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.

 

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

page: 21
66
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
This copied version you can copy/paste from :
Mirror-Link to the 2006 William Tahill Report.

And this is the original report, his secured PDF, you can't copy from :
Original 2006 William Tahill Report.
At page 101 / 178 from this 2006 report by U.K. academic William Tahill, B.A. :


Another way of looking at it is to estimate the kinetic energy of the towers as they fell.
Professor Cahill (q.v.) put this as "180,000 tonnes moving at 120 mph " which is 2.6 x 10>11 Joules.


Then you must split off the resulting lateral vector component which has a considerable lower resulting air speed. WTC towers windows could withstand prolonged 150 mph wind-speeds.


4. The investigation and analysis of continual fallout from the WTC site in the weeks following the collapse. This was carried out by the DELTA Group led by Dr. Thomas Cahill, expert in atmospheric sciences at the University of California Davis.


Those who understand my sig-LINKS seismic evidence for explosive used at WTC 7, read William Tahill his chapter 4,
The Seismographic Evidence at page 85-108 / 178.

Good read, and an extensive 24 pages explanation, solutions for equations, and their calculations.

- - - - -

For the huge amount of guests; the non member-ATS forums readers, who thus don't see my signature and the three 9/11 evidence LINKS in it, until they get over their personal obstacles, blocking them from applying for a free ATS membership; here they are :

LaBTop's three Signature LINKS at the bottom of each of my posts :

WISDOMwillWIN--->9/11=a LIE !--->EVIDENCE--->LIST

And my long EVIDENCE link exposing the whole 911 OFFICIAL LIE, now includes seismic WTC twin towers articles by Dr Graeme McQueen and Dr Rousseau, that perfectly fit my own WTC-7 seismic research from 2005-2006.

Not one OS-Truster was able to come up with solid counter-arguments against any of those many, posted by me, evidence pieces, proving that 9/11 was more than what the official story wants us to believe.

I'm in the process of checking their whole forum if also the Freeforum posters could not refute them.
Because I have read quite some material from them in the past years, and found nothing of that kind.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
97,895 tons of Twin Tower materials comes out of this sum-up by Matt Nelson, for one tower :


Before construction officially began in 1966, one Port Authority of NY engineer said, "the rock-based foundations will carry 1.25 million tons of superstructure load."
(Martin S. Kapp, "Tall Towers Will Sit on Deep Foundations," Engineering News Record, July 9, 1964.
Online at -911research.wtc7.net... )
From the same article: "Mr. Kapp is Engineer of Soils in the Port of New York Authority's Engineering Department, which designed the foundations for the World Trade Center."
According to the various figures provided after 2001 above, it would seem Mr. Kapp's assessment was accurate.

Building materials were known with a great deal of accuracy. For instance, take another quote from the October 9, 2001 NY Times article:

""The assessment came with a striking level of detail. It estimated that each of the twin towers contained 3,881 tons of steel reinforcing in the concrete floor slabs; 47,453 tons of vertical steel columns; 8,462 tons of aluminum and glass on the exterior walls; 2,531 tons of various ceiling materials; 4,218 tons of flooring; and 31,350 tons of partitions or walls.""


97,895 Tons in total.
Of which only 4,218 tons of flooring. With 3,881 tons of re-bar steel in it.

That's not 180,000 tons, moving at 120 mph, like Prof Cahill said. It's less than 100,000 tons. Nearly half in fact. For the WHOLE north tower.
And then you have to subtract all the launched-outwards/peeled-off perimeter columns and the concrete blasted out- and -upwards.
However, we know the height and thus the distance the rubble fell, we know the collapse times for each tower from the seismic records. Which roughly gives you the mean vertical speeds in mph for each of them.
Then you have to calculate the lateral compound of that speed, which is a lot smaller.
Then you arrive at p o s s i b l e horizontal wind speeds by compression, lots less than the 150 mph the windows could withstand for longer times.
That air-pressure would also bleed-off UPWARDS through the blasted-open floors and could not have shattered those FEW or just ONE window(s), at their far-below collapse fronts positions, where those still resulting >70 mph squibs were appearing. Which means an horizontal air pressure of far more than 150 mph must have shattered that/those window(s) first, then resulted in >70 mph left-over air pressures. Which bleed off over about 20 to 40 meters each because of air friction.

