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.
And neither do the fires since fires have never caused steel-structured high-rises to collapse, ever.
Originally posted by thedman
Reason this doesn't happen is because the fires are detected and extinguished long before the fire has chance to inflict structural damage
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Steel is steel, whether it is tubular or solid
Melting point of steel is 1370C (2500F)
The open air burning temp of Jet A1 is 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Quoting studies Class A Fires can reach temps of around 970C
As an Aviation engineer the temps at constant engine run will hang around at max 800C. which is under constant pressure and air flow.
The only way that a situation like this could act like a blast furnace would be with the constant introduction of accelerate, fuel and air constant air flow.
One the Kerosene burnt off and from the explosion cloud most of it passed through the building. then you are left with a standard out of control Class A Fire.
Possible accelerant, thermite!
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Pretty hilarious.
Especially coming from a guy that in that very post made 2 factual statements that AREN'T supported with facts and evidence, and are only opinions.
NIST's estimates were just guesses or estimates, so I'll give you that part isn't "factual".
What is absolutely factual is that no steel-structured high-rise has been brought down from fire. Please, try to prove that wrong.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by thedman
Reason this doesn't happen is because the fires are detected and extinguished long before the fire has chance to inflict structural damage
That would be false again. Another member posted several stories about steel-structured high-rises that were left burning for hours and hours and never collapsed. I'm not going to go digging through the threads for it, but simple research on your part would reveal that.
Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by Tiloke
Do you mean the thousands of gallons of kerosene that were blow out of the the other side of the building, due to the inertia of the high speed impact of aircraft impacting the building. and igniting evaporating and continuing onward out of the building.
The tanks on this planes will not have just dumped all of its contents in side the building with nothing escaping. and what there was would just burn off or seep down
So why was there no dire on lower floors.
Don;t even get me started on the speed of gravity descent of the building
And why oh why did both building go straight down.
By this reasoning the empire state building should have collapsed too in 1945! but whi didn't it
And what about the beam cuts at a 45 degree angle seen and photographed, which are a standard demolition technique
Sorry too many things about his whole things do not add up
Again I ask, Why was I told that both towers would fall by the MSM before they did!, Whi knew???
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by wmd_2008
All your questions are easily answered on the site I gave! Also you failed to give one reason why your questions were valid in the first place. Like the 90,000 tons of concrete turning to dust. Your supposed answer is; it was a thin coat of concrete on the outside of the steel. So what, how did it turn to dust from just fire and collapse? When most of it was not touched by the fire and the fact that it had heavy steel between it and the fire. That is just simple logic. Not that you will answer because you failed to go to the site so I doubt you will do anything more then you have...
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Of coure then they will say the mass incresed but that increased mass also slowed down the falling mass due to the Conservation of Momentum.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How in the world can you make this statement and expect to be taken seriously?
The resistance can be there, and be in sufficent quantity to slow the acceleration of that mass to less than g, but STILL be insufficent to slow it down.
This is such a simple mistake. It is generally accepted at truther sites with a little more rigor to their thinking, like over at Greg's, that the collapse accelerated at .7g.
This indicates resistance, but less than what is needed to slow it down.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How in the world can you make this statement and expect to be taken seriously?
The resistance can be there, and be in sufficent quantity to slow the acceleration of that mass to less than g, but STILL be insufficent to slow it down.
This is such a simple mistake. It is generally accepted at truther sites with a little more rigor to their thinking, like over at Greg's, that the collapse accelerated at .7g.
This indicates resistance, but less than what is needed to slow it down.
psik
South tower fell first although struck second WHY? because of the load of over 40,000 tons above the impact point thats WHY!