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 Challenge

page: 18
4
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder

Now, you DO realise this photo was taken very early in the timeline of the WTC event right? Why is it you guys post 1/2 thruths and take "evidence" out of context

So far, from reading 4 transcripts, I can see there was indeed a horrible fire in the top of WTC 1, I can also see maintenence and securty people trapped up there pleading for help and for somebody to Open "103! For christ sake open 103!" and demanding "Where are the goddamn sprinklers, turn on the goddamn sprinkers!" and little ditties about how stairwells were gone, how elevator shafts were chopped in half, and how people were suffocating on the top floors due to smoke.

But, far be it from me to expect you to read any of this stuff for yourself. That's for other people to do and to refer to when responding to your questions. Otherwise what would you have to taunt and berate right?




I'm not going to ask you to prove anything but adding a source link is helpful instead of us just taking your word for it.

Your source? Google is my close friend and I tried asking about

"Where are the goddamn sprinklers, turn on the goddamn sprinkers!" and

Open "103! For christ sake open 103!" but come up with nothing.

Did you just make this up? If not would you mind adding a source it will come in handy for the file I am compiling about 9/11

I do have this source but it's not as you state.

www.911dispatch.com...

Thank you in advance.

Edit to add link.

This link will also give you a little more info about the fire and picture in question.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...



[edit on 9-7-2005 by Lanotom]




posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
so what was the cause of the heat there that lasted weeks then, any speculation or info on that from anyone?

this towers sound like they were brought down to me.
now what was it?

what sort of explosives or weapon did they use to take this out?

anyone think there was a micro nuke somewhere in there?



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How do you figure EVERY column would have to fail? Do you really think that if you destroyed the load bearing capacity of half of the colums on any given floor that they would easily be able to support the weight of the floor and every floor above it? The extra stress is going to go to every other column on the floor. I had to go SOMEWHERE. As more and more columns failed, more and more stress was put on the undamaged columns until they finally snapped. As each of the undamaged ones failed, it put more stress on the REST of the undamaged columns, etc, until you finally had a complete failure. Once that floor went, it put more stress on the floor below it, which caused a failure on that floor, etc.


Yeah I know the "official story" LOL...

Just think about it...My point was the way the building falls indicates all supporting collumns collapsed equaly. Otherwise the building would not have fallen straight down.
As the weakened collumns fail, and if the remaining collumns could not hold the weight they would have started to buckle and bend, not just snap instantly in nice easy to handle pieces.
The people on the scene would have heard and seen these collumns failing surely? But no, the building just decidedly instantly that it wasn't going to hold it's weight anymore.
Think about this...The middle section of the building is weakened and the collumns fail, OK. All the floors above the damage drop onto the floors bellow the damage. What do you think would happen?

1. The building continues to fall straight down experiencing no resistance at all from the still good collumns?

Or

2. When the collumns fail on the damaged floors, the floors above fall as one piece and topple over as they hit the still good lower floors. The lower floors sustain damage form the upper floors crashing down on it.

For the WTC building to have fallen from fire alone it would have to be number one. Impossible.

Think about that and then look again at how the building falls.
The official strory doesn't make any sense.
If there was not a cover up of some kind, wouldn't the conclusions make sense? Or are we living in the time of miracles?

And how much percentage of the building was on fire? How many columns could realisticaly have been damaged enough to overload what was left?

You can't really take the fire story seriously, it just doesn't make sense any way you look at it.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
It didn't fall from fire alone. It suffered quite a bit of damage from the plane impacts. I'm sure that the impact took out quite a few support columns near the center of the tower, and leading to the center of the tower. There went some of the structural support for the center right there.

I believe it was the first tower that fell, as it started to fall, it started falling to one side, then as the supports on the opposite side snapped it it started falling more vertically.

Once the middile fell out, I really think that the floors below it would not have had nearly enough strength to support all the weight of the top of the building for longer than a second or two at the most. Especially once it got moving. It's one thing to try to support the weight of a non-moving building that will only sway in the wind, and another for those same floors to try to stop hundreds of tons of falling material.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder

Now, you DO realise this photo was taken very early in the timeline of the WTC event right?


