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: 21
4
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
OK I'm gonna expand on my earlier post...

No one seems to want to address the points I bought up.

Take a good look again at the vid of the towers falling...

How many floors were on fire?

According to Howard and his NIST report...


According to Chapter 9 of the NIST report on the fires in WTC 2, there were fires from the 79th floor on up. The most intense fires appear to have been located on 81, 83 and 83.

There is clear evidence that portions of the floor slabs of 80 and 81 collapsed during the fire, initiating the global collapse.

The photos also show the severe bowing of the exterior wall between 79 and 80.


Soo 3 floors had intense fires, 81, 82 and 83...

How many floors does the WTC building have?

102...

Sooo lets say Flores 85-102 were still relatively structurally sound.

So why does the building appear to collapse FROM THE TOP floor down?

If say floors 79-85 couldn't hold the weight of floors 85-102, what would happen?

Floors 85-102 would fall as a complete piece and then impact with floor 78, which along with everything under it, was still structurally sound.

Then what would happen?

Well we can't be sure, BUT I very much doubt it would continue to pancake straight down!
Common sense and a basic knowledge of physics would tell you that's nonsense.

There would be resistance at floor 78....

17 floors falling on 78 floors...dothemath!

The top would have toppled over through shear force of impact with the lower floors, because the damage to the floors was uneven and any slight deviation from a perfectly level fall/impact between the top and bottom would have made it topple, not pancake.

(Thats why they use explosives to demolish building, so it falls in on itself and staight down. Not out as it would normally, spreading debrit over a much wider area).

You don't need any construction experience to see that.

(I hope I made it clear enough, so you don't fill in the blanks with BS).




posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
That's the first I've read about bomb dogs being pulled. Do you have any sources for material on it? Not doubting you, as I think BS engulfs this 911 deal, would like to read on it.


Newsday for one..



www.newsday.com...
Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS

September 12, 2001

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center...

End of Newsday excerpt.

www.prisonplanet.com...
www.tvnewslies.org...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Bomb Sniffing Dogs Pulled from WTC Detail One Day Before "Rewiring,"
newswire.indymedia.org...



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
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...


This from PA-transcript046. I have only included Male 103's (Joey?) portion from this transcript, and a couple other Male: which appear to be responding to Male 103 or other Engineering & Eletrical people near or above 103.

Male 103: Structural fire one-o-three.
Male 103: Struture fire one-o-three open up! (04:12)
Male 103: Struture fire one-o-three. (inaudible).
Male 103: Open up one-o-three can you hear me you got a guy here
Male 103: 103 ... help!
Male 103: 103 (inaudible) where the # is (inaudible).
Male 103: (inaudible - laboured breathing)
(in between here another male voice that appears to be above 103, by 107 seems to be trying to get down to 103)
Male: One-o-three open the stairway door!
Male: Stairway open on 107, we have a guy trapped up there.
Male 103: Stairway A, 103, upper floor. People stuck in stairway, open up the goddamn doors.
Male 103: Structural five.
Male 103: Structural five, come in (PAUSE)
Male 103: Structual five, fire command.
Male: Joey go.
Male 103: (Breathing heavily) Got a body stuck on 103, place is filling up with smoke.
Male: Copy Joey, one-o-three, what stairwell is that?
Male 103: Five ... seven-seven desk.
Male 103: Stairway A ...one-o-three... structural fire.;; need instructions
Male 103: Jesus Christ ...lot of smoke
Male 103: Need instruction
Male 103: Need instruction ...103... (inaudible) smke coming up. (PAUSE) (17:07)
Male 103: One-o-three, Sally, where is the #ing sprinkler system? (PAUSE)
Male: 103-A, 103-A
Male 103: 103-A
Male: Structural (inaudible) to (inaudible), did you get 103-A?
Male 103: 103-A
Male 103: 103 ........stairway A
Male 103: .....heat increasing.....
Male 103: 103 (PAUSE)
Male 103: Structural fire, 103.
Male 103: Need immediate purge.
Male: Seven seven, did you get 103A open?
Male: I'm having trouble with (inaudible) and Joe P. I'm having trouble getting, 103-A
Male: Evacuate building two. Evacuate building two. This is Fire Command (23:57)
[I included the last line as it is the last timestamp after the last transmission from Male 103 -- the transscript continues until after (1:12:58)]

Transcript 46 contains one reference, after (17:07) and before (23:57) of an explosion on the upper floors of tower B (this was the 2nd plane impact).

Male: (Inaudible) area, debris (inaudible), we had a second explosion on the upper floors of Tower B!

