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.

 

Melting steel?

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The 4 forces that work on metals are Compression, Tension, Shear, and Torsion.

While I work in Engineering now, I worked in Finance at the time of 9/11 and had just been working at WT2 four months prior to 9/11.

My friend was evacuating WT2 when the 2nd plane hit, he was in the stairwell around the 42nd floor. Now he said he was slammed into the wall as the building moved 2-3 feet when the plane hit, then the tower swayed back in the other direction.

What we have here is an event that most likely created unknown Compression, Tension, Shear, and Torsion on the existing structure. Exacerbating the situation was the extreme heat caused by the jet fuel, accompanied by the weight of the floors above the impact area. WT2 failed quicker than WT1 due to the lower impact point of the aircraft, which meant more Compression weight above the impact area.

WT7 blah blah blah. Many buildings in the area were damaged. No one talks about the serious damage to the World Financial Center. They were able to be restored structurally, while some buildings in the WT complex succumb to eventual failure due to more severe damage.




posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



We don't have their modelling input data. They could be inputting literally anything to coerce the software into showing those animations. Beam lengths off by centimeters, fire temperatures increased by a few hundred degrees Celsius, so on so forth.


I can look at the following depictions and tell you how the WTC Towers collapsed.

Depiction 1

Depiction 2

Depiction 3

More than enough data has already been released.Check it out.

www.nist.gov...


edit on 17-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome
The 4 forces that work on metals are Compression, Tension, Shear, and Torsion.

While I work in Engineering now, I worked in Finance at the time of 9/11 and had just been working at WT2 four months prior to 9/11.

My friend was evacuating WT2 when the 2nd plane hit, he was in the stairwell around the 42nd floor. Now he said he was slammed into the wall as the building moved 2-3 feet when the plane hit, then the tower swayed back in the other direction.

What we have here is an event that most likely created unknown Compression, Tension, Shear, and Torsion on the existing structure. Exacerbating the situation was the extreme heat caused by the jet fuel, accompanied by the weight of the floors above the impact area. WT2 failed quicker than WT1 due to the lower impact point of the aircraft, which meant more Compression weight above the impact area.

WT7 blah blah blah. Many buildings in the area were damaged. No one talks about the serious damage to the World Financial Center. They were able to be restored structurally, while some buildings in the WT complex succumb to eventual failure due to more severe damage.


please enplane more..



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



We don't have their modelling input data. They could be inputting literally anything to coerce the software into showing those animations. Beam lengths off by centimeters, fire temperatures increased by a few hundred degrees Celsius, so on so forth.


I can look at the following depictions and tell you how the WTC Towers collapsed.

Depiction 1

Depiction 2

Depiction 3

More than enough data has already been released.




What a lame response,, this girl is smarter that that..



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome



WT2 failed quicker than WT1 due to the lower impact point of the aircraft, which meant more Compression weight above the impact area.


That is exactly what I have said years ago.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

it is all very simple to understand if you use the law of physics.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: TheChrome



WT2 failed quicker than WT1 due to the lower impact point of the aircraft, which meant more Compression weight above the impact area.


That is exactly what I have said years ago.


This is not rocket science lol. Well, maybe it is for google/conspiracy nation!



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

it is all very simple to understand if you use the law of physics.



Right, thats why your wrong..



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome



This is not rocket science lol. Well, maybe it is for google/conspiracy nation!


You've got that right and this depiction makes it easy to understand.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 Impact Points



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: TheChrome



This is not rocket science lol. Well, maybe it is for google/conspiracy nation!


You've got that right and this depiction makes it easy to understand.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 Impact Points


Failure analysis of the World Trade Center:

croberts.com...



