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: Shiloh7
a reply to: scottyirnbru
Did the owners get an insurance payment for the loss of their building?
originally posted by: scottyirnbru
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru
Indeed. How very convenient. I still believe the alien ray is the far better explanation
(where did all the thermal energy come from?)
The fires. Jeez. Look at the pictures.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
using your alien ray theory what are the thermal differences between the various construction components used in the building? Considering metals expand and contract at different temperatures, depending on the metal composition, what metal components failed first and how did those failures affect the overall structural integrity?
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: hellobruce
Did you take in account the money they still had to put up to renovate the buidling? It was full of asbestos which had to be removed / replaced. A very costly business.
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
originally posted by: Xcathdra
using your alien ray theory what are the thermal differences between the various construction components used in the building? Considering metals expand and contract at different temperatures, depending on the metal composition, what metal components failed first and how did those failures affect the overall structural integrity?
I did not assume a heat ray. A heat ray would have burned the building down, would indeed, if you had that much energy at hand, vaporise the building (literally). I assume a ray type that shatters any material (and humans too). Ever watched the remake of War of the World? Something like that.
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Ever watched the remake of War of the World? Something like that.
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So many replies and no one has yet attempted to debunk the deep explosive caught on tape that help bring down world trade center 7 in a controlled manner.
The owner and the secretary of state both have said that they building was pulled and brought down in a controlled fashion.
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
originally posted by: scottyirnbru
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru
Indeed. How very convenient. I still believe the alien ray is the far better explanation
(where did all the thermal energy come from?)
The fires. Jeez. Look at the pictures.
Ever heard of Edna Cinton?
originally posted by: hellobruce
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Ever watched the remake of War of the World? Something like that.
Ah, one of those....
"I saw it at the movies so it must be true"!!
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru
I am genuinely advocating that additional energy (on top of stored kinetic energy) was necessary to make these 3 building collapse as they did. The alien ray is about just as good an explanation as the OS and that theory is supported by other fortean / ATS theories, hence I found it fitting to present and defend it. It is, to me, just as real as your version of the truth is to you.
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru
It is relevant because your statement that the additional energy I'm talking about might have been provided by the fires. Well, if just a short while after impact a person can stand right in the middle of the impact zone unharmed, waving for help, I really don't think the "heat" would have been sufficient to bring the building to its knees.
But you do quite a good job at convincing me that US architects and engineers are quite a lousy bunch, as you seem to suggest that the building was more or less constructed out of plaster, gypsum and light metals, ready to collapse on impact by the same plane the building was DESIGNED to withstand. I always assumed it was a STEEL building with massive cores, cast into solid concrete, as we see on the various films and photos made during and after construction...
I still have not found an answer to the enigma how it was that on the one hand the bolts that connected the trusses to the core and frame were to weak to hold the floors in place and on the other hand these bolts were strong enough to allow the (equal!) dispersion of kinetic energy from the falling floors into/onto the cores, sufficient to rip the entire core to pieces.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ForteanOrg
Sure however my question still stands.
Buildings are not made where only one type of metal is present and in use. Different metals have different temperatures at which point they can become damage / destroyed / warped / etc.
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ForteanOrg
Sure however my question still stands.
Buildings are not made where only one type of metal is present and in use. Different metals have different temperatures at which point they can become damage / destroyed / warped / etc.
Thank you for participating in the discussion without attacking anybody, refreshing
I know that buildings are made of many types of materials and yes they differ wildly w/regard to melting point, structure etc. However, that is also known to the engineers that design these buildings. They specifically construct buildings in such ways that the resulting mix of materials is sufficiently capable of supporting the building within its design criteria. In this case, the building was designed such that it should have been capable of withstanding the impact of the plane without collapsing. Yet, the building magically collapsed. Either the engineers are quite incapable, or they lied when they said they designed these buildings to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707.
the NIST impact analyses
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors.
the engineers are quite incapable, or they lied when they said they designed these buildings to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707.
originally posted by: scottyirnbru
I think perhaps you are failing to understand the physics behind your issue.
The bolts can be both these things.
You seem to be thinking of this in isolation and not considering the dynamic loading applied to the floors and columns as soon as the crucial members failed. As soon as that happens it's loads transferring in many directions at the same time. It's load being applied rapidly to floors and shearing bolts and columns. Lots of material moving in many directions at speed.
You seem to want this central section to stay standing while everything slides down like a stripper on a pole.
That's a pretty strange belief.
The centre is connected to the outside. They brace and support each other. When one fails the loads move to different nodes and transfer in different directions.
A cubic metre of concrete weights approx 2400kg. Now imagine dropping that. The load is increased when it hits something.
What do you think the people in these areas should have done?