So what?

I ask again, did the fire take a break? Or did the fuel arrive later?
Maybe the woman in the picture is waiting to sign for it?


Supposedly the fire raged from when the planes hit to when the building collapsed, no?
Otherwise like someone else said there would have been cooling. Thus no failure of the columns.

And I'm sorry you don't like my injection of humour into my replies, but life is just a joke right?

Take a pill, the only reason you're getting upset is your inability to come up with answers to the questions, because the government hasn't supplied you with THOSE answers. Why not try thinking about those questions and answer them for yourself, instead of looking to the government for them?
Because I can tell you from experience, you ain't gonna get a straight answer from them about anything...

AP&F...



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
If anyone cathches this, National Geographic Channel has an episode of "Worlds Best Implosions", with the Loizeaux Family.

Started 6pm EST; no idea when for other areas.

Pertinant for the thread.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It didn't fall from fire alone. It suffered quite a bit of damage from the plane impacts.


I realise that but my argument still stands...

I don't care what the cause is, if the middle of a building is taken out it is not gonna fall neatly like a controlled demo does.

Demo experts have spent yrs figuring out the safest and cheapest way of demolishing buildings. How did they miss just taking out the middle?



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
I'm not going to ask you to prove anything but adding a source link is helpful instead of us just taking your word for it.

Your source? Google is my close friend and I tried asking about

"Where are the goddamn sprinklers, turn on the goddamn sprinkers!" and

Open "103! For christ sake open 103!" but come up with nothing.

Did you just make this up? If not would you mind adding a source it will come in handy for the file I am compiling about 9/11


Yeah... I make up ALL of my posts, even AFTER I post the sources days before I quote anything from them... (I think what I'm saying here is "Screw you buddy. Don't be so lazy, go read therse documents yourself before flapping your lips and accusing somebody of something.") I get pretty tired of being called a debunker, or a government plant, or a disinfo agent, or a liar, or a fabricator when in fact I'm one of the VERY FEW people on this forum that does anything besides read one or two conspiracy sites and conclude that they are now a bonafide expert in 9.11 truths and untruths.

9/11 Transcripts from LaGuardia

The reason you "come up with nothing" is because none of the conspiracy sites seem to give a damn about the actual transcripts of all radio broadcasts during the WTC event (fire radios, police, EMS, engineering, security, state police, port authority, etc etc etc). It's because the statements contained within these transcripts (so far as I've read, I have not read it them all) apparently do nothing to support their theories of bombs and controlled detonations in WTC 1 and 2. That, and once you've arrived at your own conclusion, why bother going out and reading more evidence? How dangerous!

These transcripts of phone calls and radio transmissions, and copies of police reports, were finally released under a federal order resulting from a lawsuit brought by the New York Times (and reported by all major media outlets including CNN on January 15, 2004). The Times originally sought the actual recordings but eventually settled for transcripts. I have not seen these PDF transcripts, which are available from a half dozen sources out there, converted into an online text format (i.e. google searchable).

Like I've said before though, it's very compelling reading. Once you start reading one you sort of get caught up in the moment and want to keep reading - it's close to experiencing what it was like being there or like being a few miles away in a dispatch center listening to it all unfold.

The quotes above I think are from transcripts 45, 46, 48, 49, and/or 50. I guess I should have noted that before I posted 2 quotes from memory. The transcripts contents are all listed with times beside each transmission, I'm sure if you felt compelled to discover the timelines between damage reports, fire reports, gas leak reports, air craft impact reports, etc., you could retype all of them into some online database.