There is no other reference to explosions in transcript 46.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.





Maybe these can help you visualize the damage to the cores caused by the impacts.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace


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...


While it is true that the original blueprints and many of the documents pertaining to the construction of the towers were lost when they collapsed, that doesn't mean that they had no idea how the structure of the building was put together.

The structure of the WTC towers were unique and well documented. Copies of various structural drawings survived from other sources. In addition, not only are many of the original engineers still alive, but there have also been scores of structural engineers that have worked on the buildings since the original construction. There have been numerous tenant modifications to floors. THe 1993 bombing required extensive repairs, and there was an ongoing program from 1996 onward to inspect the structure for problems.

Appendix A-G of the NIST report 1-1C is but one example of the data available on the structural design, including copies of the structural plans.




Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
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.





Absolutely untrue. Besides the fact that those statements are nonsensical, other than the floor slab, there was no concrete used in the structural design of the WTC towers.

It is amazing how far some people will go to try to rewrite history to fit their pet theories.




[edit on 10-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 10-7-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I apologize in advance for the excessive quoting in this post. This thread is moving along faster than I can keep up with.



Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
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.



Originally posted by ANOK
No one is denying the A/C damaged the interior of the building...

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE....There would still have been more damage on the side that the plane hit.
And you'll keep saying the outer walls were load bearing.
Sooo that means on the side that the plane hit would have been the side the building would have failed first.



Originally posted by Jeremiah_John

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Wrong, The exterior walls of the WTC bore a significant portion of the building loads.


Prove it.

Oh wait - you can't. The public and NIST don't have access to the blueprints.

Some say there were load bearing.

Yeah, like structural engineers

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
Others say there were for lateral loads.

Yeah, like conspiracy theorists

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
NIST didn't have access to the blueprints. Public doesn't have access to the blueprints.
The only thing we know for sure is that a report on a building collapse that didn't use the buildings blueprints, didn't try to prove its theories, and examined (not too closely) 0.05 of the building doesn't prove a damn thing.


Proof:

From the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURAL AND LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS


The towers were designed as a “framed-tube” structural system with closely spaced exterior perimeter columns connected by spandrel beams around the perimeter at each floor level. The core was designed as a conventional frame with a grid of columns interconnected with beams.

The exterior walls were composed of box-shaped welded steel columns and spandrel beams comprised of a steel plate. Each building face consisted of 59 columns spaced at 3 ft 4 in. on center. As part of the framed-tube system, the exterior columns were designed structurally such that they resisted the total lateral loads and about 50 percent of gravity loads. Below floor 7, the columns were combined in groups of three to form single base columns which were spaced 10 ft on center and extended to the footings. An important architectural feature of the towers was the uniform look of the exterior walls, presented by the uniform width of the exterior columns up the height of the buildings. This was produced by maintaining a constant exterior dimension the columns and changing the strength of the steel with height. Thus, twelve different grades of steel, with yield strengths ranging from 36 ksi to 100 ksi, were used for the exterior columns.

The core columns were of two types: welded box columns for the lower floors and rolled wide flange shapes for the upper floors. They were designed to support about 50 percent of gravity loads. Below floor 7 to the foundation, where there were fewer perimeter columns in the outer walls, bracings were used in the outer perimeter of the core area to increase lateral stiffness. In the lower part of the towers, the outer core columns were designed to resist a portion of the lateral forces. Hidden within the building, the core columns were thicker and larger on the lower floors. Thus, core columns used fewer grades of steel. The box columns were either 36 ksi or 42 ksi. Core wide flange columns were one of four grades, yield strengths ranging from 36 ksi to 50 ksi, but most (approximately 90 percent) were primarily 36 ksi or 42 ksi steel.




I think that that is pretty clear, the core and the exterior each held up 50% of the gravity loads, which is pretty damn obvious once you think about it. No concrete on the core columns either. See my above post for information on where they obtained this information.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Floors 85-102 would fall as a complete piece and then impact with floor 78, which along with everything under it, was still structurally sound.

Then what would happen?

Well we can't be sure, BUT I very much doubt it would continue to pancake straight down!
Common sense and a basic knowledge of physics would tell you that's nonsense.


Some fundamental information

and a impact force calculator

(this, handy, online conversion page may help)

Let's say for the sake of argument that the 79th floor alone failed and dropped to the 78th floor.

The key to the question is how far the 78th and the 80th floors would be able to deflect to absorb the impact energy before the deflection itself caused the floors to fail.

If the floors were able to deflect 1 meter each way, for a total of 2 meters, the impact force would still be double the original mass.

