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.

 

WTC Hero janitor blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High!

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
There is no way that the core of the WTC collapsed without sections being severed by shearing charges. Absolutely no way in Hell is it possible in the most remote sense that 47 continuous box collumns 1000 feet high cross-braced throughout the entire core are going to break into consistent 30-foot sections due to a short-lived kerosene (which is what JP4) fire on about 10 stories.

The towers were blown to pieces by pre-loaded explosives. It's the only possible solution.


How do you know this? If this is true then why are no experts coming forward to say this? Its not like you have been able to test your theory!




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I can't understand how anyone can look at the videos and say that it pancaked.

L@@K at the debris as it falls it is showering and not adding weight to the top to cause pancaking so that leaves only the one other thing. Planted explosives.

If it was pancaked because of a few floors adding weight to it then should'nt the building have fell when the lower floors were blown away in 1993 after all reinforced floors almost 30 inches thick were blasted away on 3 levels below grade, plus a concourse level floor, leaving a crater about 150 feet in diameter.

Oh I know. They missed the center of gravity.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
This is from the video you had posted they can't watch the movie it will make them think.








And the fires in the elevator shafts could not have happened




[edit on 26/6/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The vulnerability of steel in a fire has long been recognized as one of the greatest threats in a structure fire.

Jeff King from MIT / Engineer Research Scientist, said Steel keeps a lot of its structural integrity even when heated until you begin to approach the melting point you don’t really see a catastrophic loss in strength. The way the towers fell implies a complete loss of strength, impossible
Link



PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeffrey King, a 50-something former engineer (MIT class of '74, about 10 years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering), gainfully employed as a family physician for the past 25 years, but spending most of his limited free time for the past three years in trying to document and make available to the public and other researchers the photo and video evidence of the World Trade Center collapses.


Considering his lack of credentials in materials science and structural engineering, I would have to defer to those who are a little more trained in those fields and who disagree with his view.

As My original statement said:
The vulnerability of steel in a fire has long been recognized as one of the greatest threats in a structure fire.



Extreme earthquakes and fires cause steel structures to yield beyond their design capacity, exposing structural weakness and revealing collapse mechanisms.

www.holmesgroup.com...



Most designers commonly perceive that steel members perform badly in a fire event, and need to be fire protected in order to achieve the required fire resistance. This is opposite to handling of concrete members whose fire resistance is usually taken for granted. It is noteworthy that steel members, made of carbon and stainless steels, can be designed, depending on the applied load level, so that they do not need applied protection to achieve the required fire resistance. The exception is the light gauge steel sections which posses little fire resistance because they would heat up quickly if directly exposed to fire due to their high section factors. Nevertheless, the fire resistance of steel members can be enhanced by applying insulating materials to exposed steel to fulfil more stringent requirements in the prescriptive standards.

The typical prescriptive approach specifies the thickness of fire protection to steel elements to ensure the steel does not exceed a specified temperature for a given fire resistance period. In UK, the maximum temperatures of 550°C for columns and 620°C for beams supporting concrete floors are assumed. These temperatures are based on the assumption that a fully-stressed member at ambient conditions (designed to BS5950-1 or BS449) will lose its design safety margin when it reaches 550°C. The maximum temperature for beams supporting concrete floors is increased to 620°C since the top flange is at a lower temperature compared to the web and bottom flange. This is because the top flange is in contact with the concrete floor which acts as a heat sink.

Generally the 550/620°C maximum temperatures are considered conservative since the members are typically not fully stressed at ambient temperature. For instance, beams which are governed by serviceability limit state will not be fully stressed at ambient temperature and will have additional reserve of strength at the fire limit state.

link


The primary objective of this research is to develop a greater understanding of the phenomenon of lateral-torsional buckling of steel I-beams at elevated temperature.
A model for the fire resistance of lateral-torsional buckling of steel I- beams, based on numerical analyses, will be developed. For this proposal, the work will develop a non-linear computer program based on finite strip methods that will analyse this phenomenon.

www.iem.bham.ac.uk...


At present, it is difficult to predict the response of steel structures in fires.

irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca...

A Whole bunch of abstracts from different papers can be found here:

www.shef.ac.uk...


This paper argues that the structural fire resistant design criteria of tall building structures should be considered differently from those embedded in the current design philosophy where only stability of the structure in fire is considered.



This presentation investigates the large deflection behaviour of a steel beam under fire conditions taking into consideration the effect of the catenary action provided by the surrounding structures.




A restrained column, forming part of a complete structure, can have many types of structural interaction with the adjacent structure. As a result, the loading and boundary conditions of the restrained column in fire will be different from those at ambient temperature.



and so on, and so on.

It appears that these people would tend to disagree with Jeff King.


[edit on 26-6-2005 by HowardRoark]
ed to shorten link

[edit on 26-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron








That is the worst drawing of the WTC strucutre that I have ever seen!



The scale and proportions are totally distorted.

IT ONLY SHOWS FOUR EXTERIOR COLUMNS PER SIDE!!!!!!!






Those massive structures in the corners of each floor are the tower crane masts.

They have nothing to do with the final structure of the building.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by turbonium
The thing is, regardless of this, WTC 7 WAS NOT hit by anything, and lost NO fireproofing, and had MINIMAL fires. Yet it too collapsed in free fall time. Totally different strucure, totally identical collapse time!! Geez, what are the odds? Must be VERY high!! I guess we can thus conclude that they had best stop contructing steel framed buildings, as they completely collapse with the smallest of fires!! Oh well, back to the good old reliable mud and grass huts!!


Oh, Yes, WTC 7 was hit by something. It was hit by the debris from the collapse of the North tower. I have posted a number of eyewitness accounts from firemen on the scene that clearly state that the south face of the building was SEVERELY damaged by the debris. Just like the Duesche bank building was, only more so.

