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 JIMC5499
Originally posted by Valhall
Long story short - comparing this incident to the WTC fires is comparing apples to oranges. I'll post more later.
I never tried to compair them. My intent is to show that a steel beam can be heated to failure by fire. It is that simple. If a gasoline fire can cause that huge beam to distort that badly then it is entirely possible that the fires in the WTC towers could have caused the failure of beams that were overloaded because of damages sustained by the aircraft impacts.
Originally posted by whylistentome
Okay, then please, if you may, PLEASE, explain the weakening of the 80 floors plus BELOW the fires and PLEASE explain how they could have fallen down into their footprints so cleanly at FREE FALL.
Originally posted by kriegott
In the 70's one of the towers was on fire over the period of a weekend. a very intense fire. much more devastating then the fires of 9/11. Firefighters were actually reporting on their radios that alot of the fires were almost extinguished just about the time the true terrorists detonated the bombs inside.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
Originally posted by Valhall
Long story short - comparing this incident to the WTC fires is comparing apples to oranges. I'll post more later.
I never tried to compair them. My intent is to show that a steel beam can be heated to failure by fire. It is that simple. If a gasoline fire can cause that huge beam to distort that badly then it is entirely possible that the fires in the WTC towers could have caused the failure of beams that were overloaded because of damages sustained by the aircraft impacts.
Originally posted by whylistentome
Okay, then please, if you may, PLEASE, explain the weakening of the 80 floors plus BELOW the fires and PLEASE explain how they could have fallen down into their footprints so cleanly at FREE FALL.
This is all we are trying to get from all of the supporters of the 'official' story. It simply cannot be explained. The floors below WERE NOT DAMAGED. The structure gets STRONGER the further down you go not weaker. The first tower to collapse was collapsing at AN ANGLE and then straightened when the UNDAMAGED portion of the building gave way so easily.
The second tower to get hit was hit on the corner. It was nearly missed. That's how bad the hit was. The majority of the fuel blew up in the impact and shot out of the side of the building in a ball of fire.
Just give a straight answer and explanation to the above questions and the other statements made about how the buildings, in no way, could have fallen at free fall. Yet they did.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by whylistentome
Okay, then please, if you may, PLEASE, explain the weakening of the 80 floors plus BELOW the fires and PLEASE explain how they could have fallen down into their footprints so cleanly at FREE FALL.
They didn't fall at free fall.
Originally posted by billybob
say griff, valhall...? what do think of the idea that a cooling piece of steel can exert (signifigant enough) force by contracting? keeping in mind that the trusses are the thinnest, and most heat exposed areas. i can't come to terms with the idea that the trusses first sag from heat, and then cooling cause them to become strong enough to pull apart both the perimeter and the core.
that IS the NIST's explanation for 'collapse initiation'.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
One last time. Once the section of the tower above the impact area started moving it's Kinetic Energy was enough to overload the structure below it. As a result that structure failed and added its mass to the falling debris. As each floor collapsed it added to the overload of the floor below. Stop thinking of a building as a solid object, it isn't. A building is an interconnected series of structures. The whole building didn't fail at once, it was a combined series of failures. Yes the structure became stronger the closer you got to the ground, but the falling debris picked up energy and mass as they fell as well. There it is plain and simple.
Originally posted by whylistentome
?
And how do you know this? Have you done the math?
Originally posted by Valhall
WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell at approximately 1/3 the accleration due to gravity.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
The heck with it. These guys explain it better than I ever could.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Originally posted by Masisoar
lol, okay.
What about these guys?
www.nist.gov...
Weren't they charged with falling through with successfully investigating every aspect of why the Towers collapsed, we shouldn't need other opinions from other people to provide what happened.
www.tfhrc.gov...
www.tfhrc.gov...