What OS Trusters in fact propose is a huge air pressure build up throughout the whole tower's floor spaces under the collapse fronts.
Such a pressure leading through air conditioning canals only, is contradicted by the logic applied to that theory by me in one of my above posts.

Further on, we can find Gregory Urich his calculations for the North Tower TOTAL mass as about 317,500 short tons :
the911forum.freeforums.org...

But it was only a small part of it that could have been acting as a pile driver force. The top 15 floors for WTC 1N.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
shoestring911.blogspot.nl



Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]

--snip--

• Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]

• At a recycling center in New Jersey, he saw 10-ton steel beams from the towers that "looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice." [4] He showed the San Francisco Chronicle a "banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel" that had somehow "twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack." [5]

• He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6]

• In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [7]

• He found a foot-long twisted shard of steel that was "like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel." He commented, "I haven't seen anything like this [before]." [8]

• He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9]

• The fireproofing that had been used to protect the WTC steel also showed evidence of extreme conditions. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [10]

• Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized." [11]

These observations indicate that the World Trade Center steel was subjected to very high temperatures. Yet, while postulating that the towers collapsed due to fire (and without the use of explosives), even Thomas Eagar --an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-- admitted, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." [12] One must conclude that the phenomena observed by Astaneh-Asl are therefore highly suspicious.


The problem I still have with all this local evidence for extreme high temperatures of steel-recoveries at the WTC's debris piles and at its scrap yards, in combination with solely the use of TB's, is the very short duration of extreme temperatures when a TB explosion occurs.
I can't imagine a five-eighths of an inch thick flat top of an I-beam heating up so fast by a TB bomb that it evaporates.
It takes time to heat up a steel beam or column. And steel conducts heat away from the source.

That's why I would like to make a distinction between bend, molten, warped or even evaporated steel parts, and sheared-off ones like the bolts inside the core columns both ends, all found after the collapses.
The latter occurs after explosions.
The former occurs in a foundry, such as described and seen by numerous WTC Ground Zero debris piles workers and visitors.

A possible explanation for such a "natural" occurring foundry effect could be the charcoal pit explanation. There was just enough fresh air (oxygen) seeping in at the bottom of those compressed office equipment holding debris piles, compacted inside the 6 basements deep cavities, via the Path Train tunnels, to form such localized long lasting "foundries".




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   
QUOTE
wmd_2008 : The Windsor tower was not the same construction as the Twin Towers


The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

Overview
Location: Madrid, Spain
Fire Event: 12 February 2005
Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours
Fire Damage: Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor. The building was totally destroyed by the fire.
Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.
Fire Resistance: Passive fire protection. No sprinklers.
Building Type: 106 m (32 stories). Commercial.

The Damage

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished.



The steelwork DID fail only due to fire and NO aircraft impact!!!

IT WOULD HELP IF YOU GUYS CHECKED FACTS INSTEAD TRUSTING CONSPIRACY SITES FOR YOUR INFO!
END QUOTE

Help yourself in the first place to not only depend on debunking websites.
Your arguments were already much earlier in this thread debunked. By me.
Pay attention to all the by me, bolded words in your above quoted texts.
And re-read the arguments I wrote weeks ago already some pages back about the same subject.

ALL the steel above the 17th floor was unprotected by insulation foam or whatever else, it was BARE steel.
That was the real reason why they decided to do extensive repairs on that Windsor Tower in the first place.

And those OUTER perimeter steel columns did not fail AT ONCE, as at the WTC, but progressively, SLOWLY collapsed, part by part, over a period of many minutes to an hour. Caused by the extremely more intense fires than at the WTC.