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

I was very interested in your link where it said:



The beams are often found severely deformed and twisted in pretzel like fashion with little load carrying capacity. Several have commented that the columns in the Twin Towers melted, causing the failure. It is more likely that the remaining columns and connections failed as a result of the softening of the steel from the heat, rather than melting. Melting takes time and a lot of energy input from the fire. The steel softens first, resulting in a collapse before melting has occurred. When the columns or floor connections failed, structural loading was no longer static, but dynamic. The release of the load, by whichever floor columns failed, allowed about 20,000 tons of building material to impact on the next floor. Even if all the building structure below had been intact, the sudden impact of such a weight could not be sustained by the lower portion of the building that had been designed for static (steady, weight bearing) loads. As the upper portion of the building began to descend with considerable increase in momentum, each floor failed, in succession, terminating in a pile of building debris at the foundation area. This phenomenon is nothing new. Demolition companies use the same principle in destroying buildings by weakening the support structure, using explosives to cause critical columns to fail, and relying on the building mass to do the rest. This failure mode has also been seen in other structures, but to a lesser degree. Figure 3 shows a failed floor beam. In this case, the floor above was


That is what I have conveyed for years. Fire soften the steel structure setting the collapse into motion whereas, there was nothing that could have stopped the collapse from that point.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome




Failure analysis of the World Trade Center:

croberts.com...

You mean a professional company comes out supporting the OS?
Blasphemy!

Can we start a class action suit against Richard Gage for defrauding the public?
That would sure clip his wings.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Big Plane HITS a bilding and does Not weeken it?
it would fall down on That side! yes?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: buddha




it would fall down on That side! yes?

You are assuming the lower structure could withstand immense forces from directions other than vertical.

Cut the top off an aluminum can.
Now push the sharp edge at a 45 degree angle.
Not so strong anymore.

You have to look at how the building was constructed.
It was not a lattice of steel beams as in traditional buildings.
The outer steel was like playing cards glued end to end and side to side.
Without the floor trusses for bracing the outer wall couldn't stand for more than a few floors without buckeling.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
That building was designed to withstand an airplane collision. Most tall buildings are thats why they are cobbwebbed with steel. What? Cant believe the US Government would LIE to you?. Look at thr Kennedy assassination. Magic bullet theory remember?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Nice work wildb. This is why I backed out a few pages ago. There is enough evidence in this thread alone to prove in a court of law that molten steel existed and some kind of incendiary device plus explosives were used to bring those buildings down. But instead of discussing the facts you have 1 or 2 people that just keep parroting, "that didn't happen", to every piece of factual evidence provided without analyzing it or providing links or even reasonable counter argument to the original eveidence. I have read hundreds of 9/11 threads and they all end the same way.

I don't understand people ignoring the mountain of evidence unless they choose to. Most of the people I know realize by now that we were lied to that day. Have a great day and keep up the good fight.

Bottom Line is this thread is about melted steel. That's been proven, over and over! If you deny that, you're a stone cold liar.
edit on 18-12-2015 by DeceptioVisus because: grammar



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: texasyeti




Most tall buildings are thats why they are cobbwebbed with steel.

Most tall building are NOT designed to withstand airplane strikes.
Pleas show us ANY reference to your belief.

WTC was NOT cobbwebbed with steel.
It had an inner core steel frame much like traditional buildings.
But the outer shell was just steel framework.
Look at the 4th picture down
The inner core and outer shell was braced with floor trusses similar to Walmart roof trusses.
You need to look at the plans before making 'cobbwebbed' statements.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus




There is enough evidence in this thread alone to prove in a court of law that molten steel existed and some kind of incendiary device plus explosives were used to bring those buildings down.

If there were evidence someone would have sued long ago.

All we have are a bunch of internet physicist's and keyboard engineers babbling over things they are not qualified for.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
You guys always miss the big elephant in the room, that the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION DID NOT and HAS NOT released their modelling data for public peer review, the data which supposedly proves their fire induced collapse theory.

The fact that it remains under lock and key is utterly unacceptable.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn




HAS NOT released their modelling data for public peer review, the data which supposedly proves their fire induced collapse theory.

You don't need that data.
Walk down to your local firehouse and ask them if they would enter a burning Walmart.
Read here


The HRR of the merchandise burning in the paint department was enormous, sufficient to distort large girder trusses and push out a tilt-up wall in less than 15 minutes from the dispatch of the first alarm.

Look at the pictures of the roof trusses.

And here



The roof of the Sofa Super Store's main showroom, where six of the firefighters' bodies were found, was supported by a steel truss. Before his death in 2006, building construction expert Frank Brannigan repeatedly warned firefighters about the dangers of steel truss construction.


Read the first paragraph here

Read truss failure

I could go on and on with examples.
Steel trusses do not hold up in fires anywhere as long as steel beams do.
Trusses kept the outer frame from buckeling on WTC.

Ask your local firefighter!




top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join