Good luck with your reading, there's a lot of information in these pdfs.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Ok, so you have a building that's basically a tube, which is what the WTC was, you take out the center of it, and it's NOT going to fall straight down?
If you cut out the center portion of it, it's going to fall to the side? Say what? I've watched several demolitions where they DID take out the center of the building., then the sides to make sure they fell in towards the center and got a nice pile of debris.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
All I have seen is "little" (far-reaching) pictures and just "theory'z"

For example....sure the marble fell of the wall when the plane hit the building...sure the force would be felt throught the building, and not all wall finishing is always secured in place perfectly....not like y'r expeting anything to shack the marble off the walls. But to say "see...proof..explosion in basement" come on, need more proof then that......and why don't we have 1 just 1 picture of these basement/grade level explosions....sure w'r a lot of cameras around in downtown NY esp. when the planes hit....and if you say explosions blew in the basement...bet you would need LOTS of TNT to bring it down...no? so I am sure you would see "something" coming from the Garage Ventilation shafts at grade level for an explosion that big.

Another is how can we compare "ALL" the pictures of other buildings...that are Concreat with rebarb in it....completely and I mean totaly different in design....and just shows how concreat is superior then steel in a fire situation...but don't think they can build towers as big as the WTC's that way.

I remember reading in an Engineering mag...that they sa'y even "wood" beams are even better then steel because when it becomes "chared" it sustains it's stregth and can last "longer" then steal ...but the wood must be very very thick (please note just skimmed threw it...not my field...but I do remember it surprizing that it's better then steel)

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've watched several demolitions where they DID take out the center of the building., then the sides to make sure they fell in towards the center and got a nice pile of debris.


LOL yeah and what did you just describe?

A controlled demo...

Big diff from a plane hitting on one side of a building, and causing UNEVEN damage to the building....

And if you think that a building would really fall in that way, to take a line from my friend Howard, "Prove it".....You can't.
No other building has EVER done that, no matter how it was constructed or damaged. Unless it was meant to be.

Unless of course the terrorists used their new anti-physics-steel-disabling- western fascism hating-ray-weapon. Oh wait, that's what the pod on the plane was!


Sorry but your explanation don't wash, sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of this stupid government official explanation....
Quit grasping straws. I know it's scary to think that your government may have done something of this nature. You are conditioned to accept authority as the final word and the bastions of truth.
Wake up! the reality is far from it.

[edit on 9/7/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Yeah, you're right. There's NO WAY that 230,000+ pounds of airplane travelling at 600 mph is going to damage the center of the building. ALL the damage is going to miraculously part and ONLY damage the sides.
Must be that miraculous new "anti-damage shield" they put into the center of the WTC. No other building has collapsed, because no other building has been hit like this. And again, as stated before, the sides WERE part of the loadbearing structure. But we all know that there's no way a plane weighing as much as a loaded 767 is going to break apart into a lot of big pieces, and damage the core of the building. That's like the post that said there had to be a missile because we didn't see the plane crumple as it hit the side of the building at 600mph, and it went into the concrete like a hot knife into butter.


As I posted before......

The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

It didn't fall from fire alone. It suffered quite a bit of damage from the plane impacts. I'm sure that the impact took out quite a few support columns near the center of the tower, and leading to the center of the tower. There went some of the structural support for the center right there.


That argument is very faulty, because in one tower, the core columns ewre missed almost completely, and yet both buildings fell exactly the same. The plane that went in diagonally and came out on another side of the building. You remember that one? It barely hit the core columns at all. And they both came down the same.

Further, only about 10% - 15% of the perimeter columns were damaged in those particular portions of either building. You've probably heard how the on-site construction manager of the WTC buildings boasted that they could easily withstand multiple impacts from 707s each? This damage was from one plane each, and unfortunately 767s do not even approach being even twice the size of a 707. They're not that much bigger at all. But, let's not consider the word of the on-site construction manager. He just didn't know what he was talking about I suppose, while all these firefighters and others involved did (except for the ones that said they heard explosions, or the floors being knocked out one by one - those guys were nutters too).


I believe it was the first tower that fell, as it started to fall, it started falling to one side, then as the supports on the opposite side snapped it it started falling more vertically.


This makes absolutely no sense in terms of physics. Just because the second side has been freed, does not mean the other side is going to slow down to allow the other to catch back up to it. The building is just going to keep falling in the same direction, at the same speed or faster, regardless. For the building to have stopped falling in that direction suggests another force acting on the building.