""The building was totally destroyed by the fire.""
NO, it was beyond repair after 18 hours of intense fire engulfed it totally.
Only the NON-INSULATED steel above the 17th floor collapsed SLOWLY, and ONLY at the perimeters.
The rest of the total Windsor Tower was still standing. Burned out, but not collapsed.


The WTC-1N steel at the first collapsing floor (94) which you can see happening in my just shown above, two animated GIFs, was PERFECTLY insulated (no plane damage there), and on top of that, those top 7 floors were definitely not totally ENGULFED in flames for more than 18 hours. Only sparsely, partly.
And only at most during about 30 minutes or less (office fires last no longer in a windy space), during that 102 minutes. One hour and 42 minutes.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

You should read Jeff Prager's report too after reading William Tahill's report.

9 /11 An Analysis of the US Geological Survey Data - Proof of Advanced Fission Devices at the WTC - by Jeff Prager

As said before, I would like to hear from both gentlemen, if the use of depleted uranium (DU) cutter charges at the WTC's would have resulted in the find of the same lock-stepped nuclear fission products.
Since DU is a by-product of nuclear fission reactors, and thus contain the same lock-stepped products.

DU-lined cutter charges would have quite an heavier impact on those huge steel core columns than the standard copper-lined cutter charges.

I would like to state that the finds of both researchers in fact prove the use of DU in the explosives used to bring down all three WTC towers.
There exist also DU filled TBs. Used as thinly-conically shaped-charge cutter charges, to cut extremely thick steel.
Like the military wanted to use at enemy structures : bridges, tanks, bunker doors, headquarters steel columns, ships, submarines etcetera.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

No, I am still open to discussion. And did not conclude decisively anything, I added some doubt.
You missed again some words indicative of doubt :
1. expect
2. suppose
3. probably

Selective reading problems indication.



The problem here is that you SHOULDN'T be discussing it.

You don't now how to correctly analyze it, but you think your opinion should carry some weight.

Dunning-Kreuger abounds in everything you do.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

As long as you can't come up with solid refutations, calculations and equations, you are just blowing smoke screens, without explaining anything.


Nothing that I quoted from you had anything to do with any calcs.

It instead addressed your inability, or refusal, to understand what I endorse. Look. I can tell that English isn't your primary language, and so there may be a speed bump there for you. But at some point, I have to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and call things how I see it.

Your arguments are so weak that you are doing your best to try to get me to defend some ridiculous straw man that you are trying to set in place. IOW, you are a dishonest debater using the dishonest tactics of an obvious liar.



Then you would have seen the radio-mast and roof line still standing IN PLACE


See? This is a perfect example of you using a straw man. A dishonest tactic of a liar.

That whole paragraph attempts to give the impression that I endorse the early, and wrong, hypothesis that FEMA put out that the collapse initiation was a result of floors collapsing first, which led to long unbraced column lengths, which then buckled. IOW, a "pancake" initiation.

I do not endorse that. I endorse column buckling as the initiator. Column buckling means that the radio mast and roof line, etc.... fall. Just as is observed.


Then you would not have seen the following :







It looks exactly as I would expect, given that I endorse column buckling.

Here's where you might be missing the plot of what I endorse: after the start of the global collapse, and after a single story fall, columns will not line up to give any resistance to any falling mass. That was Tony Szamboti's contention, and he got laughed at everywhere he went, including truther forums, and for good reason.

My statement has always been that after a single story drop (which takes what... .3-.4 seconds?) the resistance is provided by the floors, since stuff falls on floors... including the the entirety of the upper block.

I really can't explain my position any better. It should be clear after this. Any more statements misrepresenting what I endorse will be reported as trolling.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

As long as you can't come up with solid refutations, calculations and equations, you are just blowing smoke screens, without explaining anything.




Let's see if you're able to do this yourself.

You claimed that it would be possible to lift core columns up a foot to break their connections through the use of TB's.

Let's see some numbers that back this up.

What are the TB's acting upon?
What surface is transmitting the "up" force onto the core columns?
Are they strong enough to transmit that force?
Are their connections strong enough to transmit that force?
How big must the TB's be?
What is their fuel/oxidizer?
What is the shock wave propagation speed?
How loud would it be?
How would TPTB make them quieter?

