can only reach a temperature of 1200 degrees F max. It simply isn't true. I have melted glass in open air wood fires. That requires 2700 degrees F.

Check out Forest Glass, glass made in the 1400's using wood for fuel with natural draft furnaces.

My line of work is specialty combustion, so I do have some background in this subject.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 



It was fairly evident from the black smoke that the fire was oxygen starved, which would have reduced the intensity and overall temperature of the fire.

The appearance of black smoke does indicate incomplete combustion, but there were multiple fires occurring, and the black smoke does not mean that there were not fires inside the building that were not giving off much smoke. If the combustion in another area was more complete, you would see very little smoke coming from it. This can occur when there is a chimney effect and the fire has several hundred feet of room to burn and plenty of excess air.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 


what happens to heated steel??

what happens if the heated steel that has no room to expand?? will it deform?
what happens when it cools after it deforms from the pressure and heat? will it maintain its original strength?
what happens during buckling of a long beam? and if the axial load is not uniform??

what happens when a carbon rich environment is burned with steel?
edit on 2-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Open air hydrocarbon fire;

"You can see what it did to all the steel," said Assistant Fire Chief STEPHEN CLANCY. "When it melts steel girders like butter, then you know what you've got."

Source

open air(floating on cool water) hydrocarbon fire:

Up close there's a sound this burning oil makes, a crackling, bubbling noise like a Fryolator along with a whooshing noise from the flame tornados inside the bigger fire. The heat is intense. Flame temperatures can reach 2,000 degrees. That's hot enough to melt steel, and with so much oil in these waters some of these fires burn for more than six hours.
The problem with this one is the 2000 degrees melting steel, but if you look to the BP oil rig that exploded and burned (and melted) in the Gulf of Mexico, you will see what he meant.
CBS News

Open air hydrocarbon fire:

“Like a present day radio broadcaster he (an eyewitness) tells of workmen connecting a pipe to an oil tank on the border of this inferno in order to remove the oil, that would be further fuel, to a more remote tank, but they only succeeded in spreading the fire to a new area,” Harkness wrote. “The great heat melted steel tanks. These steel or wooden tanks as they caught fire, burst and sent oil along a ditch into a tributary to Bear Creek; the crest of this rushing wave of burning oil gave the creek the appearance of a fiery dragon winding along the valley…At the time he estimated the loss of $100,000 and the fire was still burning.”

Fairbankoil.com

Stupid open air hydrocarbon fires, don't they know that they can't melt steel?

edit on 2-5-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 




what happens during buckling of a long beam?

Good point. Thermal expansion in a long beam can shear off rivets(those pesky things that hold steel beams together in a building) thereby disconnecting the beam from the supporting beam. I have seen thermal expansion in steel that wasn't even in a fire break welds and shear bolts.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

Excellen post butcherguy. Thanks for the links. Never thought about that aspect of the melting of steel aboard the Deep Horizon before. Good parallel.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 





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!

Ever been to a keg party?
You know, the kind with an 'open air' wood fire?

I have. I have observed glass bottles (standard soda-lime glass) the kind that wine coolers come in, melt in an open air wood fire. The melting point of soda- lime glass: 2700 Degrees F. How is that possible, if a wood fire temp tops out at 1200 degrees?


WE are talking about "normal conditions" -- you can deviate from those. The ONLY point I'm making is that hardwood as found in an office burns HOTTER than Jet Fuel -- so the "magic threat of jet fuel" in the WTC doesn't create a new VARIABLE that would suddenly make a steel structure collapse. In every office fire of every high-rise, there are going to be variables to increase or decrease the heat.

And I've seen Glass Blowers work over regular hot coals -- but anyway, here you go again changing the subject away from a simple office fire in WTC 7, or trying to distract from WTC 1&2 which did NOT get hotter than a typical office fire. The black smoke was proof of that. The survivors looking out windows about 20 feet from this "inferno" that was supposed to be melting connecting struts to the curtain walls -- and of course the many Glass windows that were still intact all around the building when it was supposed to be losing columns in a symmetrical manner.

Besides -- the building DID NOT COLLAPSE from the area where the plane hit -- it fell right down into it's strongest point -- straight down without resistance.

I told you to come back with something better than this.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by choos
 




what happens during buckling of a long beam?

Good point. Thermal expansion in a long beam can shear off rivets(those pesky things that hold steel beams together in a building) thereby disconnecting the beam from the supporting beam. I have seen thermal expansion in steel that wasn't even in a fire break welds and shear bolts.


Good parallel? We've got THOUSANDS of office fires and a hundred years of examples and you think some destruction on an oil rig that pumps from 2 miles deep in the ocean is a USEFUL model to figure out what happened at the WTC?

Seriously?

Let's look at the hotel fire in China, or the recent high rise in Dubai. We've got a few dozen, totally engulfed steel structures that burned far hotter and far longer than WTC -- NONE of them collapsed -- they all had to be torn down.

We don't need to talk about camp fires, the heat inside a jet engine, the blast furnace used to melt steel -- we ONLY need to talk about Office Fires since nothing in a plane is any hotter than what burns in a fracking office.



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join