Once the middile fell out, I really think that the floors below it would not have had nearly enough strength to support all the weight of the top of the building for longer than a second or two at the most.


The middle did not "fall out". The 'middles', if by that you mean core columns, were the strongest parts of the buildings, that, more than any other parts of the building, held the things up. Why would they fall first, and give out from heat before all the other less-dense parts of the building? Remember the buildings both fell the exact same, so you can rule out significant damage to the core columns, since, again, one of the buildings had its core missed completely except for the tip of a corner.


Like I've said before though, it's very compelling reading. Once you start reading one you sort of get caught up in the moment and want to keep reading - it's close to experiencing what it was like being there or like being a few miles away in a dispatch center listening to it all unfold.


And somehow that's not a foolhardy alternative to debating the physics of the actual collapse?



Do you usually ignore etiquette and maturity whilst resorting to childish name-calling?

This is doing absolutely nothing for your argument. Get past the name-calling, and back to debates, please.

Jeez.


Where were you earlier? I'm just trying to provoke Howard to respond to my posts, which he's ignored after 3 or 4 postings now.


Now, you DO realise this photo was taken very early in the timeline of the WTC event right?


...As opposed to later in the timeline of the WTC event, when the fires would have been cooler? I don't see your point in how this makes it a "half truth." If anything, it's simply more telling.


How do you figure EVERY column would have to fail?


That's another point to how completely absurd it is to believe both buildings could have fallen perfectly symmetrically from structural damage. It's well known in the demolition business that if you missed even a single column, the whole building could be moved just enough to fall over on its side. It's not very hard to manipulate such a vertical fall. And yet, on 9/11, somehow structural damage accomplished something that previously only demolitions had ever done. Not once, but twice. Every single column knocked out as a result of this alleged heat damage.

Then there's Building 7, that didn't even have that much to go off of. It just fell demolition-style from fires, and a piece of magical flying debris and what not, allegedly, as if we're expected to believe that while Silverstein himself runs about saying he gave an order to "pull it" - and then suddenly the diehard debunkers come out trying to change the very definition of "pull it"! It's all ridiculous, in how people will convince themselves of the most outlandish things to counter what they see as outlandish, and yet will never apply the same standard to themselves.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
If you are going to show the picture of the woman, then show the whole picture.




According to this NIST report, (50 mb) the times of the photographs were determined from digital information, that picture was taken around 9:30

The best image is available in the NIST report, Figure 6-d, on page 160. Additional images are figures, 8-34, 9:19, and Figure 8-35, 9:25.


If you look at figure 6-5, It is obvious that the woman is on the 94th floor. there are fires burning on 94, but she appears to be isolated from them by a large section of the 96th and 95th floor slabs which appear to be partially collapsed as a result of the impact. In addition, it appears that he most intense fires at that time were burning on the 97th floor.

Figures 8-65 through 8-70, show the intensity of the fires on 97 and 98. In particular, figure 8-84 shows very intense fires burning on multiple floors.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


I guess the raging fires were also on a break? It must be a union disaster....


[edit on 9/7/2005 by ANOK]


You know that is a particularly callus and insensitive comment to make about a picture of someone who is about to die in a most horrifying manner.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.




posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
The 707 and 767 are not THAT close to each other. I NEVER said the 767 was twice the size of a 707, but let's compare a few figures here.

Boeing 707:
707-120B - Operating empty 55,589kg (122,533lb), max takeoff 116,575kg (257,000lb).
707-320B - Empty 66,406kg (146,400lb), max takeoff 151,315kg (333,600lb).

707-120B - Wing span 39.90m (130ft 10in), length 44.07m (144ft 6in), height 12.94m (42ft 5in). Wing area 226.3m2 (2433sq ft).
707-320B - Wing span 44.42m (145ft 9in), length 46.61m (152ft 11in), height 12.93m (42ft 5in). Wing area 283m2 (3050sq ft).