No handwaving about unknown technology is allowed.

Either bring some answers or be disregarded as a crackpot.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

DU-lined cutter charges would have quite an heavier impact on those huge steel core columns than the standard copper-lined cutter charges.

.



Why on God's green earth would anyone use depleted uranium instead of copper?

Yes, DU is heavier than copper, but that doesn't matter. The shape charge results in compression of copper until it gets hot enough to form a hot plasma. The hot plasma does the cutting in a somewhat similar way that a regular oxy-acetylene cutting torch does - it heats the steel and blows it out.

Are you under the impression that the DU/copper is propelled while still in its solid state into the steel? Under these circumstances THAT would make sense, for the same reason that DU shells are used as antitank rounds. They would be heavier and denser than copper.

I can only surmise that you are totally unfamiliar with how things work....



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Sorry LAbTop but YOU miss the whole point of the Windsor Tower post YOU and others like you say that a steel frame can't collapse only due to fire many on here with your belief post the Windsor Tower picture as evidence of that.

So lets break it down into simple terms for you and the others.

The MAIN structure of the Windsor Tower is a REINFORCED CONCRETE frame with REINFORCED CONCRETE INTERNAL COLUMNS.


The building totaled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns


Were the Twin Towers constructed that way ? NO

Windsor Tower Floor Construction


. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction


Were the Twin Tower floors this construction ? NO

Did the Twin Towers have internal columns on the floor slabs ? NO

Now was the steelwork of the Windsor Tower impacted or Damaged at the time of the fire ? NO

Did that steelwork COLLAPSE only due to fire ALTHOUGH it was not IMPACTED or DAMAGED ? YES


The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.


So can a fire ONLY, cause UNDAMAGED steelwork to collapse YES.

edit on 22-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-10-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

Dont you know that according to LaBTop the TBs have been silenced? or it was a combo of silenced DU/cutters with water coverings and the Thermobaric Bombs that were created by a crazy guy that supposedly created super secret weaponry and somehow only two other people know of them but also believe in aliens and other crazy ideas?



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   
What? You still here? Defending a debate you lost a few pages back, when you did not come up with any second-try arguments to counter the solid arguments of Beck's mathematical analysis of the WTC collapses.

Link to lexyghot post :

I do not endorse that. I endorse column buckling as the initiator. Column buckling means that the radio mast and roof line, etc.... fall. Just as is observed.
It looks exactly as I would expect, given that I endorse column buckling.


Fine. At last I got through your dense evasive debating technique and forced you to admit THAT, at last.
Now, since you can't refute Beck's mathematically solid analysis ( based on NIST's own steel properties research ), which concluded that none of those 47 core columns could buckle at all, caused only by the available NATURAL forces, that means we are in fact both endorsing the same initiator.

The only difference is, you won't admit that column buckling means there must have been an additional huge energy source introduced by human hands, that broke the 4 or 2 bolds holding those FORTY-SEVEN core columns top and bottom parts together at the collapse-initiating floor. Thus forming tower high steel columns that gradually grew thicker and more massive the lower that steel was positioned.


lexyghot : My statement has always been -snip-

WHERE ? You entered this website as a fresh member at this forum, in this, by me started and maintained thread, to spend weeks to come up at last with something I can hold you onto.
Are you perhaps a member at the 911forum.freeforums.org ? Any other forum, such as the JREF forum? Under what screen-name(s).? So I can see what you posted before, and what your statements have "always" been, and debate that too.

I repeat :

arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0609/0609105v8.pdf
Charles M. Beck; Title : Mathematical Models of Progressive Collapse.
REFUTE THAT.

Lexyghot, your words and non-existing calculations in this post and the following ones on this page 21 don't impress, nor convince me.
Your first try at refuting Beck's conclusions was based on ridiculous interpretations of his texts. As I showed you.
Care to try a second time?

