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 ANOK
Fireproofing, or not, the majority of the steel came no where near any fire. WTC 2 was on fire for less than an hour, nowhere near enough time for steel to reach anything like critical temps. Even if it did there would be obvious local failure of the steel that got too hot, not the whole building suddenly failing.
Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia
That experiment was under ideal conditions with a very high amount of jet fuel available, not to mention the steel they used was a scale size compared to the WTC's steel columns. Also the steel failed, not collapse in a molten mess.edit on 17-9-2011 by Se7enex because: edit
Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia
If the steel just failed, there would be huge amounts of wrangled steel wouldn't there?
Originally posted by Varemia
Wasn't there an experiment done that showed that steel exposed directly to jet fuel fire would heat up high enough within just a couple minutes? How have you determined how long it "should" have taken for the steel to reach "critical" temps?
The Importance of Newton's Laws
Newton's laws are extremely important not just in mechanics but in the whole of physics. When trying to understand a physical process, we often understand it by looking at the forces acting and working out the equations of motion. This is true of the motion of the planets to the flow of electrons in an electric or magnetic field.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by humphreysjim
The building did not collapse into its own footprint.
Oh for crusty chickens sake yes it did...
Originally posted by ANOKYour arguments are so old, and have been debunked years ago.
Seriously ATS needs a 911 for beginners, that they have to read before posting, sod we don't have to keep continuously going over these already debunked points.
Originally posted by The X
reply to post by humphreysjim
don't you think you should put any notions of being more clever than the 10,000 plus architects and engineers, the 3000 plus pilots and the large disbelieving portion of the american population and get with the program and raise hell until all the questions are answered fully?.
Originally posted by The X
don't you think you should put any notions of being more clever than the 10,000 plus architects and engineers, the 3000 plus pilots .
in case anyone wants to make any claims about the tower collapsing into pools of molten metal
Originally posted by humphreysjim
WT7 damaged the Verizon building, and WT7 was hit itself with debris, so it cannot have fallen into its own footprint. Debris was scattered long and wide.
Argue using facts as much as you like, but save me the BS rhetoric, yes?
Originally posted by The X
reply to post by humphreysjim
No they didnt "use planes" to take down the buildings, the planes are a cover for the actual demolition.
If the buildings had of just collapsed without the planes hitting them, it would look like an obvious demolition and they would not have "Derp it was the jet fuel melting the steel" excuse for them coming down, there would be nowhere for NIST to hide, we wouldn't be having this (ongoing) discussion.
It would be more obvious than it is.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by humphreysjim
WT7 damaged the Verizon building, and WT7 was hit itself with debris, so it cannot have fallen into its own footprint. Debris was scattered long and wide.
No it wasn't. Do you have problems with looking at pictures?
Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia
YOU said rubble and dust not me!