707-120B - Max speed 1010km/h (545kt), max cruising speed 1000km/h (540kt), economical cruising speed 897km/h (484kt). Range with max payload 6820km (3680nm), range with max fuel 8485km (4580nm).
707-320B - Max speed 1009km/h (545kt), max cruising speed 974km/h (525kt), long range cruising speed 885km/h (478kt). Range with max passengers 6920km (3735nm), range with max fuel and 147 passengers 9265km (5000nm).

Advanced 707-320B
Wingspan
145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)
Length
152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)
Wing Area
3,010 square feet (280 m2)
Gross Weight
336,000 pounds (152,400 kg)
Cruising Speed
607 mph (977 km/h)
Range
6,160 miles (9,913 km)
Service Ceiling
36,000 feet (10,973 m)
Power
Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each
Passenger Cabin
141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy

Fuel capacity for a 707 is from 15,000 gallons to more than 23,000 gallons.

The Boeing 767.
Overall Length 48.51m 159ft 2in
Overall Height 15.85m 52ft 0in
Wingspan 47.57m 156ft 1in

Operating Empty (JT9D Engines) 80,920kg 178,400lb
Operating Empty (CF6 Engines) 80,510kg 177,500lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 136,078kg 300,000lb
Medium Range Maximum Takeoff Weight 142,881kg 315,000lb
Maximum Landing Weight Unknown Unknown
Payload with Maximum Fuel Unknown Unknown

Flightcrew Two
3-Class Seating Capacity Typically 158 to 168
2-Class Seating Capacity Typically 198 to 204
Single Class Seating Capacity Between 255 and 290 (max)
Underfloor Cargo Capacity 22 LD2 containers

Typical Cruise Speed Mach 0.80 Mach 0.80
Maximum operating Mach Number (Mmo) Mach 0.86 Mach 0.86
Takeoff Speed (Vr) Unknown Unknown
Typical Approach Speed (Vref + 5) Unknown Unknown
Range with Maximum Fuel 7,222km 3,900nm
Range with Maximum Payload Unknown Unknown
Service Ceiling 13,137m 43,100ft

PW JT9D-7R4D 213.5kN 50,000lb
PW 4050 222.4kN 50,000lb
GE CF6-80C2B2 233.5kN 52,500lb

Fuel capacity is just under 24,000 gallons.

Yes the WTC was built to withstand a 707 impact. You're talking about a much wider heavier airplane with a 767. An EMPTY 767 weighs almost as much as the max takeoff weight for a 707-120.

As far as the impact not damaging the core of one tower, How do you KNOW that? We know how the plan HIT, but who knows WHAT happened to the debris as it bounced around inside and hit the columns.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Come on people....

All I have seen is "little" (far-reaching) pictures and just "theory'z"


I hate to break it to you, man, but the Pancake Theory is also, after all... Well, you get the picture. But I suppose now we're going to change the name of "Pancake Theory" to "Pancake Law" to continue the wholly inconclusive yet aggressively pushed line of opposition held to the skeptics of the official story.


Sorry but your explanation don't wash, sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of this stupid government official explanation....
Quit grasping straws. I know it's scary to think that your government may have done something of this nature. You are conditioned to accept authority as the final word and the bastions of truth.
Wake up! the reality is far from it.


That's the whole reason there are people here defending flawed explanations so zealously. Of course they won't accept this as the reason - it's just a crazy conspiracy theory! Yeah, they've been told all about us conspiracy theorists. Yet they probably think they haven't been conditioned in the least. I have a feeling that George Bush could unknowingly be recorded admitted the thing was a big hoax, and these same people would dismiss it as taken out of context or etc. with giving it a second thought. We're accused of the same thing, but so far as I know, there are no big media or scholarly institutions that push people to "believe" these things.


Yeah, you're right. There's NO WAY that 230,000+ pounds of airplane travelling at 600 mph is going to damage the center of the building. ALL the damage is going to miraculously part and ONLY damage the sides.


Ha! Somebody forgot that one of the planes missed the core almost completely!



That diagram is based on video of the South Tower, showing how the plane hit, as the diagram shows, diagonally. And only 10-15% of the perimeter columns in either building were knocked out in those sections of the buildings.





