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.

 

How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

page: 20
26
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



Why would you make a floor hanging off the vertical columns at the 12th floor more massive than the 105th floor hanging off the vertical columns?


While you stay stuck focusing on just the actual concrete floor slabs, which I never mentioned.

I was referring to the weight of the total floor systems, re-cap of previous post:
"Typical weight of 4,800 tons for floors near the bottom and 4,200 tons per floor at the top, (600 ton difference) All floor systems got lighter towards the top".

I guess by now though, it's irrelevant to the fact that the towers would still be standing if the attack wasn't allowed to happen in the first place.




posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

And I said the majority of people acknowledge the VERTICAL COLUMNS tapered with height. The floor connections for each floor to the vertical columns were the same for each tenant floor. Only the ten or twelve mechanical floors had different floor connections to the vertical columns.

Again, the floor connections are what sheared after the 29 / 11 floors fell into the towers while the floor system collapsed. After the initial areas of isolated buckling, the vertical columns were not broken after the collapse. You argument is a moot point. The floors sheared from the vertical columns and broke around the vertical columns. Long sections of vertical columns stood after the complete collapse of the towers floors. The floors fell around 67 percent of the rate of free fall. The vertical columns fell last at 40 percent the rate of free fall as captured on video. The vertical columns only toppled after loosing lateral support.

Sad you have to ignore the towers’ floors had limited load ratings independent of the vertical columns, the towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance, you ignore the physical evidence, you ignore the video evidence, and you ignore the nature how the towers collapsed.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

What does the size of the vertical columns have to do in the context of the load rating of the floors was limited by the floor connections to the vertical columns? The floor connections to the vertical columns was the limiting factor on the load any given floor could hold. Is that a false statement?



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Again, why would you make the 12th floor hanging off the vertical columns more massive than the 105th floor hanging off the vertical columns?



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

And the floor system would be anything betwen the connections to the outer vertical columns and the floor connections to the vertical columns in the core. Not the vertical columns that nobody is disputing became more massive as one got closer to the base/ foundation of the towers.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

With all of the undamaged/uncomprimised floors below impact locations of both towers...

The columns got bigger/ stronger closer to the ground...

The sections of the towers above the impact locations fell apart/turned to dust as they fell and before they hit the ground...

The falling weight from above was constantly being reduced as the collapse progressed... So how could it "pile drive"?

A total building destruction should not have happened.

The door of America was purposely unlocked to the bad guys on 9/11 2001, we even gave them a helping hand.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum




The columns got bigger/ stronger closer to the ground...

But the connections that held each floor was identical.
If you drop enough weight to snap the floor below, they will successively fail.
This is one reason newer buildings will not be allowed to constructed the same way.



The sections of the towers above the impact locations fell apart/turned to dust as they fell and before they hit the ground...

Pulverized concrete and drywall has the same mass as solid.



The falling weight from above was constantly being reduced as the collapse progressed... So how could it "pile drive"?

No the weight increased with each floor.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

So you are saying the 29 floors above the the vertical column buckling that fell into the tower below just turned to dust against the first static floor it hit? The floor trusses, the pans the concrete was poured into, the metal wall studs, the tons of files and office furniture, the 29 4” slabs of concrete, the tons of air conditioner units, the ventilation ducting, the vending machines, the office machines, the air handlers, the beefer rolled steel the mechanical floors were made from, the water piping, the fire piping, fire sprinklers, the pluming, the toilets, and the lighting just tuned to dust? The collapse did not increase in mass on the way down, but got lighter? Then how was there a ground zero pile at all. Again, one tower floor and its connections to the vertical columns were only rated to withstand being hit by a dynamic load equivalent the mass of 6 falling towers floors.
edit on 25-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 25-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent



But the connections that held each floor was identical.

Not all floors, the mechanical floors contained solid steel-framed supports.

The rest of the floor diaphragms consisted of lightweight concrete slabs poured onto corrugated steel pans, which were supported by trusses. Primary double trusses were more redundant and interwoven with transverse secondary trusses.

The trusses were not just connected by a couple of bolts to the perimeter walls....the truss ends rested on steel plates that were both welded and bolted to the top chords of the trusses and attached via bolted damping units to their lower bottom chords.

