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 snoopy
There most absolutely WAS enough structural damage.
But that as stated by NIST was not the major factor in the collapse, it only aided it.
The fire weakened the trusses which bent and pulled away from the inner and outer cores, causing them to collpase.
The core columns which depended on the trusses for stability then became unstable.
So your claimiing that you have a good case because an experienced structural engineer is going public?
But yet you discount the many worlds top qualified structural engineers who worked on the NIST reports?
Originally posted by esdad71
The fire is what made the call for the fireproofing, and it was contained to ONE floor with smoke damage on six.
Read between the lines. This was a disgruntled janitor and some gasoline not a fully loaded airliner travelling over 500 mph.
from www.cooperativeresearch.org...
Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the north tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned. Fire Department Captain Harold Kull described the three-hour effort to extinguish it as “like fighting a blowtorch.” [WTC Environmental Assessment Working Group, 9/2002, pp. 10 ;
Originally posted by esdad71
from www.cooperativeresearch.org...
Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the north tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned. Fire Department Captain Harold Kull described the three-hour effort to extinguish it as “like fighting a blowtorch.” [WTC Environmental Assessment Working Group, 9/2002, pp. 10 ;
Notice where it says some of the steel trusses buckled under the heat. I would have to say that this is an interesting statement to say the least. We have direct proof that the fire in 1975 caused buckling from a gasoline fire in a broom closet. There was fire on less than 25% of one floor and it casued buckling. IMagine now what those floors that were engulfed must have endured on 9/11.
On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."
Sources: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975
Source
en.wikipedia.org...
from www.cooperativeresearch.org...
However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat.
Originally posted by bsbray11
(whereas replacing trusses kind of would be major).
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by bsbray11
(whereas replacing trusses kind of would be major).
Not just kinda.....would have been. To replace trusses, most of the floor would have to be ripped up.
Originally posted by Matthew5012
This in mind its quite clear what brought down both buildings in the same way(doesnt anyone who thinks fire did it think its odd how they came down in the exact same way)