That isn't much damage when you consider that they want you to think it brought the entire buildings down.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Yeah Anok, your little comment was unsat and uncalled for


Some people :shk:

BTW, I bet if that person were a jihad extremeist you would not say the same.......can't talk about your friends now can you.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Exploding the Myths about the Windsor Building and the WTC Towers

external image

On Feb 12, 2005 a raging, intense fire swept through the 32-storey Windsor Building in Madrid, completely gutting it. The outermost portions of some upper floors of the building collapsed from the fire, but the building itself did not collapse, pancake, wedding cake, or caramel pudding to the ground. The building did not explode outwards in high-energy expulsions of neatly snapped beams, nor did the concrete of the building completely explode into pulverized 10 micron powder. And most important of all, the core of the building remained solid and stable as the day it was made, with a smug construction crane still neatly perched on the top. After the events of September 11, 2001, most around the world expected the building to collapse in on itself. The world watched in anticipation...but the expected collapse never came. The building remained solid.

Some people would like you to believe the myth that this building can not be compared to the WTC towers. Well, let's see if we can't place some of the C4 of truth along the trusses and beams supposedly supporting their myths and blow them to kingdom come. Who knows, maybe we can even make some cash by selling the pieces of their lies to China as scrap. The Chinese are well known for buying into myths propagated by government.

MYTH #1: The Construction of the Windsor Building was completely different to the WTC towers

According to the reports from government agencies FEMA and NIST, the WTC towers were constructed with a majority load-bearing steel central core consisting of 47 vertical box and 'I' columns, the floors were constructed of steel trusses running North-South and East-West covered by a metal corrugated deck, onto which was then poured concrete. The trusses were then connected to the outer perimeter which consisted of 236 steel columns designed to bear lateral load and a portion of the vertical load. We could go into more detail on this, but that's all we need to know for this point.

WTC Towers floor layout

external image

The numbered dots in the center are the core columns, although this picture provided by the government is deceptive in their actual size. This picture will give you a better idea.



In fact, we may never know the true design of the towers, since the U.S. government refuses to release the blueprints of the buildings' construction. What are they trying to hide...? In fact, I've found what they're trying to hide, but more on that later...

Now the Windsor Building does differ slightly in its construction, but not where it matters. The government's theory of the WTC collapses hinges on the "truss theory" whereby the trusses' connection to the core and outer perimeter columns was weakened by extremely high temperatures and excessive load, eventually snapping and pancaking down 95 floors at virtually free fall speed. The Windsor Building was also constructed in a load-bearing central core, trussed floor design, with the trusses spanning onto a shell of outer composite beams, just like the WTC towers, except that the Windsor Building truss system consisted of reinforced concrete (concrete slabs reinforced with thin steel rebar inside, which is weaker than steel), whereas the WTC towers had thick, steel trusses covered with a layer of concrete. Also the Windsor Building outer columns were widely spaced apart. Compare this to the WTC towers with outer columns spaced very close together.




www.arup.com...
The typical floor slab construction [of the Windsor Building] was reinforced concrete bi-directional ribbed slabs, spanning onto composite steel beams in the east-west direction. The slabs were supported along the perimeter by steel columns, supplemented by RC columns on two sides below 17th Floor level.


So, the design was conceptually very similar: strong core, trussed floors, steel column outer wall.


MYTH #2: The Windsor Building was stronger in its construction than the WTC Towers.

Perimeter
The Windsor Building's exterior perimeter consisted of thin steel columns unconnected to each other, 15 along the shorter side and 25 along the broader side., approximately 1 - 1.5 meters apart.



Compare this to the WTC towers with 236 columns spaced 2ft-2in (0.66m) apart, and connected to each other by steel spandrel plates.





Floors
Both buildings had a criss-crossed truss floor design, however the WTC towers had all steel covered in concrete, whereas the Windsor building's truss was reinforced concrete (concrete with thin steel rebar inside). Again, steel has a higher compression strength than reinforced concrete and about the same tension strength.