As long as you can't come up with solid refutations, calculations and equations to counter Beck's analysis, you are just blowing smoke screens, without explaining anything.


lexyghot : Neither the core nor ext columns offered any resistance.
Only the floors. -snip-
My statement has always been that after a single story drop (which takes what... .3-.4 seconds?) the resistance is provided by the floors, since stuff falls on floors... including the entirety of the upper block.


Such a story drop does not happen magically.
How did the 47 core columns then FIRST buckle in that precious first collapse second, if they offered not any resistance? And Beck proves they could not buckle, whatever you keep saying.

If it were only the floors resisting the collapse, then you would have seen the radio-mast and roof line still standing IN PLACE in those first three seconds, held up by the hat truss and the underlaying intact 47 core columns structure, and the top 7 floors would also have been intact, while the next 8 floors were collapsing INSIDE the space between the still existing, INTACT 236 perimeter-columns and the 47 core-columns, if it were only the still intact floors resisting that.

But we see the whole top sinking as one huge entity. Including all the core columns, which can not buckle naturally, according to Beck, who's arguments based on NIST's own steel properties, you did not, thus can't refute in the past pages.

Who's the real liar and stroller again? You know by now, you can't refute Beck who showed us that WTC columns at the initiating floor could not buckle, but you keep posting about buckling columns being the NATURAL initiator. No explosives used, as you think.

You need forces considerably bigger ( 5 times) than the existing natural forces that were in place, to let those 47 WTC 1N steel core columns and 236 steel perimeter columns buckle under that natural load at that collapse initiation floor position.
Beck, page 11 / 15 :

1λy = 0.063 (z1 = 1 − F1/FT = 0.15, for WTC 1 ) and
2λy = 0.046 (z1 = 0.3, for WTC 2).
-snip-
We find 1λ = 0.013 for WTC 1, and 2λ = 0.029 for WTC 2, which are considerably smaller then their yield strains λy’s. Thus, contrary to the NIST claim, the total plastic deformation of the intact vertical columns in the secondary zone was more than sufficient to arrest the fall of the top section.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: LaBTop

Do you understand at all the quintessence of it?

NO, we say that a PROTECTED steel frame can't collapse only due to fire in 101 minutes and many on here with that belief post the Windsor Tower 18 hours / 1080 minutes fire pictures as evidence of that.

So lets break it down into simple terms for you and the others.
''"with steel perimeter columns""
Windsor Tower Floor Construction
"" Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction""

Did that UNPROTECTED steelwork COLLAPSE only due to fire ALTHOUGH it was not IMPACTED or DAMAGED ? YES

The unprotected steel-glass facade ABOVE the 17th floor was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The UNPROTECTED steel PERIMETER columns above the 17th floor suffered PARTIAL (NOT complete) collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper 16th technical floor.

So can a fire ONLY, cause UNDAMAGED unprotected steelwork to collapse? YES.

FINE. All Windsor tower perimeter steel above the 17th floor collapsed PARTIALLY, BECAUSE it was UNPROTECTED with fire insulation foam. That was the reason they started the renovation project work, to protect all that steel above floor 16.

The failing floor at the WTC 1N tower had ALL its steel solidly protected by good insulation.
SO, WHY SHOULD IT FAIL MASSIVELY IN 101 MINUTES / 1 hr 41 minutes?



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: lexyghot

Dont you know that according to LaBTop the TBs have been silenced? or it was a combo of silenced DU/cutters with water coverings and the Thermobaric Bombs that were created by a crazy guy that supposedly created super secret weaponry and somehow only two other people know of them but also believe in aliens and other crazy ideas?


Are we playing the "funny" card again? Who are the real liars and trollers in this thread?
Why do you insist to spread dis-information on this board? What's in it for you to show such behavior?