If we assume a more realistic limit of 0.1 meter of deflection, (how much would it take to shear the trusses from the columns?) the impact force would be forty times the mass.

(Ok, that is probably not 100% correct or accurate, but it is good enough to at least mentally visualize the magnitude of the forces involved.)

If you factor in the damage from the airplane impact, it is pretty obvious that once the collapse started, it would rapidly reach free-fall speeds. The undamaged portion of the building would not be able to withstand the falling mass. Remember that the columns would not fail on just one floor alone, but the buckling of each columns would effect multiple floors at once. Each column tree spanned three floors. So in effect, the building literally "unzipped" itself.

It has been (belatedly) recognized that this type of failure scenario is an inherent flaw of this style of building construction.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

While it is true that the original blueprints and many of the documents pertaining to the construction of the towers were lost when they collapsed,


I find it unbelievable that there are only one set of prints. On a job this size, that is simply un-heard of. It's not like some rinky dink const. co building an out-house for Ma & Pa.

Half way up with a tower and the job shack burns ........... no more prints, what then, have the architect draft new ones from memory?

Completely unfeasable this statement is, no matter what agency/yadda first claimed it. Who said this from the start anyway?

I'm suprised you other "20yr men" have not spoke of this, other than making the statement of.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
The buildings were built 30 years ago, there were no construction shacks left.

Contractors and architects don't save old blueprints.

Some copies of various plans did survive.




posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Remember the golden rule
....

"The Project always goe'z to d'a lowest bider'RRRRR"


But yes for sure they have lots' of extra copies of the plans kicking around....that's for sure, many Consultants would have it....esp. in the computer format....(I have so many CAD blocks it' hurts). And I'm not trying to diss anyone...was just trying to say I have not met anyone "personally" in the field of construction that feel that buildings 1 and 2 w'r brought down by TNT.....that's all, I know there are many smart people on here (a'lot more than me) and please excuse me for offending you...will try harder not to do so. Was just saying we should now what field everyone is in so understand th'r perspective.

(psst.....Howard.....y'r the man, great pic's man )

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
How about this picture from the NIST report?

The inward bowing of the exterior columns from the sagging, floor slabs.





Once those columns went out of plumb, the amount of weight they would be able to bear would drop considerably.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Contractors and architects don't save old blueprints.



Yeah. When I do a job I usually trash all the paperwork and schematics immediately after. It's what I learned in college. Blueprints take up so much damn space, and they're completely useless after the job's done. If I ever get requests for revisions I just tell the person to rip the house apart and map everything by hand.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
That's the first I've read about bomb dogs being pulled. Do you have any sources for material on it? Not doubting you, as I think BS engulfs this 911 deal, would like to read on it.


This is off the NIST subject, but have you ever heard of Sirius the bomb sniffing dog?

www.dogsinthenews.com...



[edit on 10-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 10-7-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Never mind


[edit on 10/7/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
On September 11th 2001, an explosive detection dog working in Tower #2 at the World Trade Center, gave his life for his country. This poster was created to keep the memory of Sirius, a dedicated American hero, alive forever.

So, yes it does say that he was a bomb sniffing dog.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Maybe these can help you visualize the damage to the cores caused by the impacts.


It's unfortuante that those visuals are misleading, to say the least. As I've already said, no one is even sure of the damage sustained to the core columns of WTC 1 because of vision obstruction. Let alone can anyone say what happened to the planes/core columns during either impact from such a vantage point. Further, I seriously doubt a 767 could blow through the steel core columns of one of the most massive skyscrapers in the word as if it were a hot knife through butter.

In short, those animations are pure bs.



Once those columns went out of plumb, the amount of weight they would be able to bear would drop considerably.


You know Howard, some columns were completely knocked out (gasp), and I'm pretty sure in a condition like that, their ability to hold weight would also considerably drop, lol. Yet the problem was, not enough of them were knocked out. You've said yourself that you doubt whether either building would have collapsed if not for the peddly fires.


This is off the NIST subject, but have you ever heard of Sirius the bomb sniffing dog?


Nice total irrelevance. Having a bomb-sniffing dog in the basement on 9/11 does not explain why bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the building prior to 9/11. Nice try, though, Howard.


The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.


See here: www.newsday.com...



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Yet now in 2005, NIST are positve that it was not the jet fuel because that burned out straight away and it was infact the raging inferno's of a regular office fire which brought the towers down.

But wait on, we have fireman reporting via radio that they only needed two lines to put out the fire at the impact zone and we have survivors from 10 floors above the impact zone that only saw spot fires. There was a lot of black thick smoke, the type you expect from toxic office furniture smoldering but since when does smoke take out a building?