Core
The core of the Windsor Building consisted of reinforced concrete columns. The core of the WTC towers consisted of steel columns. No material is stronger than steel in compression. Reinforced concrete and steel have similar strengths in tension. The core of the Windsor building consisted of 10 columns spaced in a rectangle, simplified like this:




Compare this to the WTC core:




Remember, the dots are not indicative of size. They are only location and number indicators. It also does not show the diagonal beams connecting the columns. Draw your own conclusions about which is stronger.

At The Core of What FEMA Didn't Tell Us
There is one more thing about the WTC core that FEMA and the government don't want you to know. The details of the structure released to the public, and to NIST, tell only of the steel core columns. What they didn't tell us is that the entire core was also filled with a box pattern concrete reinforcing inner core attached to the steel outer core. You will not see mention of this in the NIST report:


[NIST report, pg8
A second structural subsystem was located in a central service area, or core (Figure 1–5), approximately
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 (Figure 1–3). The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using
primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels and also 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.


Here is an altered diagram to show what the core structure should look like.



People have reported seeing this on the WTC construction documentary. Don't believe them? After the outer floors and steel of the core were blown off the South tower, a portion of the concrete inner core could be seen still standing. The smoke obscures it a little, so I've altered the contrast to enable you to see it clearer.

external image

You can also see the dust clouds coming off the remaining core here:

external image

As can be seen, the WTC towers' construction was similar in concept, but much stronger in design than the Windsor Building. The WTC core was claimed to have a 600% redundancy, meaning that it could hold 6 times the load that it was under from the towers. Add to this the deception regarding the concrete inner core and what do you have? A theory that is a fallacy and an outright lie. The core stands for a number of seconds, but then it too is pulverized.Under gravity alone, with no "pancaking" floors left to compress it, the core should have stood standing, or fell over sideways, because as much as the government would like you to believe, the steel and concrete construction cannot magically compress itself. The buildings' major load-bearing element was the core. This is why they will never release the construction blueprints, even to poor old NIST.

For more on the inner core deception, go here.

MYTH #3: The Fires in the WTC Towers burned much hotter, longer, and further than the Windsor Building fires.



Firefighters battle Madrid inferno - archrecord.construction.com
The concrete skeleton supported temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Celsius during the fire, which burned for 18 hours.


Look at these fires. THIS is an intense, extreme high temperature fire, ladies and gents. The entire building is a gargantuan torch.





Do you see any windows intact? When a fire reaches temperatures over 700degC and of this ferocity, windows will shatter and the fire, fed by the incoming air will burst out of the windows.


www.interfire.org...
Flashover is the transition to the point at which all of the fuels in the room are fully involved, heat fluxes and temperatures are at a maximum throughout the room, the most intense fire is no longer linked to location of fuel packages but instead is taking place where the ventilation-driven mixing of air and pyrolysis gases are best. Such fires are not survivable. Time to flashover is often the same as time to detection since fires are detected in many cases only as they go to flashover, as windows shatter, flames vent from doors and windows, and the shudder and rattle of the turbulent combustion makes their presence known to people inside and outside the building.


"Oh, but the WTC towers' sprinkler systems failed, so the fires were out of control", the government tells us. Well, the Windsor Building didn't even HAVE a sprinkler system, and the building was inadequately fireproofed:


www.arup.com...
The Madrid regional code unusually does not require sprinkler protection for buildings with an evacuation height of less than 100m so active measures were limited to automatic detection and alarm, fire hose reels and a dry riser system.

The lack of sprinklers was a significant factor as these help to limit possibilities for fire spread via the facade.



Now compare the WTC fires.



This famous photo depicts the woman standing by the edge of the destruction caused by the plane crash. This is the region where the government claims the collapse from weakened steel began. Why isn't this woman burnt to a crisp from the supposed intense heat? Look into the building beyond her. Does it look hot to you? In the upper left you can see fires that have spread to the floors above. They are of medium intensity, and compared to the Windsor Building fires, they are comparable to a camp fire. But it's not even important how hot the fires are on those floors, because the government's story says that the collapse from weakening steel began at the point where the planes had damaged the outer columns and core.