You keep spreading lies, I never wrote TB's were silenced, they have a very low sound profile, which is difficult to hear when all kind of loud sirens and street tumult is covering / camouflaging them.
I also never wrote to put TB's in water filled containers, only HE cutter charges can be distinctively silenced that way.
While we are at it, you have read my answers on such lies multiple times, at least already a few times in this thread alone :

For all the still doubting readers who read and then want to know more about GenRadek's endless repetitive posts about him doubting that Thermobaric Bombs even exists, he even thinks they only exist in my imagination (smile) :

This is real, SCIENTIFIC Thermobaric bombs based research, after reading all this, your doubt will either be gone, or substantially smaller :

REFERENCES :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lexyghot should also read all of that, it should answer his questions about TB's tilting up whole floors around the core columns. And since there is a latency principle, that explains how those core column bolts were broken. The explosive velocity front speeds of a TB are sufficient to tilt up a whole floor in a split second. All around the core area. And since that composite floor is attached with so many spandrels plates to those columns their bottom ends, and the above composite floor to their tops ends, those TBs will break those few bolts per column.

And that's the external, explosive force, at least 4 times the natural existing forces, needed to overcome those steel columns their yield strengths in that collapse initiating WTC 1N floor number 103.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
PS : Last sentence in my above post : "their yield strengths" must be : their yield strains λy’s.


For the lately arrived readers :
At page 14 are all the other referenced articles written by academics who are knowledgeable in their professions. I've not even arrived at discussing these other ones.

Read again that Excerpt from C.M. Beck's excellent VI. DISCUSSION, section 2. Rigidity assumption :
""Furthermore, the pulling action is realized with the intact floor structure in the secondary zone, through the tension of the floor trusses. As is known, the tension yield of the floor trusses is much greater then their shear yield force.""

The tension of all the double paired floor trusses under the huge ring shaped composite concrete floor decks, on the numerous spandrels plates welded to the 47 core columns and the 236 perimeter columns, where these composite floors rested on, is part of the force acting on the 2 or 4 bolts inside every core column ends, and the 4 thinner bolts inside everyone of the circa 78 Vierendeel triplet columns.
At the moment when the TBs were ignited.

The other force acting on those bolts were the thick steel crossbeams and their on-laying cover of thick concrete floors inside the core area. Which of course were also bulged-up / up-lifted by the huge explosive force of those TBs exploding upwards and then outwards from that core area. Which we saw as huge explosive clouds spitting out of every third floor.
And that's why all those core columns seen laying around after the collapses, had nearly all, their bolts inside their both ends sheared off.

Now read the rest of my posts on page 14, start with this one, and read the next ones too :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Don't pay attention to the distractors who offer no solid arguments at all, throughout this whole thread.
Especially this post you should read.

I'm back reading that 911freeforum, while the distractors draw new red herrings across the original track of this thread, construct new straw-men and new creative insults. Have fun with them / it.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

As long as you can't come up with solid refutations, calculations and equations to counter Beck's analysis, you are just blowing smoke screens, without explaining anything.



arxiv.org...


Here are some of his more hilarious, and wrong, statements:

1- while the central core consisted of 51 core columns (it's 47)

2- For the PCs we assume that the thickness of the plates at the bottom was 1/2” (no, 1/4")

3- As for the CCs, we do base our expectations on the following: all 51 column were of dimensions 22”-by-55”, ( NO. Just no)

4- Please note, the assumption of all 51 columns being the same appears to be corroborated by the floor plans: all
CCs appear to have the same footprint. (He's insane)

5- the intact vertical columns can easily absorb through plastic deformation the energy of the falling top section of the WTCs ( ummm, no, the strength of the columns were bypassed after buckling cuz they would no longer be in alignment. Instead, the buckled and/or broken CC's met resistance from the flooring in the core area, while the PC's would have either slipped outside the footprint and met air, or slipped inside and met resistance from, again, floors. )


Here's where he goes off the rails:

6- In Fig. 3 we plot the collapse duration lines (from discrete and continuous model) for NIST (μ) and NIST (μ · ν)
scenarios, the collapse initiation lines and the points that correspond to the known ultimate yield strength of the
perimeter columns (PCs), the guessed ultimate yield strength of the core columns (CCs, with question mark), and
the guessed ultimate yield strength of both (CC+PC, with question mark).


He admits that he's GUESSING at the ultimate yield strength of the CC's and PC's. And then relies on that guess to show that it couldn't initiate, and then goes on to say that it should of arrested cuz the CC and PC were so strong - which of course relies on stuff falling on the columns instead of the floors.

Your lack of English comprehension is showing.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


If it were only the floors resisting the collapse,


After initiation.


then you would have seen the radio-mast and roof line still standing IN PLACE in those first three seconds, held up by the hat truss and the underlaying intact 47 core columns structure, and the top 7 floors would also have been intact, while the next 8 floors were collapsing INSIDE the space between the still existing, INTACT 236 perimeter-columns and the 47 core-columns, if it were only the still intact floors resisting that.


This again?

Nope. All columns buckled, therefore, the roof and upper stories fell one story as a unit onto the floors. After that one story fall, the broken and/or buckled CC and PC would have missed their lower counterparts and fallen onto the floors. The bottom of the trusses of bottom floor of the upper part would have fallen on its counterpart below.

IOW, stuff fell on the floors after that first one story drop from column buckling. After that, the collapse was resisted bt the flooring.



But we see the whole top sinking as one huge entity. Including all the core columns,


As I expect it to.


which can not buckle naturally, according to Beck,


Well, yeah, that's the results he got cuz he WILDLY overestimated the strength of the columns.


who's arguments based on NIST's own steel properties, you did not, thus can't refute in the past pages.


Beck is done. Prove your own foolishness by continuing to hold his paper up as some kind of proof of an inside jerb.


Who's the real liar


You and everyone you quote as an authority that says that 9/11 was an inside job.


and (s)troller again?


You. Unless you want to plead that you are having trouble in understanding English. There would be no shame in that.




-snip-
We find 1λ = 0.013 for WTC 1, and 2λ = 0.029 for WTC 2, which are considerably smaller then their yield strains λy’s. Thus, contrary to the NIST claim, the total plastic deformation of the intact vertical columns in the secondary zone was more than sufficient to arrest the fall of the top section.




Right here, he's making an argument for collapse arrest. he even says so when he uses the phrase, "more than sufficient to arrest the fall of the top section".

And yet you are using it as an argument against collapse initiation.

You do not know what you are reading, nor do you comprehend any of it.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

The failing floor at the WTC 1N tower had ALL its steel solidly protected by good insulation.
SO, WHY SHOULD IT FAIL MASSIVELY IN 101 MINUTES / 1 hr 41 minutes?


Cuz you are lying when you say that the insulation is "good" after the plane impacts.

Even your hero Beck isn't dumb enough to deny that and acknowledges accumulating fire weakening. Refute his statement if you wish...



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

Lexyghot should also read all of that, it should answer his questions about TB's tilting up whole floors around the core columns. And since there is a latency principle, that explains how those core column bolts were broken. The explosive velocity front speeds of a TB are sufficient to tilt up a whole floor in a split second. All around the core area. And since that composite floor is attached with so many spandrels plates to those columns their bottom ends, and the above composite floor to their tops ends, those TBs will break those few bolts per column.



I read it, and nowhere does it detail how big the TB's would need to be to "lift" the columns by a foot.

That was your claim. Now give me the details, cuz I'm inching ever closer to dismissing you as a crackpot.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

The tension of all the double paired floor trusses under the huge ring shaped composite concrete floor decks, on the numerous spandrels plates welded to the 47 core columns and the 236 perimeter columns,


No spandrel plates on the core columns.

Can't you get anything right?



The other force acting on those bolts were the thick steel crossbeams and their on-laying cover of thick concrete floors inside the core area. Which of course were also bulged-up / up-lifted by the huge explosive force of those TBs exploding upwards and then outwards from that core area. Which we saw as huge explosive clouds spitting out of every third floor.
And that's why all those core columns seen laying around after the collapses, had nearly all, their bolts inside their both ends sheared off.




No details about the TB's lifting core columns yet.

I wonder why.....



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join