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: 38
4
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Peter Jackson interpretation (Empire State), likened to 9/11 truth movement:

www.kingkongmovie.com...


That's the scariest thing I've seen all day. I hit this link and the first thing I saw was "Sponsored by VW". So it's true, German automotive giants are behind the destruction of American landmarks!




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The core area columns would have twisted and snapped like dry spaghetti.


It's interesting you would admit this howard.

Do you see any evidence of twisting and snapping?


Yes

Core columns recovered from ground zero:






That is what I was talking about. They look pretty twisted up to me.



Originally posted by ANOK
There is no sign of the building twisting, just a total failure of the supports in a neat from top to bottom collapse.


Actually there was some slight twisting of the top sections of WTC 2 as the collapse initiated. From the NIST report on the probable collapse sequence, pg, 455.


From "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft)"
The initiation of global collapse for both towers was first observed by the tilting of the sections above the impact regions of both WTC towers. The top section of WTC 1 rotated to the south (observed via antenna tilting in a video recording) and the top of WTC 2 rotated to the east and south and twisted in a counterclockwise motion. The primary direction of tilt of each tower was around the weaker axis of the core (north-south for WTC 1 and east-west for WTC 2). The rigid body rotation associated with the tilting and the propagation of column instability are synchronous processes that initiated global collapse. The rigid body rotation may have caused forces such as shear and torsion to spread the column instability laterally.




Originally posted by ANOK
You still haven't explained a question I asked many pages ago, so I will ask again in a different wording (maybe my Q was too complex before?)...

No, I just missed it. :p

Originally posted by ANOK
How does a building damaged 20 or so floors below the roof, collapse starting at the roof?

Pls answer these points without referring to your NIST report or any other government released dis-info. Or you will confirm my suspicion that you are just here purposely spreading dis-info to confuse those who are unsure in their thoughts on what happened on Sept 11Th.


Sorry, but my answer refers to the best analysis of the data available.

From pg. 233 of the above referenced NIST report:


From "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft)"
Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed.


The collapse of WTC 1 did not start at the roof like you claim.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Are those actual core columns, Howard? Because the first pic looks awfully funny to be a core column, and the second one looks exactly like one of the I-beams that would've simply surrounded a core column.

Here are what the core columns are supposed to look like:





The core columns are at the bottom of the second pic. Both of those are from Ground Zero.

And hey, what do you know! Those four beams are not only actual core columns, but also in what appears to be almost perfect condition.

Also, you can find larger versions of those two images here.




Originally posted by ANOK
There is no sign of the building twisting, just a total failure of the supports in a neat from top to bottom collapse.


Actually there was some slight twisting of the top sections of WTC 2 as the collapse initiated. From the NIST report on the probable collapse sequence, pg, 455.


From "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft)"
The initiation of global collapse for both towers was first observed by the tilting of the sections above the impact regions of both WTC towers. The top section of WTC 1 rotated to the south (observed via antenna tilting in a video recording) and the top of WTC 2 rotated to the east and south and twisted in a counterclockwise motion. The primary direction of tilt of each tower was around the weaker axis of the core (north-south for WTC 1 and east-west for WTC 2). The rigid body rotation associated with the tilting and the propagation of column instability are synchronous processes that initiated global collapse. The rigid body rotation may have caused forces such as shear and torsion to spread the column instability laterally.


That tilting occured after the collapses had already begun. Watch a video of it.




Originally posted by ANOK
You still haven't explained a question I asked many pages ago, so I will ask again in a different wording (maybe my Q was too complex before?)...

No, I just missed it. :p

Originally posted by ANOK
How does a building damaged 20 or so floors below the roof, collapse starting at the roof?

Pls answer these points without referring to your NIST report or any other government released dis-info. Or you will confirm my suspicion that you are just here purposely spreading dis-info to confuse those who are unsure in their thoughts on what happened on Sept 11Th.


Sorry, but my answer refers to the best analysis of the data available.

From pg. 233 of the above referenced NIST report:


From "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft)"
Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed.


The collapse of WTC 1 did not start at the roof like you claim.


I know these are all aimed at Anok (and sorry for that
), but I think I know what he's talking about here. If you watch a video, when the collapse begins (I can't remember which building exactly, may have been 1), the very top-most floor(s) can be clearly seen to collapse at the exact same instant as some of the floors below them. There's not the slightest bit of delay to suggest any jarring, etc. But if that's not what you meant, Anok, then just another observation to throw in on top of this anyway.


[edit on 28-7-2005 by bsbray11]

[edit on 28-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
The core columns switched from rectangular box sections to standard rolled flange I-beams at some point in the structure. The specific floor where it transitions is somewhere in one of the NIST documents.) I don't have the info in front of me.


And yes the degree of deformation by all of the columns will vary from point to point. Note, however that most ot the failure points come from the bolted connections.


As for the sequence of floor collapses, like it says in the above quote, some of those videos can be decieving.
I don't know which specific one you are refering to.





BTW, This will be my last post here for a while. It's vacation time.


[edit on 28-7-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

The core columns switched from rectangular box sections to standard rolled flange I-beams at some point in the structure. The specific floor where it transitions is somewhere in one of the NIST documents.) I don't have the info in front of me.


It'd be nice if the plans were in public domain, huh. Without them, there is no possible way for us to figure out details like this except to just take their word for it.

This is the video I saw it on personally: click.

I also find it odd that all the 'twisting and snapping' apparently took place on the higher floors, and not the lower ones where the undamaged core columns resided. They were the real meat behind the core support of the buildings, and had been welded together into boxes several stories tall during construction. I wonder what it was that blew those boxes into such convenient-to-transport pieces, while simultaneously leaving other core columns in prime condition.

Have fun on vacation Howard.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Enjoy your vacation Howard; I know we can be a daunting bunch.




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
how can those videos be deceiving?

i mean, it is what happened? nothing has been altered


great topic .. i see the whole 'pancake theory' is pretty much shredded based on the rebuttals this thread has caused. i can't imagine anything short of a controlled demolition occurring which caused the collapse of these buildings.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
And w'r are all the STRUCTURAL Engineers?

Like I mentioned before............w'r are all the Structural engineers ?

Don't see any that support the "TNT" theory.

From what I have seen from all the links, movies etc. the plane and fires made the building fall.....and if you don't see this then man you got'a get glasses (and glasses that fit) lol

So till I see Structural Engineers (Assoc.) and Fire Firghters coming forward to claim it was brought down with TNT, still gon'a go with the FACTS that the plane and fire made them collapes.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
So till I see Structural Engineers (Assoc.) and Fire Firghters coming forward to claim it was brought down with TNT, still gon'a go with the FACTS that the plane and fire made them collapes.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven


Fire and the planes bringing down the towers aren't facts, they are assumptions, at least the controlled demolition theory doesn't have actual science, math and structural engineering testifying completely against it.

Nothing even remotely proves they could even get close to causing 3 buildings to collapse and I think this thread has more then enough information from Firefighters, Structural engineers and the damn bloody lab that frigin certified the metal used in the construction of the buildings to totaly debunk your claims about noone having valid information because they aren't structural engineers or whatever.

Sven, you sir bring nothing into this thread instead of blindly cheering for one side and refuting what is said because in your opinion the people in this thread aren't qualified to speak about it, eventhough most of the time they are relaying information provided by qualified people.

Please man, shush or contribute, don't be an annoyance in an already heated topic and quit the bullocks about you being a so called structural engineer or whatever, if you were, you'd be able to at least contribute a whee little bit to this thread instead of being a mindless cheerleader with the worst english posible.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
not suppling any help?....what you mean man......?

I've been working in construction my hole life (guess that pisses you off eh?).......and am expressing my views. And what experience in construction do you have ? eh?

Just thought it my views would help people look at the topic, from my eyes and my experience (AND speaking to others in the industry).

And you express such "madness" towards my view, it's my view and tuff luck to you...you cheer y'r side....so why should I not do the same for mine. (guess Howard on vacation....you feel brave'R to acttack me :dn
.

But I will go forth to express my views of the events and without a dout' in my mind the Planes w'r the reason the WTC buildings 1 & 2 fell down....simple and you can always twist things to make em' seem otherwise. Not t'a mention the LIVE footage
that day.

Anywho...y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
not suppling any help?....what you mean man......?



While I wholly disagree with many of your views, I will add to your behalf what I have noticed in this thread .......... that those who are book-smart/office-smart attempt to belittle those who are not book-smart with words of wanna-be social elite, but are construction based [ie: myself as you, life-long construction worker]. Seems numbers and paper calulations, to these people, are thought of as credible, whereas yours and my toolbelt actually building the damn things with years on jobsites are not. You can find these instances all thru this thread, including my rant on one of them that desired "resume's to post" for a previous attempt of this. I attempted to get an experience background on these folks, to see if all this was coming from a library next to the family den or walking 10" beams many stories high, but all I got was "20yrs", I took that as "never drove a nail".

Without the knowledge and experience of the construction worker, paper pushers would have no job, now would you? Nor would you have "it doesn't work like that" when draft tries to build what can not work - because they rarely see a jobsite.

Misfit

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Misfit]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
forget all the physics and indepth analysis provided in this thread.

yup, t'were them planes, fer sure. great analysis.

as a construction guy, you must know how much work it takes to break up concrete. the official lie has been pulverized, sven. just like the concrete, computers, furniture and people of the WTC were all pulverized into a fine dust, sven. the planes didn't do it, sven.

i've worked construction, sven. and i've taken architecture up to grade thirteen. i took physics in college, and have been educating myself daily for years and years. the last couple of years, i have been studting the migration patterns of sociology.

credentials mean next to nothing. my doctor prescribed pink eye medicine for a peanut allergy. my accountant hasn't been using a lucrative deduction for years. the electrician got zapped. you're wrong, sven, and howard. bombs were reported and are evident in the photo record. repeating the official lie like a broken record, and ignoring all the proof works for a little while, but the tough questions aren't going anywhere.

the totalitarian lockdown of the information enviroment is further evidence. in a crime investigation, motive is the first factor considered after evidence.

'they' DO 'hate our freedoms'.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Hey everyone! I would just like to point out that no-one accepted my personal WTC challenge.

I can imagine because the Consp. Theorist bunch out there has no idea what the answers are to my questions, or that they even existed.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The person that said that was Sven himself, Misfit.




Maybe we should have you show what you do for a living and if you have any experience in this field of construction let alone "structural" desings...and Architect DO NOT have the no how to design structural...that why they have structural engineers to desing and approve it.


You want a resume so people can post. Your statements here show me how high on a pedestal you have placed yourself.

I have 20yrs, multi-facet. Bridging was my fav.

There's your fukkin' resume'

Misfit


Sven could at least offer some kind of references to what he says, or source some evidence or something. All he has offered thus far are his personal opinions alone, and while an engineer could make some valuable contribution here even with opinions, unfortunately he's shown himself an exception to this possibility, I think.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sight2reality
Hey everyone! I would just like to point out that no-one accepted my personal WTC challenge.

I can imagine because the Consp. Theorist bunch out there has no idea what the answers are to my questions, or that they even existed.


We've covered fireproofing. Steel can hold its own in weak fires without fireproofing, and there is no evidence of fires being beyond 700 or 800 degrees Celsius at any point. As the fires went on, they actually cooled as well. You don't need fireproofing to protect steel from that, man.

Further, I did respond to your post, and asked you to look up weight redistribution and over-engineering and try to tie those two things in with your excuse of no fireproofing. They won't fit, and yet the WTC Towers were built to accomodate both over-engineering and weight redistribution, just as every single freaking skyscraper that's built is. The vast majority of columns were still standing before collapse. You do the math.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Amazing how this topic just will not die


I know my "simple" view of d'a planes crashing inot the buildings (full of fuel) made the building fall. But I do have the proof......(take a look at the endless amount of movies on the net)....if this is not enough proof then I can't help you.....with suppling more info, that's not my specialty....(Howard more the man for that).

I'm def. not "trying" to put anyone down...or state if you'r not in the industry of construction you don't know anything....just trying t'a state the only real people to discuss this topic (with the proof the everyone want on here) are the Structural Engineers who would have min. 20 years in the buisness (and I mean an Owner or go-rooo in the industry). But for "us" "hackers" trying to "attempt" to have "proof" either way is just crazy......basicly "we all" no hardly anything about the structural engineering (esp. that building of all buildings) (hope that clears it up a bit). And def. not trying to "diss" anyone. And doing Architecture to grade 13 don't cut it....(esp. since i've seen many Arch/Eng. coming from University/College that are not very good)

And again I personly feel the planes created the situation to bring the buildings down......and the power that was created as it fell is what created the "dust" (i know the plane did not create the dust).