Look at this picture of the Windsor Building again. Do you see any people standing in the windows looking down at the ground?
external image

The government claims that all of the materials in the WTC towers were burning and contributing to make the fires reach "intense heat" capable of warping the steel to the point where it completely failed. This is a lie. The flames that were visible in the towers were nowhere near the intensity of the Windsor Building fires.

  • There were few, to no windows shattering.
  • Observed flames were of relatively mild intensity.
  • There were survivors visible and unhurt in an area which supposedly was experiencing temperatures nearing 1000degC.
  • The smoke from the fires at the time of collapse was dark indicating an inefficient, oxygen and fuel-starved, low-temperature fire.
  • WTC1 burned for longer and hotter than WTC2 and sustained a direct impact to the center of the building and the core, and yet, WTC2 collapsed first.
  • The majority of the jet fuel from the plane that hit WTC2 burned outside the building.
  • The plane that hit WTC2 struck across the corner, slightly hitting, or completely missing the core.
  • WTC2 collapsed only 56 minutes after impact, at a stage when no fires were visible and only dark smoke was drifting out.
  • People jumping from the buildings were not scalded or burnt. They jumped to avoid dying from agonizing smoke inhalation.
  • Recorded radio communication from firefighters at the level of collapse testified to isolated pockets of fires.
  • No steel-framed building, weak or strong, old or new, has ever collapsed from fire in the history of mankind. The only three buildings EVER to do this are WTC 1,2 and 7 - the three buildings in the complex owned by Larry Silverstein, and three of the strongest buildings in the world.
  • There was no heat shimmer visible in the air around the openings or the towers themselves.
  • There were survivors who placed emergency calls from the upper levels up until the time of collapse. They did not report intense heat.
  • Steel is a good conductor of heat. Concrete is a poor conductor. Steel will conduct heat away from the hot spots into the larger structure and will retain temperatures lower than the fire itself.
  • Because concrete has water in it, it will "spall", crack and erode, as the water in it is turned to steam. Steel does not do this.
  • Etc, etc, etc...


There is no way that you can conclude that the WTC fires were intense enough to weaken steel to the point that the government claims.


MYTH #4: Floors with truss design will pancake each other down when they collapse, sending pieces of the building flying out hundreds of feet.

Sections of the Windsor Building DID collapse. However, they collapsed in stages and pieces as the fire spread to different parts of the building.

Here are pictures of collapsing sections:



Notice how the outer, trussed sections collapse, but the core holds strong? Notice how only the burnt sections collapse, while the lower floors, despite having all that debris crashing down on them, do not continue to collapse at near free fall? Do you see pieces of debris and beams being exploded out hundreds of feet? Do you see a great cloud of concrete nano-dust from this concrete building? The reinforced concrete floors in the Windsor Building, weaker than the steel and concrete floors in the WTC towers, collapsed because concrete does not conduct heat and will spall and crack.

Here is the aftermath:



In the left photograph, you can even see a few floors still hanging off the core. This is how a building will collapse if it is gutted and weakened by fire; in accordance with the principle of minimum resistance and kinetic (motion) energy transference. Even if an airplane crashed into this building, the end behavior would have been the same. If one accidentally crashed into it after it was burnt, can you imagine that it would collapse all the way to the ground in a pile of rubble and pick-up sticks? Weakened areas will collapse and sheer off in sections. Intact, unburnt sections will hold. Collapsing debris will fall over the edge or land on top of lower floors and stay there. Debris will not shoot out for hundreds of feet. The load-bearing core will hold. The above photographs shows what the WTC towers should have looked like after a collapse that even if it happened would only be partial. And such a PARTIAL collapse would have occurred only if the buildings had experienced ferocious, intense fires.

They didn't.



[edit on 2005/7/9 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Yeah it missed the core completely IF IT HAD REMAINED INTACT. You're talking about a plane that blew apart into a lot of pieces, some pretty substantia. They're NOT going to stay in a perfectly straight line and shape of the plane. They're going to go flying in all different directions, bouncing off of things and causing damage to whatever is in their path.




top topics



 
4
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join