If the truss theory was true, as soon as the plane flew into the tower, there would have been an immediate collapse initiation.



Pulverized concrete and drywall has the same mass as solid.

Correct, but when most of it is in dust form, outside the tower, that doesn't contribute to the pile driving mass.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Why would the towers have collapse on impact? The contracting of drooping floor trusses pulled in on the vertical columns. The vertical columns being bowed inward could not sufficiently transfer the load of the upper 29 floors / 12 floors to the foundations. The stain of the upper part of the towers was “caught” in the geometry of the bowing which lead to buckling. Thus, thermal stress upon cooling is a big part of why the towers fell.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

You?




Not all floors, the mechanical floors contained solid steel-framed supports.

The rest of the floor diaphragms consisted of lightweight concrete slabS poured onto corrugated steel pans,



Are you saying the mechanical floors had more mass then the “lightweight concrete slabs?

But you claimed,


All floor systems got lighter towards the top".


But the mechanical floors with the same design / materials and more massive than the tenant floors were at Floors 7, 8, 41, 42, 75, 76, 108, and 109? If anything the mechanical floor where more dense and had items like large electrical motors, air handlers, maybe even water tanks, and water pumps, and water heaters?

Did you just contradict yourself?

And don’t forget the weight of the elevator motors, drives, bearings, and spools. And were was the AC Units? Was there water tanks and water heaters? And again, you forgot about filling cabinets? Office equipment? Office furniture? Vending machines? Pluming and piping? Toilets and sinks? Battery rooms? Sprinkle systems? Metal studs for partition walls? Doors? Mirrors and interior windows? Books and bookcases? How did the they turn to dust? And not add to the falling mass floor after floor? Along with the floor pans and floor trusses?







edit on 25-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixec

edit on 25-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 25-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added fixed more



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Are you saying the mechanical floors had more mass then the “lightweight concrete slabs?

Come on N.... My post says what it says, so you know what I was saying.
I said... the mechanical floors contained solid steel-framed supports. in a response to Sam about the connections.

You are only focusing on the concrete slabs as "floors". I am just stating that the overall "floor systems" (including everything)
We all know about the concrete slabs, 4" for the floors, and in the core area the slab thickness was 5".

Again... Typical weight of 4,800 tons for floors near the bottom and 4,200 tons per floor at the top, (600 ton difference) ......... All floor systems got lighter towards the top.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Please cite where the difference in the weight was located. In the tapering of the vertical columns? Or in the actual weight of the floors hanging of the vertical vertical columns? And exactly where were the motors for the elevators located? And the AC units?

Again, why would the 12th floor hanging off the vertical columns be more massive than the 105th floor?
edit on 25-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Sorry double post
edit on 25-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Double post



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Please answer the question....

But the mechanical floors with the same design / materials and more massive than the tenant floors were at Floors 7, 8, 41, 42, 75, 76, 108, and 109? If anything the mechanical floor where more dense and had items like large electrical motors, air handlers, maybe even water tanks, and water pumps, and water heaters?

Did you just contradict yourself?


And how does the 600 ton difference in the vertical columns change the load rating from floor to floor?



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kyleplatinum

sorry double post



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

The outer walls that had columns thin as the height increased, and the core are not part of the floor system.



ws680.nist.gov...

