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 Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim
really, well let me help you, since i have found no one who is able to explain something. i'm copying this from another thread because i've typed it many times.
**********************************************************************************************************************************
you say "steel didn't melt". i showed how the color of metal = temperature, and the temperature we see based on that is well over 1300 C. that is hotter than jet fuel can burn by a long shot, and even the source you linked to says temperatures in the tower were around 750C.
see that piece of rebar sticking up that is orange? if that were aluminum, it would be a puddle of liquid, as would the steel that is being picked up. granted, you can see steel dripping off, but aluminum at that temperature is completely melted.
and howabout this picture? where would you say it falls on
because the topmost orange on that picture is 1371C.
www.blksmth.com...
there is simply no denying that temperatures above and beyond what the OS says occurred. i've had enough dishonesty from the OS'ers
**********************************************************************************************************************************
show me where NIST accounts for those temperatures. here's a hint, they don't.
Originally posted by ANOK
Neither of those caused the collapses. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.
According to NIST trusses heated up and sagged, pulling in columns and initiating the collapse. A hypothesis easily proven wrong. They did not explain how the collapses continued through the path of most resistance, while mass and Ke was being lost.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by humphreysjim
What do you think the plane was, and the fire?
Neither of those caused the collapses. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.
Originally posted by ANOKAccording to NIST trusses heated up and sagged, pulling in columns and initiating the collapse. A hypothesis easily proven wrong. They did not explain how the collapses continued through the path of most resistance, while mass and Ke was being lost.
Originally posted by ANOKEqual opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, would both cause the collapse to slow and arrest long before it could be complete. 15 floors can not crush 95 floors, without extra energy. There are plenty of post that explain this so please do some reading so I don't have to repeat myself for every poster.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim
i support an independent investigation of 9/11, because truth be told, we only have theories attempting to explain the problems of the OS. i believe thermate was involved and possibly conventional explosives too.
as for that explanation you gave, i've seen that verbatim before. 911myths or something, right? and i completely disagree. the color is constant, not spotty as it would be if the color came from pieces of wood or carpet. the first picture in my post shows a piece of orange metal being picked up, which obviously means it's still solid. barely. this means there could be no contamination.
i've welded on contaminated aluminum before, and the slag wasn't orange.edit on 17-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
Sweet mother of crusty chickens... how many times do you have to be told about WTC 1 hitting WTC 7 with debris? And don't you dare say "but it was only minor," because the firefighters on scene disagree with you. 20 story hole from the bottom up, an 8 story chunk taken out of the corner, a piece broken off from the edge of the roof, and a three-story bulge formed in the building, likely from fire.
Or are you going to deny that this was true?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Varemia
Sweet mother of crusty chickens... how many times do you have to be told about WTC 1 hitting WTC 7 with debris? And don't you dare say "but it was only minor," because the firefighters on scene disagree with you. 20 story hole from the bottom up, an 8 story chunk taken out of the corner, a piece broken off from the edge of the roof, and a three-story bulge formed in the building, likely from fire.
Or are you going to deny that this was true?
So what?
Asymmetrical damage is not going to cause a building to symmetrically collapse into its own footprint.
The collapse did not even initiate from that damage, according to the OS. Supposedly column 79 failed due to the fires, caused by the debris, not the damage. Just like the planes did not cause the collapse of the towers, only started the fires that supposedly caused the initiation of the collapse. Once the collapses started, the fires and damage had NOTHING to do with the collapses. Collapse initiation does not lead to automatic complete collapses.
www.nist.gov...
Yes sweet mother of crusty chickens indeed, you can't even get your own argument straight...
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Varemia
Sweet mother of crusty chickens... how many times do you have to be told about WTC 1 hitting WTC 7 with debris? And don't you dare say "but it was only minor," because the firefighters on scene disagree with you. 20 story hole from the bottom up, an 8 story chunk taken out of the corner, a piece broken off from the edge of the roof, and a three-story bulge formed in the building, likely from fire.
Or are you going to deny that this was true?
So what?
Asymmetrical damage is not going to cause a building to symmetrically collapse into its own footprint.
The collapse did not even initiate from that damage, according to the OS. Supposedly column 79 failed due to the fires, caused by the debris, not the damage. Just like the planes did not cause the collapse of the towers, only started the fires that supposedly caused the initiation of the collapse. Once the collapses started, the fires and damage had NOTHING to do with the collapses. Collapse initiation does not lead to automatic complete collapses.
www.nist.gov...
Yes sweet mother of crusty chickens indeed, you can't even get your own argument straight...
Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by humphreysjim
How could they make bringing down two high rise steel buildings and blaming it on terrorists any easier and believable?
Originally posted by humphreysjim
The building did not collapse into its own footprint.
And of course both the damage from the plane and the damage from the fire played a part in the collapse. The planes stripped off fire-proofing, for a start.
Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The aluminum has the same glow as the tungsten.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz