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: 25
4
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Sven, I don't want to sound harsh but you really are a fool on this thread. I don't see why you continue to even post here. A vast minority of columns were knocked out, not "most". Between 10% and 15% of perimeter columns for either building, and even less of the core columns in the South Tower for sure. The rest of your post can't even be held to scientific scrutiny because it's all rant and opinion, and it is on every one of your posts. In all your alleged years of construction, you apparently did not learn a single thing that is of any objective value to this thread. Whenever you try, it simply does not hold up. Have you not been reading any of our responses to your threads? For god's sake, one of your rebuttal's involved your mom's sister!


8. Beltway witnesses hearing"whoosh"(uhm..."whoosh" prob.my Moms sister)


[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]




posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Gon'a ignore y'r insultas...that's for sure.....come on man.

But one question to you sir, you a Structural Engineer?

Just get me one...just one Structural Engineer with min. 15 years in designing Super Structures at this thread stating against the report.

And if you look back at the plans shown' (nice pics' remember) many coloums w'r gone...and like I mentioned before...we w'r not "there" to "inspect" the site ....so we are always estimating the facts....and pictures from outside....thru' smoke don't count a true facts.

But still y'r Canadian friend,
Sven
(even when we don't agree)



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And then went on discussing how there was no evidence that such a collapse could account for the fact that the steel columns below the falling floors gave almost absolutely no resistance. Is that not good enough for you to come down from heaven to try to refute? Or can you just not account for those things? I don't understand.


How can I account for the floors below the initial collapse area offering almost absolutely no resistance? Through sheer logic. The amount of energy of one floor falling onto the next floor must have been far more than the floor below could handle.

When I originally thought about what must have happened inside those buildings (the day I watched them come down, live), I assumed a couple things. First I assumed that the amount of energy contained in the floors slamming into each other must have been incredible (probably 15 to 30 times the weight of each floor). I assumed this because I know if I place a 5lb weight on my foot it doesn’t hurt, my foot can handle the static weight. But if I drop that 5lb weight onto my foot from 3 feet it hurts like no tomorrow -- I wouldn't even want to try dropping it onto my foot from 12 feet high -- go try it [from 0 ft, 1 ft, and 2 ft heights] and see what your own results are. Be sure to post your test data here.

I also assumed that something more than the planes impacting the buildings must have caused them to come down but I didn't doubt the plane impact helped to play a large role. I mean; I could SEE with my own eyes that they had chopped significant portions of the outside steel walls in half and they certainly must have caused a lot of structural damage. And the energy they imparted on the building must have been a lot, but obviously not enough by itself to make the buildings fall down. I've seen buildings hit by large machinery and not collapse until hours after the accident; no fires were involved; you weaken the structure enough and eventually gravity is going to win. But that's just from personal first-hand experience. Was there much energy transferred into a WTC tower when a plane hit it? Well, according to Thomas J Mackin, from the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Illinois: "If the Jetliner was traveling at 440mph and dissipated all its energy in one second, then the impact force is 9,000,000lbs. This is substantial and generated a moment of impact, at the 70th floor of 6,320,000,000 ft-lbs." (Yes, that's 6.32 billion ft-lbs of torque.)

I also knew that each floor of the WTC towers held about an acre of office space. That meant if there was a fire on 3 or 4 floors it was literally acres of building floor space on fire (that's huge, that's hot, and if it's above the 30th floor it's going to burn a long long time before anyone can climb up to it to put it out). Acres of jet fuel, plastics and paper products must have been a lot of energy I surmised; I knew from something I'd studied in the past that jet fuel contains a lot of energy (something to the order of 2 or 3 that of regular gasoline which has ~130 MJoules per US gallon). But, I wasn't positive so I went and did some reading. I noticed pages with studies by people who know a whole lot more about engineering than I do that seemed to confirm what my initial reasonings were telling me. Pages such as these pages from the ASSE (American Society of Safety Engineers) and the University of Illinois that state the impact force was around 30 times the tower above, and that 20,000 gallons of fuel contained the same amount of energy (2.64 x 10^12 Joules) as 7,920,000 sticks of dynamite. Seems to be a lot of energy, but perhaps I'm mistaken in that assumption?

Now, almost 3 years later, I have the luxury of having so many sources of information at my disposal to read through and digest. And there is also the disinformation to read through sadly -- a fine example of disinformation regarding the WTC is that all the steel was sent to china immediately and none saved or looked at by scientists - this is flat out bull# [nonsense]: people just don't want to read factual reports or choose to ignore them because they don't suit their own personal idea of what happened to the WTC towers The New York Times published a story regarding the testing of all 14 different grades of steel used in the WTC including over 236 major samples from the WTC site -- just for this one study. Dr. Gayle said the investigation had obtained samples of all 14 grades, or strengths, of steel used in the twin towers for analysis. All together, investigators have collected 236 major pieces of trade center steel, Dr. Sunder said.

Some very good material can be read regarding many parts of this can be found on the MIT website. A book by Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, and Yossi Sheffi, contains a wealth of scientific information, which was arrived at PRIOR TO the FEMA-NIST-ASCE report. The report validated a significant portion of this book. Read it for yourself, it's very educational in many regards. Never heard of it until now? Well then you must only want to read about demolition theories and conspiracies and not want to read both sides of the story to see what's fact and what is fiction...

I also couldn't equate what demolition proponents were claiming was happening to WTC 1 and WTC 2 based on their "evidence" in videotapes of the tower collapses to what was realistic. Many keep saying how there is evidence of explosions, which were a controlled demolition of the towers. But one thing does not fit with this theory. When each tower begins to fall, the "explosions" occur AFTER the tower begins to fall. In every single controlled demolition tape I have seen, and in the two demolitions I have watched live, the explosions occur BEFORE the buildings begin to fall and the fall of the building is always after the puffs of smoke and debris from the detonations. When WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall, the puffs of smoke and debris are all AFTER the buildings begin to fall - that says to me that they are not detonations at all, but are in fact debris, dust, and smoke being forced out by air pressure and structural failures during the collapse.

I've viewed a lot of videos, probably 200+ and most of them are segments from these better quality ones. Invariably, the conspiracy sites choose to cut out the first part of these videos so you do not get to see the building standing just before it starts to collapse. The reason they do this is because if you do see the building collapsing before you see any evidence of anything that looks remotely like an explosion, their whole controlled demolition theory goes out the window. But, have a look at some videos and come to your own conclusions. And please do explain to me how the buildings both start to collapse before ANY evidence of ANY explosions is visible in ANY video or ANY photographs from that day.

Videos
Most of the videos I've seen posted and referred to on this forums are from low res crappy quality, blocky, and altered videos that make it quite hard to judge for yourself what is going on. Most of the conspiracy website show videos of the towers that have the first parts cut out so you cannot see the start of the building collapses. I went out and found some of the best quality videos of the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses that I could find online. These videos are all "HiRes" [HiRes (high resolution) video means video recorded with the DivX3.11a codec with the (variable) bit rate set to 6000 and crispness/smoothness set to 100. The hi-resolution videos are much larger files than necessary for good viewing. They are meant to convey as much of the original detail as possible.]

Most of these videos use the DivX codec. If you are using Windows Media Player you need the DivX3.11a codec plug-in that you can download here: public.planetmirror.com...

Note that many of these videos are named "demolition 1 2 etc" this is because most of them are from conspiracy sites. The fact remains that regardless of how you name a video, the contents of the original videos are still the same.

HighRes videos of WTC1 (North Tower)
  • Collapse of WTC1 HiRes [2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 492x408]- Watch how the building collapses long before any ejection of materials or "explosions" -- you can clearly see the section of the building above the bottom portion (engulfed in fires) falls as one, none of the floors below the point of fire collapse until most of the top section's weight has impacted into the bottom section. There are CLEARLY NO EXPLOSIONS BEFORE COLLAPSE.
  • Collapse of WTC1 HiRes Angle 2 [5.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716x480] Another angle of WTC1, you can again clearly see that the building begins to fall above the sections engulfed in flames BEFORE any visible "explosions" -- you can also see that the top portion does not fall perfectly "pancaked" but twists and leans left and right on the way down.
  • Another angle of WTC1 collapse [0.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 676x408] Again, the building is falling BEFORE any visible "explosions" -- the "explosions" are, in fact, simply smoke and debris being forced out by air pressure from the collapsing floors.
  • HiRes Very clear view of WTC1 collapse [13 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x472] Again, the building top starts to collapse before any visible "explosions" -- once again you can CLEARLY see that the floors below the fires do NOT collapse or explode, and the part of the building that fails is the section that is engulfed in flames. No explosions prior to collapse, and no way controlled demolitions were taking place in the middle of a 600-1200 degree inferno (the wires would melt, and so would any remote detonator electronics - period).
  • Supposedly premature detonations in WTC1 [4.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 692x472] This is a video that shows smoke and debris being blasted out a few floors below the collapsing levels. Conspiracy websites claim that this is evidence of "premature detonations" but I return to the same question as above - where are ANY DETONATIONS before the tower starts to collapse? There are none. There weren't any detonations; the ejection of debris and smoke is entirely caused by the collapse of the video. Play it over and over to see for yourself.
  • "Premature Detonations Marked" in collapse of WTC1 [2.8 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x472] Here is another conspiracy site's attempt to show detonations in WTC tower 1. The problem, again, is that the supposed detonations ALL occur AFTER the tower is already collapsing. If detonations were used to bring down the tower, what the heck caused it to collapse to begin with? There is not one single piece of video evidence that shows any form of a controlled demolition of WTC1 or WTC1 before the towers began to fall. Not a single one. Every one of these supposed "explosions" is clearly smoke and debris being ejected by the collapse of the tower -- it's air pressure folks!
  • More supposed "Detonation Evidence" from the collapse of WTC1 [6.1 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696x472] This one is an incredible video. It was shot so close to the tower that the videographer almost died (I saw his interview on PBS). The amazing thing is this video is the one used by almost all the controlled demolition conspiracy theorists out there -- but sadly none of them seem to notice a problem with using this video as "evidence". YES, there are indeed small ejections of debris at least 10 or more floors below the collapsing areas. YES it does occur at least 3 times in this video segment. But the glaring issue with this theory comes back to the same old question. If the floor showing "demolition" charge(s) is indeed actually bombs going off to make the building collapse -- why doesn't the floor that the supposed bombs are on ever collapse? THEY DO NOT COLLAPSE AT ALL until the portion of the building that IS collapsing (ten or more floors above) finally reaches the floor where the supposed detonations went off. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and it defies the laws of physics! If you blow up the supports on a floor, the weight of the building above that floor will cause the floor you just demolished to collapse. This just DOES NOT HAPPEN in this video (or any other WTC video).
    A not so HiRes video
  • Another view of supposed predetonations in WTC1 [1.4 MB HiRes Codec: MPEG1 352x264] A really grainy, low res video shot by a news crew of the collapse of WTC1. The issue with this video is twofold. One, it's lowres and you can't see what is going on clearly, but that's not the most important problem with the detonation theory. Issue two, the building shows one or two ejections of smoke and debris below the collapse area. But once again the building DOES NOT COLLAPSE on the floor that is supposed to be being blown up in the video. The floor ONLY collapses once the increible mass of the floors collapsing above the "explosion" point actually reaches that floor. It defies the laws of physics once again. How can you blow up the supports on a floor (controlled demolition) and that floor does not collapse from the 30+ floors above it? It makes no sense what so ever.


HighRes video of WTC2 (South Tower)

  • Collapse of WTC2 HiRes [1.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716x480] Here we see a few very interesting things that might not be clear in other videos of the collapse of WTC2. Number one, the building collapses at the middle, and the destruction occurs to the floors above the collapse faster than to the floors below the collapse point. Number two, the top portion of the building does not come straight down, but in fact leans over to the left and comes down at a 30 degree angle (the building falls down at an angle). There is absolutely no evidence of any explosions in this video prior to the building collapsing. Once again, we see the top of the building moving downwards BEFORE any smoke or debris is ejected with force from the building. You see the building move 3 or 4 floors before anything is blown out the sides. That means it was the act of the collapse and the air pressure that forced debris out that caused it to look like an explosion. It was NOT an explosion prior to collapse. Once again, how can the WTC2 tower (like the WTC1 tower) defy the laws of physics and fall faster than the supposed "demolition charges" we set off? It makes absolutely no sense! If this was a controlled demolition there would HAVE TO BE explosive charges going off BEFORE the collapse of the tower!!
  • Collapse of WTC2 HiRes [2.3 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x408] This video does not start before the building begins to collapse and it shows 3 or 4 streams of smoke and debris being ejected from floors well below the collapsing area. These so called "squibs" are pointed to as evidence of a controlled demolition. I can't see how that is possible. Once again, you have a building collapsing from the top down and air pressure from the collapse causing smoke and drywall dust to be ejected from windows lower in the building. If these "explosions" were caused by detonations in a controlled demolition what explanation can there be for the 30 to 40 floors above the floor of the demolition to not start to collapse down onto the demolished floor? This just does not happen! It's entirely clear in this video that the floors are collapsing at the top down, and not at the floors where conspiracy sites are claiming "demolition evidence" is shown in these videos. The theory defies the laws of physics.
  • Collapse of WTC2 HiRes 2nd angle [1.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x352] This video doesn't show any explosions, it shows the top section of the tower begin to fall (collapsing at around the 80-85th floors first) and it shows the top quarter of the building falling towards the camera and downwards. It's a good quality video, but it doesn't show the building below the area of the fires. There is absolutely no evidence of any explosions prior to the building already collapsing.
  • WTC2 Tower Collapse from Video Tour camera [1.7 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x356] This video shows the south tower after it's already collapsing. The top section of the tower is leaning out to the left and towards the camera and falling straight downwards. It's too bad it doesn’t show about 5-10 seconds more at the start of the video. Again, no evidence of a controlled demolition, no evidence of bombs going off, only evidence of a building collapsing down onto itself from the higher floors.

    Not-so HiRes
  • Supposed "Premature Detonation Evidence" of WTC2 [0.4 MB Codec: DivX3.11a 704x480] Again, there are a couple things wrong with this video. Number one, the first claimed detonation occurs on the Sky Lobby level where the elevators from the area collapsing start and stop. You can clearly see the dark band of the Sky Lobby level in this grainy video. The elevator shafts would have certainly provided a travel path for the tremendous air pressure of the floors collapsing 20-30 floors above. Secondly, once again, if this was indeed an explosion, as part of a controlled demolition, why in the heck didn't that floor begin to collapse? You can clearly see that that floor sits there in the same condition right up to the point where the collapsing floors above come crashing into it. The whole controlled demolition theory, with these smoke and debris photographs and videos used as "evidence", is conceptually flawed. It flies in the face of reason and ignores the laws of physics. There is absolutely no evidence on video or in the thousands of still photographs of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 that shows any detonations prior to the collapse of the building. None.


What a controlled demolition looks like
Here is a video from one of the conspiracy sites to give "evidence" or support to the theory that the WTC towers 1 and 2 were indeed a controlled demolition. There is one glaring error with this theory and one huge problem with using this video to give support to the theory. Watch these controlled demolitions and tell me what is similar in every instance.

In a controlled demolition: the explosions occur BEFORE the buildings begin to collapse. Exactly the opposite of what was (is) seen in the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. In both the WTC 1 and 2 tower videos and photographs we can clearly see that both buildings begin to fall/collapse before ANY evidence of an explosion (imagined or real) is visible in any frame of any video or any photograph from any source. Explain that, and tell me why in these controlled demolitions EVERY SINGLE ONE shows the explosion followed by building collapse and not one shows a building collapse before the explosion (or dust cloud or ejecta or whatever you want to call it).


I hope some of this at least provides some new reading and new viewing for a few readers. It would be a shame to be posting all old information (I honestly haven't been following the WTC conspiracy stuff at all until approx 2 weeks ago).



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Sven,

There have been a wide variety of angles and surfaces covered by photographs. It is a verifiable fact that no more than 15% of the perimeter columns were knocked out in either building. It is also verifiable fact, simply by watching a video, that the impact into the South Tower left the vast majority of the core columns in that building intact. It was not a dead-on impact.

This isn't something you guess on and say "we weren't there, who knows!" This is something that was so extensively photographed that we might as well have been there, because this exact information is very conveniently available to us.

As I've said, your alleged experience has amounted to null on this thread. All you have offered are opinions.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
On the theme of blown windows, I have yet to hear anything of debunking what I have brought up several times, and posted pics to twice for clarification.

Why will no debunker resolve this instance? ...............

In the pic, below the line of collapse, why is this half+ floor having a massive outburst?
Ya can't say it is ANYTHING to do with air, unless of course compression can bypass about 11 floors.



Misfit


It certainly can. You're seeing air being blasted out windows on a Sky Lobby level. As everyone knows (or at least everyone that knows anything about the WTC towers) the Sky lobby levels were 3 floors where elevators met. Each Sky Lobby level was comprised of 3 floors where elevators from upper floors stopped, and elevators from lower floors stopped. Inbetween levels were escalators. It's very easy to see and understand that 8 elevator shafts would provide a perfect path for airpressure from above floors to travel.

Try this. Take a deep breath and then open your mouth as wide as possible, place your hand 3 inches in front of your mouth and while holding your mouth wide open exhale as hard as you can. Make a mental note of the airspeed.

Take another deep breath (we can assume it's going to be pretty close to the same volume of air), now form a circle with your mouth (blow). Now again place your hand 3 inches in front of your mouth and exhale as hard as you can. Make a mental note of the air speed and pressure on your hand.

Which one had more pressure on your hand?

[edit on 13-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Well since the floors were over 90% air, I'm not sure that your dismissal of the increase in the air pressure is all that valid. Also, you have to remember that the windows are fitted in between the vertical rise of the exterior columns. If those columns started to move, twist and shift as a result of the collapse, then the windows would not have been firmly fastened in place.


If there were gaps between the windows and the columns, there would be even less explosive compression to force windows and debris out laterally.

Besides that, now that I think about it, if one looks at the rate of descent of the building, the areas where air is being thrown out makes it look like the building collapses even faster.

I think a good exercise would be to count how fast the lateral explosions or possible squibs rip down the side of the building compared to how fast the disintegration develops above them.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
CatHerder, what did any of that have to do with disproving the quote of made you made reference to? As far as I can see, after reading your whole thread, absolutely none. Trying to make it appear as if you were rebutting that claim while moving onto a different subject altogether? Or just absent-minded rambling? Probably nothing intended by it, but with the likes of HR around here it makes me wonder nonetheless.

As far as the start of the demolition is concerned, I personally cannot offer any answers. I'm rather new to the evidence as well, but considering that this was a controlled demolition at all would have you believe that this was a very original and unique demolition in the manner that it would have had to have been executed. This would've been no usual demolition, by any means. But, as I've said, I cannot yet give any specifics as to what the exact charge that started the chain reaction was. Neither can the opposition here. We can both make assumptions, but there isn't any clear evidence either way, as you'll admit.

What we can turn to for definitive evidence, for example, are things like the fires and the results they produced. Those results, as I have shown, were inconsistent with the official report. The evidence regarding the fires still stands. That alone is enough to shatter the NIST report, and put to rest the official explanation of fires bringing the buildings down. Have you any response to that?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
It certainly can. You're seeing air being blasted out windows on a Sky Lobby level. As everyone knows (or at least everyone that knows anything about the WTC towers) the Sky lobby levels were 3 floors where elevators met. Each Sky Lobby level was comprised of 3 floors where elevators from upper floors stopped, and elevators from lower floors stopped. Inbetween levels were escalators. It's very easy to see and understand that 8 elevator shafts would provide a perfect path for airpressure from above floors to travel.


There are far more than 3 floors between the line of collapse and my subject. If you blow up the pic and count the floors, you will see 11 floors to the point that the debris covers any further view, it may be 13 - 15 floors [but I'll stick with 11 for clear argument] that you are saying compression "certainly can" bypass.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
catherder, your brilliant segregation of the facts will help many.
let me do a little welding, .....

not one, not two, but THREE steel and CONCRETE, yes, CONCRETE, buildings went into into freefall. one would have been a first. three is like winning the galactic lottery.

WTC7 was DEFINITELY a controlled demolition.

p.s. it is a simple thing to change the sequence of the charges, in ordo to make it all look 'natural'.

p.s.s. GET A CLUE! IT DIDN'T WORK!

p.s.s.s. thank you for the fine vanishing points. i WILL ride the derrier of anyone, on 'my side' or against, that claims 'accuracy', when it is not accurate.


to (semi)quote, 'the master'.....

when the disciples were asked how long the temple hallway was, some said, fifty ft., some said, approx. fifty ft..

the master said, 'you're all wrong, the right answer is 'I DON'T KNOW''.

p.s.s.s.s. the problem with a tower falling 'three ft.', is that that would require the INSTANT removal of "three ft.' from most of the load bearing thingies at the exactish same level. otherwise, you would get more of a crumple than a freefall. 'mosquito net' has many implications regarding load distribution properties.

p.s.s.s.s.s. steel is flexible.

p.s.s.s.s.s.s. radio transmissions were blocked by, according to NIST, 'steel reinforced concrete'. OUCH!

p.s.s.s.s.s.s.s. i don't know.

edited for more essessssssssssssssssssssssssss and .s

[edit on 13-7-2005 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
You know, just something I remember being told several times in various locations (crash rescue, among others) JP-8, which is almost identical to Jet A-1 which was used in the planes on 9/11, when it starts to burn, it burns up to about 1700 degrees farenheight (sp?). I haven't been able to find it anywhere online, but that's what I was told before. Shouldn't that be hot enough to at least warp the steel?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
CatHerder, what did any of that have to do with disproving the quote of made you made reference to? As far as I can see, after reading your whole thread, absolutely none. Trying to make it appear as if you were rebutting that claim while moving onto a different subject altogether? Or just absent-minded rambling? Probably nothing intended by it, but with the likes of HR around here it makes me wonder nonetheless.

As far as the start of the demolition is concerned, I personally cannot offer any answers. I'm rather new to the evidence as well, but considering that this was a controlled demolition at all would have you believe that this was a very original and unique demolition in the manner that it would have had to have been executed. This would've been no usual demolition, by any means. But, as I've said, I cannot yet give any specifics as to what the exact charge that started the chain reaction was.



"Disprove"? I offered an explanation and I included 3 links to back it up.

Are you sure you read the post? I posted over 4 pages of information 4 minutes ago, which included over 20 pages of supplemental information, and you've already responded to it.

The quote was "And then went on discussing how there was no evidence that such a collapse could account for the fact that the steel columns below the falling floors gave almost absolutely no resistance."

And I answered with:

The force on the floor that the above floors were impacting was over 30 times the weight of the combined floors above. Read the post, read the links provided. I highly doubt that you read all of it and responded so quickly.

If a floor is designed to hold 1 million pounds (for example), how well do you think that floor is going to stand up to 30 million pounds?

Let me ask that again... How well do you think a floor designed to hold 1 million pounds (which means it would fail at ~/>1.5 million pounds) is going to stand up to 30 million pounds (or 30 times the weight that the floor was designed to hold)? Would it offer a lot of resistance to the falling 30 million pounds, or would it simply fail almost instantaneously -- which, if you view the collapse videos does not happen, there are objects (parts of the steel structure) that are free falling and are visibly falling faster than the collapse of the building. Therefore, there must indeed be some resistance by the floor(s) being impacted, but it's very minimal. Each floor appears to "hold up" for a fraction of a second until it becomes part of the falling mass hitting the next floor.



Neither can the opposition here. We can both make assumptions, but there isn't any clear evidence either way, as you'll admit.

What we can turn to for definitive evidence, for example, are things like the fires and the results they produced. Those results, as I have shown, were inconsistent with the official report. The evidence regarding the fires still stands. That alone is enough to shatter the NIST report, and put to rest the official explanation of fires bringing the buildings down. Have you any response to that?


First you say "...there isn't any clear evidence either way..." and then you say, "as I have shown ... the evidence of the fire still stands." I don't follow you.


I'm a firm believer that there will never be any definitive evidence to prove how the building fell. It could be because the fire protection on the steel wasn't adequate, which could be so because it was never tested (it was never fire tested); It could also be because the building wasn't as strong as the designers claim and the design itself could be critically flawed (there has never been a large fire in a building of this size or design before). But I can see that the videos do not show any evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC1 or WTC2 and I don't know why people keep trying to show that they do -- (I can't say the same thing with any confidence about WTC7 at this point though).

The whole controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2 theory has about as much logic and sensibility to me as a Global Hawk hitting the Pentagon
theory.


[edit on 13-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

You know, just something I remember being told several times in various locations (crash rescue, among others) JP-8, which is almost identical to Jet A-1 which was used in the planes on 9/11, when it starts to burn, it burns up to about 1700 degrees farenheight (sp?). I haven't been able to find it anywhere online, but that's what I was told before. Shouldn't that be hot enough to at least warp the steel?


It will burn at different temperatures under different conditions, but given the results of the fires on 9/11 I think it's safe to assume that more ideal conditions for such a fire were not met. Anyway, I've heard personally that in ideal conditions, the fuel would burn at 14k F. I don't know the exact figures, but I do know that it varies depending on the fire's surroundings, and that the fires on 9/11 exhibiting nothing like what they would have if at the alleged temperatures, as I've stated repeatedly by now.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by CatHerder
It certainly can. You're seeing air being blasted out windows on a Sky Lobby level. As everyone knows (or at least everyone that knows anything about the WTC towers) the Sky lobby levels were 3 floors where elevators met. Each Sky Lobby level was comprised of 3 floors where elevators from upper floors stopped, and elevators from lower floors stopped. Inbetween levels were escalators. It's very easy to see and understand that 8 elevator shafts would provide a perfect path for airpressure from above floors to travel.


There are far more than 3 floors between the line of collapse and my subject. If you blow up the pic and count the floors, you will see 11 floors to the point that the debris covers any further view, it may be 13 - 15 floors [but I'll stick with 11 for clear argument] that you are saying compression "certainly can" bypass.

Misfit


Well yeah, actually it can.

The Sky Lobby is/was where the upper elevators stop, and where the lower elevators "start". Each Sky Lobby is the "bottom floor" for the floors above, and the "top floor" for the floors below. So, the elevator shafts stop on that floor, and as we know from quite a few different accounts, recordings, and transcripts the sky lobby doors in both towers (on the 44th/45th floors) had been pried open to get at trapped passengers, or had been blown apart by the aircraft impact and burned or killed people in the Sky Lobby. In WTC2 the sky lobby on 44 had also been blown apart by a falling elevator in more than one account. The Sky Lobby levels were 43/44/45 and 77/78/79 from what I can read online. The middle floors for each lobby (44 and 78) were joined by escalators to the above floor and below floor where more elevator banks existed. The Sky Lobby on 78 had been hit by the wingtip of the 2nd plane, which killed dozens of people and injured a lot more and also severed more than one elevator which serviced the floors between 78 and 44 -- this information is from accounts of survivors and telephone call records compiled by the New York Times. (source)

That just means that the air coming from the floors above (during the collapse) would have had nowhere else to go but out the sky lobby elevator entries. The floors above would have had their elevator doors closed -- unless there was an elevator trapped at a floor above - and in that case that trapped elevator would have freefell to 43 44 or 45 where it would have cause a lot of damage to the lobby areas including blowing the bottom doors apart with shrapnel from the fall (that's why they evacuated the ground floor command center as well, they feared the elevators would fall and blow apart the doors and kill people in the lobby). It all makes sense when you realise where the majortiy of the squibs are in these videos, and what existed on those floors.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   

"Disprove"? I offered an explanation and I included 3 links to back it up.

Are you sure you read the post? I posted over 4 pages of information 4 minutes ago, which included over 20 pages of supplemental information, and you've already responded to it.

The quote was "And then went on discussing how there was no evidence that such a collapse could account for the fact that the steel columns below the falling floors gave almost absolutely no resistance."

And I answered with:

The force on the floor that the above floors were impacting was over 30 times the weight of the combined floors above. Read the post, read the links provided. I highly doubt that you read all of it and responded so quickly.

If a floor is designed to hold 1 million pounds (for example), how well do you think that floor is going to stand up to 30 million pounds?


All you have proven is the amount of force coming down, etc. You have not proven that that information is consistent with the collapse times of the buildings themselves.

I am not saying that the floors should not have crushed the floors beneath them. I saying those floors gave little to absolutely no resistance, even compared to what they reasonably could/couldn't have given the amount of force applied to them.

Even air offers resistance. If an object was dropped from the height of the towers, it would reach the ground only a couple seconds at most before those buildings finished falling on 9/11 in a vacuum. That's not taking into account air resistance. Not only did the buildings have air resistance working against them, but also resistance from the steel in the whole freaking bottom halves of the buildings, and they still managed to clock in just over free-fall. Something there does not add up.


The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account.


www.serendipity.li...

I'm no physics expert, but I'm confident that this math will stand.

Since you're fond of this layout,

H (height in a vacuum) = 1306 ft.
G (acceleration due to gravity) = 32.174 ft/sec2
T (time) = sqrt(2h/g)


And when you figure it up, it's apparently 9.01 seconds, not taking into account air resistance. That's the time it would take an object to free fall from the height such as those of the Twin Towers in a vacuum.

When you add air resistance to that, the time it would take to fall would increase significantly in our case, as you can image. To add a steel building to that mix leaves us with little time to spare, to say the least! The exact times for the WTC to fall have been gray at best, but most sources will give you around 12 seconds or so. Given air resistance and the bottom halves of those steel buildings - cutting it close here is an understatement. Unless you can add in the proper resistances and figure up a time, you aren't proving or disproving anything regarding the collapse times, CatHerder.


Let me ask that again... How well do you think a floor designed to hold 1 million pounds (which means it would fail at ~/>1.5 million pounds) is going to stand up to 30 million pounds (or 30 times the weight that the floor was designed to hold)? Would it offer a lot of resistance to the falling 30 million pounds, or would it simply fail almost instantaneously -- which, if you view the collapse videos does not happen, there are objects (parts of the steel structure) that are free falling and are visibly falling faster than the collapse of the building. Therefore, there must indeed be some resistance by the floor(s) being impacted, but it's very minimal. Each floor appears to "hold up" for a fraction of a second until it becomes part of the falling mass hitting the next floor.