There were four major structural subsystems in the towers: the exterior wall, the core, the floor system, and the hat truss. The structural design team incorporated a framed-tube concept for the exterior structural system. Columns supporting the building were located both along the
external faces and within the core. The core also contained the elevators, stairwells, and utility shafts. The dense array of columns along the building perimeter resisted lateral wind loads, while also supporting the gravity loads about equally with the core columns. The floor system provided stiffness and stability to the framed-tube system in addition to supporting the floor loads.
The first major structural subsystem was the exterior framing, which was a vertical square tube that consisted of 236 narrow columns, 59 on each face from the 10th floor to the 107th floor (Figure 3). There were fewer, wider-spaced columns below the 7th floor to accommodate doorways. There were also columns on alternate stories at each of the beveled corners, but these did not carry gravity loads. Each column on floor 10 to 107 was fabricated by welding four steel plates to form a tall box, nominally 0.36 m (14 in) on a side. The space between the steel columns was 0.66 m (26 in), with a framed plate glass window in each gap. Adjacent columns were connected at each floor by steel spandrel plates, 1.3 m (52 in) high. The upper parts of the buildings had less wind load and building mass to support. Thus, on higher floors, the thickness of the steel plates making up the columns decreased, becoming as thin as 6 mm (1⁄4 in) near the top down from as thick as 76 mm (3 in) at the lower floors. There were 10 grades of steel used for the columns and spandrels, with yield strengths ranging from 248 MPa (36 ksi) to 690 MPa (100 ksi). The grade of steel used in each location was dictated by the calculated stresses due to the gravity and wind loads. All the exterior columns and spandrels were prefabricated into welded panels, three stories tall and three columns wide. The panels, each numbered to identify its location in the tower, were then bolted to adjacent units to form the walls (Figure 4). Field panels were staggered so that every third panel was spliced at each floor level. The use of identically shaped prefabricated elements was an innovation that enabled rapid construction.
The second structural subsystem was a central service area, or core (Figure 3), measuring approximately 41 m by 26.5 m (135 ft by 87 ft), that extended virtually the full height of the building. The long axis of the core in WTC 1 was oriented in the east-west direction, while the long axis of the core in WTC 2 was oriented in the north-south direction. The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 248 MPa (36 ksi) and 290 MPa (42 ksi) steels and decreased in size at the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth
of the total gravity load on the core columns. The core columns were interconnected by a grid of conventional steel beams to support the core floors.

The third major structural subsystem was the floors in the tenant spaces between the exterior walls and the core. These floors supported gravity loads, provided lateral stability to the exterior walls, and distributed wind loads among the exterior walls. With the exception of the mechanical floors (Floors 7, 8, 41, 42, 75, 76, 108, and 109) which had rolled structural steel shapes, tenant floors had truss systems. As shown in Figure 5, each tenant floor consisted of 102 mm (4 in) thick, lightweight cast-in-place concrete on a fluted steel deck. Supporting the slab was a grid of lightweight steel bar trusses. The top bends (or “knuckles”) of the main truss webs extended 76 mm (3 in) above the top chord and were embedded into the concrete floor slab. This concrete and steel assembly thus functioned as a composite unit, that is, the concrete slab acted integrally with the steel trusses to carry floor loads. Without the presence of the knuckles (or the shear studs in WTC 7), the floor slab and trusses (or beams) would have acted independently, resulting in reduced load capacity. The primary truss pairs were either 18.3 m (60 ft) or 10.7 m (35 ft) long and were spaced at 2 m (6.7 ft). There were perpendicular bridging trusses every 4 m (13.3 ft). The floor trusses and fluted metal deck were prefabricated in panels that were typically 6.1 m (20 ft) wide and that were hoisted into position in a fashion similar to the exterior wall panels.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum




Not all floors, the mechanical floors contained solid steel-framed supports.

So now you think mechanical floor 75 should have held the 35 floors above it?
Magic.



The trusses were not just connected by a couple of bolts to the perimeter walls....the truss ends rested on steel plates that were both welded and bolted to the top chords of the trusses and attached via bolted damping units to their lower bottom chords.

Even so they were not design to support that plus the 35 floors above.

All the weight was supposed to be carried by the exterior and core support.
When the exterior was sliced and then heated it gave way allowing all the mass to be placed on those lonely floor trusses below.

Why doesn't the majority of the truther crowd get this?



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Did the floors of the WTC towers strengthen the vertical columns? Only in the context they provided lateral support for the vertical columns. The floors as designed could not increase the load capacity that could hang off the vertical columns. Did the vertical columns impact the load capacity of each floor of the towers. No, the floor to vertical column connections were the limiting factor. Did the design of the floor above impacts the load capacity of the floor below. No? As long as the floor above did not fail. The floors only connected at the core and vertical columns. Again, the limiting factor was the floor to column connections. Because the floor to vertical column connections were the limiting factor, the thinning of the vertical columns did not impact the load capacity of any given floor.



posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

The floor system is different than the vertical column outer wall system and the core column system.



new topics




 
26
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join