And the explosions at the "below grade" areas.......go back thru' the notes posted and re-read.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Uhmmm.............


In a twist of irony..
The person that said that was Sven himself, Misfit.
quote:
quote: Maybe we should have you show what you do for a living and if you have any experience in this field of construction let alone "structural" desings...and Architect DO NOT have the no how to design structural...that why they have structural engineers to desing and approve it.


You want a resume so people can post. Your statements here show me how high on a pedestal you have placed yourself.

I have 20yrs, multi-facet. Bridging was my fav.

There's your fukkin' resume'

Misfit

Sven could at least offer some kind of references to what he says, or source some evidence or something. All he has offered thus far are his personal opinions alone, and while an engineer could make some valuable contribution here even with opinions, unfortunately he's shown himself an exception to this possibility, I think.

OK he has experience with "multi-facet" and Bridging is y'r fav......so what?

What about High-Rise Building over 80 storeys high? What project has he worked on that is over 20 levels high....or even over 10....till I see proofe (resume or web page would do) that this person has any experience with HIGH RISE buildings esp. STRUCTURAL design in a "VERY" different type of Building then anyother?

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
We've covered fireproofing. Steel can hold its own in weak fires without fireproofing, and there is no evidence of fires being beyond 700 or 800 degrees Celsius at any point. As the fires went on, they actually cooled as well. You don't need fireproofing to protect steel from that, man.
***********
Uhmm (again) how do we know the temp. of the fire "unless you w'r there", plus if not mistaken th'r a picture showing "MELTING STEEL" "Driping" from the fire.


***********
Further, I did respond to your post, and asked you to look up weight redistribution and over-engineering and try to tie those two things in with your excuse of no fireproofing. They won't fit, and yet the WTC Towers were built to accomodate both over-engineering and weight redistribution, just as every single freaking skyscraper that's built is. The vast majority of columns were still standing before collapse. You do the math.

*************
Again how you know the "exact" number of coloums left standing (unless you w'r there to count) and sorry some picture from the outside does not cut it.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Hey howard, I noticed in the pics you posted a rather conspicuous lack of the corosive scaling we discussed in the other thread. No Scaling means the beams you pictured here weren't in the raging inferno were they? Twisted, neatly segmented fragments of beams with no thermal scaling on them at all. The twisting of the smaller beams is common in the most perfect of controlled demolitions, isn't it? Nice pictures, but you might as well show shards of broken glass, they would be just as evidenced.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
Uhmm (again) how do we know the temp. of the fire "unless you w'r there", plus if not mistaken th'r a picture showing "MELTING STEEL" "Driping" from the fire.


It's not too hard to figure out roughly what the temperatures would have been. I mean this isn't the first time buildings and jet fuel have clashed.

Also the colour of the smoke is a BIG give away...
Do you notice the black smoke?
Means 2 things, oxygen starved and low temperature.
The majority of the jet fuel burned up on impact, that's what that big fireball was.
No, nobody has seen any melting steel dripping from the fire, and even if they did it does not mean the fire cause that melting. See previous posts on Thermite.
What you think is melting steel is probably aluminium...
But even if the temps on the few floors that were on fire reached 10,000 degrees, the buildings would not have collapsed the way they did.
Especially not 3 times on the same day.



Again how you know the "exact" number of coluonis left standing (unless you w'r there to count) and sorry some picture from the outside does not cut it.


And so what? The columns in building 7 suffered NO DAMAGE from from flying aircraft. Yet it fell also.

So it's either, the planes and fire combined that did it?...
But no, it can't be that because of building 7. How do you explain building 7. So OK, you say buildings 1 and 2 fall due to planes and fire?
You say it took both events, because you know the fire alone DID NOT GET HOT ENOUGH, right? That's been pretty much proved. So it had to be the combination of both, right? If you agree then I ask again, what happened to building 7?

Building 7 puts a BIG hole in all the arguments.

Interesting look at the collapse...(pls use caution, it might make you think!)

davesweb.cnchost.com...

home.debitel.net...

[edit on 1/8/2005 by ANOK]




top topics



 
4
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join