What is your source for this? (The part I bolded).

From reading the transcripts I see nothing about the fires being under control, nor do I see them communicating that they "only need two lines" -- please cite your source for that comment.

This is what Inspector/Commander, Timothy Norris, WCPZ, said in his statement (I've only taken 2 paragraphs of his 3 page statement):

"Over the next few minutes in the Lobby of Tower 1, I met Chief Hall, Inspector Fields, Lieutenant Kassimatis, Sgt. Devona, Capt. Whitaker, PO Bulger, PO Foreman, PO McNeil, and PO Webb. Doug Kopaloff, Gene Raggio, Ken Grousalis, Joe Amatucci and John O'Neil (FBI-Silverstein) were also at the Fire COmmand console. I think I also saw Sgt, Bob Vargas.

While talking to Chief Hall, a NYC Fire Chief came up to me and informed me that the Command and Control Desk inside the Lobby of Tower One was in an unsafe location. He stated that his firefighters were up inside Tower One and had informed him that the fire was raging out of control. He further stated that he feared the express elevators might come crashing down thereby destroying anything in the Lobby of Building 1 including the Command Control Center. He suggested that we move the Command Center over to the Financial Center. I told him that I needed to go over to the Financial Center toascertain the feasibility of locating the Command Center outside of the World Trade Center. It was around this time that I heard and felt the second plane hitting Tower 2."


The above is taken word for word from Inspector Norris' statement dated Sept 11, 2001. [source]

The following excerpt from the chronological report of the wtc transmissions on 09/11/01 dated November 12, 2001 corroborates the above statement.

Sgt. Alan T. DeVona -- CHRONOLOGICAL REPORT OF OF THE WTC TRANSMISSIONS ON 09/11/01:

0936 Inspector Norris radios WTC Police Desk that OEM is relocating from the 1 WTC Lobby to the Financial Center
0938 Lt. Stafford radios WTC Police Desk to inform CPD that the command post has been moved to the Financial Center


An excerpt from P.O. Edward K. McQuade #1285 statement. (pa-police-reports02)

Joining with a contingent of E.S.U. officers we donned Scott Air Packs and began a search of the West Street area within the wake of the debris field for possible survivors and casualties. We approached the complex from the north side via Barclay Street, Building #7 was still actively burning and at the time we were advised by a N.Y.F.D. Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable.

And I know there are many more references to fires raging out of control in WTC1 and WTC2 (and WTC7) contained in these trasncripts (I've read others, but am just now going back through each stranscript one at a time collecting groups of common reports for various events & descriptions -- some are 100+ pages long and contain multiple reports).


But, I'd still like to see your references to fires under control and only needing 2 lines.

[edit on 11-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Among other evidence is testimony from the grave.

A firefighting battalion chief was on the 78th floor of WTC2, on the south side, which is precisely where the plane hit. His radio communication was recorded and released before the government could suppress it.

You can listen to it yourself here: Firefighter tape excerpt - mp3
Here is a transcript of the relevant part:

===================================================================
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
[10-45 Code One = Civilian casualty from fire]

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair are you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."
[civilians means able-bodied survivors]

Ladder 15: "Alright, ten-four. We're on our way."
===================================================================

This testimony from seasoned firefighters debunks the NIST report. There was NO intense heat. There WERE many survivors. And the fires were nearly contained. These heroic firefighters would be alive and well today if they hadn't been slaughtered by elements in the government, the intelligence community and the military.
More firefighters' tapes.
Survivors' testimonies




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Additional footage from loose change

external image

Rick Sanchez of MSNBC reports of police finding another device? They told Sanchez that a van may have been parked inside the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it. They fear that there is a second explosive device and it may have been planted in the building or the adjacent area. See video link below.

external image


Why is there smoke rising from WTC 6 or 5 after WTC 2 was struck?
See the video below described by Tom Clancy on CNN.

external image


Additional Footage from Loose Change Bitorrent needed

Sorry it is a bitorrent




[edit on 12/7/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
The smoke/dust in the second two photos has been confirmed via other video angles as being from the collapse of the South Tower. The smoke in the first photo however has not, and points to explosives either in WTC6 or WTC1 or 2 basement. After the events there was a massive hole in the roof of WTC6, although it may have been caused by falling debris.

You can also see smoke rising from the base of WTC1 in this video. Watch the bottom right corner as the camera swings around to the building. Also, if you fix your eyes on the building just below the level of the descending destruction, you'll see a squib or two pop out before they should.


Some grabs:










new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join