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 tuccy
And of these other floors the fire remained confined to utility closets or their close neighborhood, just on one floor the fire spreaded further and even then just on 21% of the floor's area.
Plus it was an ordinary office material fire which, as several CTers tried to persuade me, cannot heat steel enough.
Originally posted by tuccy
So somehow it is irrelevant that just on one floor the fire spreaded anough to influence the trusses? The floors where fire was restricted to service closets can be hardly considered as heavily influenced.
I doubt that gasoline poured to the 21% of the floor's area - it's safe to assume that most of it was, in fact, an ordinary office fire. Starter is one thing, majority fuel is the other. And majority fuel was just ordinary office equipment.
Btw did the sprinklers work on 0911?
As for the "t" word, fell free to use it. I'd say it tells more about you than about me.
Originally posted by esdad71
The sprinklers were damaged on a few floors and verified due to eyewitness accounts of them not working.
Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
WTF? Are we to believe that air flowed 100 stories down... through a tunnel... up 90 storys and blew out windows???
This is their coverup line for the odd explosin that occured in WTC 1 perfectly timed with the impact in WTC 2.
This statement is fla tout RETARDED if you have ANY formal training in fluids.
"these observations "prove" NOTHING"
[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Since sprinklers need to exceede a certain temperature before they individully trigger, this proves nothing. Other 'eyewitnesses' saw working sprinklers.
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
They also ignore thermite variants and linear shaped "thermite/mate charges".
Originally posted by esdad71
There is also proof that there was buckling of the floor trusses in the fire that occured in 1975. They closed my thread, but you can still find it. I wonder why NIST did not jsut use that as a precursor to state that a fire in 1975, that covered less than 25 % of one floor, started by gasoline, caused truss buckling of the floor members.
Originally posted by Dae
Unless Im wrong and both the towers and building 7 suffered similiar fire damage in the 70's causing similar breaches, then that fire cannot be used in this case. I rest my court.
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
WTF? Are we to believe that air flowed 100 stories down... through a tunnel... up 90 storys and blew out windows???
This is their coverup line for the odd explosin that occured in WTC 1 perfectly timed with the impact in WTC 2.
This statement is fla tout RETARDED if you have ANY formal training in fluids.
"these observations "prove" NOTHING"
[edit on 1-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]
How large blast wave would be produced by the jet fuel fireball? I'd say big enough to cause some oddities in the flame and smoke behavior on the second tower.
Originally posted by snoopy
And you ignore that the thermite would have to be placed within the hour between plane impact and tower collapse.
As well as done in areas inaccessable, full of collapsing debre, and fire.
Also, parts of the building would have to be cut open to access the support colmns to place the termite.
All this without being seen. Even though it takes demolition crews months to do this. They managed in an hour.
And we know pre planting them was an impossibility as they would be damaged and/or destroyed in the impact.
We can also rule out any demolitions below the impact zone since none of the floors below the collapse are destroyed until they are hit by the floor above.
You can poke holes all you want because they will always exist. but until you can actually come up with a more conclusive theory, that's all you are doing.
Originally posted by tuccy
The "puffs" didn't include windows IIRC, just a different behavior of the smoke coming out of the impacted floors - which would IMHO be caused by blast wave from the explosion accompanying the impact on the neighboring tower. No need to the air to go down and up.
You may try it yourself, light up a candle and then let a firecracker go off near it. You'll see the flame would also be influenced.
After all, in the Gulf in 1991 giant explosions were used to put out fires of oil wells. By their blast waves.
How large blast wave would be produced by the jet fuel fireall? I'd say big enough to cause some oddities in the flame and smoke behavior on the second tower.
Originally posted by tuccy
The "puffs" didn't include windows IIRC, just a different behavior of the smoke coming out of the impacted floors - which would IMHO be caused by blast wave from the explosion accompanying the impact on the neighboring tower. No need to the air to go down and up.