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 oz1337
reply to post by TrueAmerican
This "Conspiracy" has been debunked ...
Popular Mechanics Debunk 9/11 Myth
Enjoy reading
oz1337
"Melted" Steel Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Originally posted by oz1337
reply to post by TrueAmerican
This "Conspiracy" has been debunked ...
Popular Mechanics Debunk 9/11 Myth
Enjoy reading
oz1337
Originally posted by oz1337
This "Conspiracy" has been debunked ...
Popular Mechanics Debunk 9/11 Myth
oz1337
Originally posted by Taxi-DriverIf this picture would have been taken just after the towers fell....Possibly.
BUT
It was a cherry-picked photo out of a set.. which included THIS pic as well.
Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
Actually, I think PM provides another little gem.
119: Only existing photo of 'Flight 175' windowed fuselage atop WTC5, featured in Popular Mechanics, was not taken until Oct 25, and was found ON TOP of cladding from the collapse of WTC1, not under it, 6 feet from the roof access door (FEMA)
Originally posted by bl4ke360
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
You seem to have quite a track record of "debunking" 9/11 threads, for over two years I see. Disinfo agent much? Evidence?:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I doubt that any ordinary skeptic would waste 2 years coming here and attempt to prove 9/11 theories false, what do you even gain by it? Do you seriously think anyone listens to your poor logic? Guess what, my logic says that your under the payroll.
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
FDNY knew it was compromised and created a collapse zone around the building 4 hours before it finally fell.
To say WTC 7 fell due to demolition is saying the FDNY was involved with the mass murder of their fallen brothers.. There is no other way for the WTC 7 to be a demolition event and the FDNY not to be a part of it. And for you to accuse the men who lost so much that day to be an intregal part of this snake-oil conspiracy makes me sad...real sad.
Dont even try and elude that anyone thinks the FDNY was part of it. NO one would ever think that this was a comment to create a reaction for a poster to pull back.
What the heck are they supposed to do after two buildings fell and 343 of the finest people the world has to offer died? They had no clue WTF was going on and had better have created a safe zone.
I will tell you what all firefighters are of the brotherhood and my brothers that day came back and stated it looked like a controlled demolition and had the look on there faces of total disbelief. FDNY see it all and do it all, there is nothing in this world that would place that look on those faces in the Naudet film unless something happened that they felt was extraordinary.
I hardly ever post in this forum (I joined ATS because of 9/11) I get so frustrated and if I think too much about 9/11 I get really depressed and when I see pictures of those men covered in dust and the look of seeing hell on there faces makes me weep.
You want snake oil? Go to the FED they are selling it by the barrel.
Originally posted by SilentRunning
I have a theory that i never found a trace of until now (correct me if i am wrong).
(...snip...)
If during construction (or later), you directly implement autodestruction devices, you gain control of the consequences by avoiding too much hassles and costs, by camouflaging the "removal" of the building within the accident itself. A convenient way also to make the insurance pay for the whole destruction, not only for the initial damages.
Originally posted by googolplex
Jet fuel ony burns so hot, unless you give it more oxygen, all the jet fuel was gone in matter of minutes, proof woman standing in blown out section.
If it was structural failure due to damange of the supporting collums, there would have been a hinge effect, this being the collapse of damaged area first, the intact structure acting as a hinge.This then directing structure from hinge point to direction gravitiy is pulling, in respect to hinge.
I sure any engineer would also state that the possibility of all the structural members to reach monent of failure at the exact same instance, would be questionable in at least one of buildings.
One of the things that the people that demo Buildings worry about is the hinge effect, unless it is a wanted effect, in use of control of direction of collapse.
When speaking in terms of heat look at these building you can see stored potential energy just sitting there. The falling of these building would cause release of this potential energy turn a certain amout of it into heat, the release of the potential.