For each floor, I would think that the resistance would add up to something more than 1 or 2 seconds or some such bs. Also remember how this steel is set up, and what exactly the material is falling onto. This building was set up to hold much more than the weight of the Towers themselves. All skyscrapers are over-engineered, and they're also set up to squeeze the most strength out of their arrangements. It's not like the floors were stood up one on top of each other like a stack of hollow books, just waiting to be crushed under their own weight. There was more complex designing than this that you're significantly underrepresenting here in your "instantaneous giveout" idea.

And again, you haven't proven a thing until you reproduce the collapse times convincingly, taking into account all proper resistances the collapse would have faced. Giving the amount of weight involved does not prove anything here. These were massive buildings; of course it would take massive weights.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Ok "if" it was TNT, how do you "hook up" alll the "charges" to make this spectacular demolishen (making it look natural) lol

Guess the planes had to avoid the cable lines that feed all this TNT, and my guess you would need a'lot of it and a lot of cable to hook em' all up?

Noticed some people are not very open minded and are just living with theories.....but seems some people with experience in building and Jet fuel...have no idea (even with proof of all the videos and amazing pics)

Just keep writing about how "wrong" everyone is (in the industry)...and to put some one on Ignore just show's how narrow some people can be...no matter what you say (or your views) would never Ignor someone...I always listen to others.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven
(great pics and now great vid's from CatHurder...thanx)



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
sevewnglezz have you watched the video that i u2u'ed you.Watch it and then reply.DID you know that this year a high rise building in madrid caught fire and people said oh it is going to fall.weeks went by and it didn't fell.My friend buildings just dont fall down by fires.Only earthquakes and explosives.

take a look at this

www.whatreallyhappened.com...


www.atsnn.com...


here is the fire on that night








and the next day








NOW DEBUNK THIS AND I CHALLENGE YOU THAT IF YOU CAN DEBUBK THIS I WOULD LEAVE ats

[edit on 14-7-2005 by warthog911]

[edit on 14-7-2005 by warthog911]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

First you say "...there isn't any clear evidence either way..." and then you say, "as I have shown ... the evidence of the fire still stands." I don't follow you.


What I meant was what exactly initiated the demolition is not fact coming from either side of this argument.

The fires however, can be easily verifiable in the data that I have offered in regards to the three points that place it around or below 600 degrees Celsius. This, unlike what started the demolitions, can be followed definitively.

Then I asked for your response in regards to the fires, instead of the lack of information on the initiation of the demolitions.


I'm a firm believer that there will never be any definitive evidence to prove how the building fell.


I agree. This is what I'm talking about here. Resort to the fires. We have plenty of evidence of how they behaved.


But I can see that the videos do not show any evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC1 or WTC2 and I don't know why people keep trying to show that they do -- (I can't say the same thing with any confidence about WTC7 at this point though).


Like I said, they would have to be totally unconventional demolitions, admittedly, but I haven't yet put it past them. Too many features of controlled demolition eerily match up to the main tower collapses for this to be a coincidence. The fact that the fires cannot explain why the steel gave out (fireproofing? flawed design?) just suggest that even further. The fact is that industrial steel is fairly consistent in its strength to a certain degree, and that those fires could not have even began approaching a temperature to threaten that strength. Therefore something other than the fires acted upon the steel to cause it to give out.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
The madrid building is total different situation.....no plane to take out most of the coloums.....and any left would not have to much fire proofing left. and the Jet fuel would also have a big impact.

Just don't see it, sorry.

Lets see if we can get some Structural Engineers to comment on this issue.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
The madrid building is total different situation.....no plane to take out most of the coloums.....and any left would not have to much fire proofing left. and the Jet fuel would also have a big impact.

Just don't see it, sorry.

Lets see if we can get some Structural Engineers to comment on this issue.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven


Now i serioulsy believe that something is wrong with you.JUs see that 3hr documentary by alex jones and then post here.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   

no plane to take out most of the coloums


Again, Sven, this claim is pure bs.

About 13% of the North Tower's perimeter columns (31 to 36 of 240 columns) were destroyed. This is fact.



Look at all available images to confirm the above graphic.

It is unknown how much of the North Tower's core columns were damaged.

About 10% of the South Tower's perimeter columns (23 out of 240) were destroyed. This is fact.



Look at all available images to confirm the above graphic.

Only a minimal number of the South Tower's core columns were damaged. See planes trajectory into the building:



In short, stop saying most of the columns were taken out!! That's pure bs!







 
4
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join