In addition, the fire protection for this building had two components.

1) Active measures, i.e. the sprinkler system. Unfortunately the sprinkler system was knocked out due to loss of water pressure. the other active measure is the act of fire fighting by trained fire fighters. As we know, the firemen were pulled from the building and from a 600 foot radius around the building early on, because of the obvious structural damage.

2) Passive Measures, i.e. Sprayed on fireproofing. Sprayed on fireproofing is typically rated in hours of protection. In other words a 2-hour rated fireproofing system will give you two hours of protection before it fails. A 4-hour system will give you 4 hours of protection. New York Building codes requires a 2-hour rating. The building burned for 7 hours before it collapsed.

Both systems have to work together. Without the sprinkler system, the fireproofing is only good for the minimum allowed rating. Unlike the Windsor Tower in Madrid, WTC 7 did not have concrete core columns to support it.

The vulnerability of steel in a fire has long been recognized as one of the greatest threats in a structure fire.



And you no doubt have photos to back up this claim of SEVERE damage? I mean, there MUST be, right? And no doubt, a free fall uniform collapse is the inevitable result!
They could never duplicate this collapse in a controlled, independent test. I would wager all I have - it's such a ridiculous story, with no evidence that could ever support it.




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

The vulnerability of steel in a fire has long been recognized as one of the greatest threats in a structure fire.

As opposed to what - the much lesser vulnerability of wood?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Oh, and BTW. For those of you who are hung up on the size of the columns and beams when they were shipped off site (~36' long) , remember that they were brought to the site in 36' long sections. The columns were bolted together. When the buildings collapsed, the bolts were the most common point of failure. You can clearly see an example of this in the photos of the impact holes. You will notice that the missing columns tended to break off in a straight line three columns wide.



[edit on 26-6-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Of course none of the above links reference 9-11 or the structure and steel of the WTC so I see this as another attempt to fill the page for misdirection.

This misdirection is done in all the threads related to 9-11 that the misinformation agents try to cover up.

Please take note that every time a good argument is presented they cover it with a bunch of nonsense quotes and links to "misdirect".

Don't let them fool you good smart folks. Decide for yourself by weighing the evidence of professionals who've given you the facts pertaining to 9-11 and not links to typical steel. You must consider the design and the amount of steel.

Most importantly you must remember the core that was in the center and was kindly posted above by Sauron


[edit on 26-6-2005 by Lanotom]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Molten pools of steel in all three basements.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
Decide for yourself by weighing the evidence of professionals who've given you the facts pertaining to 9-11 and not links to typical steel. You much consider the design and the amount of steel.


Absolutely.

Here is a whole page of reports by experts and structural engineers that are specifically related to the WTC.

Will any of your so-called experts like Jeff King bother to submit comments?

I bet that they don't.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   


MY god I am on the floor I cannot stop laughing.

Thats a gov site.
You want me to believe.





posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Yea you might be on to something here Howard




[edit on 26/6/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Another thing. How much fuel could possibly have been left after the second plane hit.

Look at all the fuel that was burned upon the impact. That had to be 75% of the fuel ejected from the building so only 25% remained to burn.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Anyone ever come to a conclusion on what the second explosion was that is heard in this video a few seconds after the second plane hits.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Did I ever mention all the testimonials from the people who were there at the WTC on 9/11 who also heard the explosions before the towers came down.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
Yea you might be on to something here Howard


img153.echo.cx...

[edit on 26/6/2005 by Sauron]


LMAO!!
HAHA! LOOK AT IT PANCAKE!!!!

ed to remove img BB code

[edit on 26-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Here's another good picture of the core construction.



Whole lotta steel there.


kix

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
You'd have to be a moron to believe that jet fuel traveling at 580 miles per hour is going to do a complete stop and pour down an elevator shaft for 800 feet then decide to explode in the cellar.

It's obvious where the jet fuel went - up in flames before it had time to pour into anything.

I guess Larry Silverstein is the luckiest man in the world. The only buildings to blow up that day were his. Buildings closer to 1 and 2 that took more damage are still standing.

Raging fire took down 7 in a perfectly controlled footprint. What raging fire? Oh, you mean the office fires from the government paperwork burning? Sorry, but that's not going to take the building down and there's no evidence of some 7,000 gallons of diesel burning, either. That would be a little bit obvious, like, massive pillar of black oily diesel smoke pouring out of the building.


great post!

Innertia...the fuel travels at the same speed of the plane Inside tanks and the wings...even if broken on impact the fluid inside still travels at 500 mph (well not really more like 280-320 knots) but anyway a liquid with inertia can NOT be stopped as a WHOLE, thats why when we pour watter into something its difficult to stop it and there is a word for it called SPILL, that seem this armchair experts of debunking havent heard of ?

Also I see he familiar patterns here those "expert debunkers" have Highkacked the thread ONCE AGAIN to familiar circular and non pertinent territory THE FREAKING THEME HERE is that a HEro of 9/11 has exposed "weird/fishy/extrange/ data on the matter and now it seems the guy is a "wacko"... sorry guys but this is deja vu all over again !!! hehehehehe the same blind guys trying to lead the blind, but sorry here my eyes are wide open, I dont buy the Ossama history as the bad guy ..9/11 is way too big for a terrorist group to do as perfectly....

I hope the guy doesnt end up dead in a freak car accident....


[edit on 26-6-2005 by kix]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
MY god I am on the floor I cannot stop laughing.

Thats a gov site.
You want me to believe.



Yeah, I know, the reports are technical and involve engineering principles applied to actual data and evidence.

It's too bad that you are unable to deal with that.



ed to remove way too many laughs

[edit on 26-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join