WTC Challenge

page: 51
3
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Natural gas lines? What? Last time I checked gas explodes when extreme heat is applied to it.


Where was the extreme heat in the lobby???? There was a MASSIVE explosion in the lobby or below seconds BEFORE collapsing of the towers.

Even firefighters on the recent tapes reported explosions going off.

~Peace
~




posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Where was the extreme heat in the lobby???? There was a MASSIVE explosion in the lobby or below seconds BEFORE collapsing of the towers.

Even firefighters on the recent tapes reported explosions going off.

~Peace
~


muslim magic my friend, muslim magic!

if the floors collapse, wouldn't the support beams stay in tact or fall near in tact off to the sides or break of in massive parts?

also, no one seems to be able to be able to explain why was the concrete disintegrated?
unique situation my ass



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Another point here Howard is the fact that if the floor did infact fail, it would have failed where it attached to the outer structure and the inner 36 inch thick beams. There were 47 of these going all the way up.


36” beams allr the way up! Where did you come up with that?




How does a floor collapsing (they do that quite often in a fire) take the rest of the building with it? [/quote

In conventional girder systems, the floor is largely independent of the structural frame. Those types of buildings achieve their wind bracing from either diagonal bracing or from stiffened, masonry core structures (like the Winsor towers, BTW). The WTC tower structure was different, it received it’s stiffness from a combination of the exterior walls and the interior floors. Without the interior floors to stiffen them, the exterior walls were prone to buckling. This is what happened.


The main structural columns in the middle would still bear the 30 to 40 floors above it.


No. The core area only supported about half of the building’s gravity loads. The rest were supported by the exterior columns. The two sets of columns were interconnected via the hat truss on the top of the building.


If I remember right they designed that building so the outer structure and floor can move from wind without the inner core moving as much.


That is impossible. If the outer structure and the floors moved while the core did not, the flors would buckle and break free from the core area. The whole building moved as a single unit.


The point is you could have multiple floors collapse while the building still holds its strength.


in a conventional box framed building, maybe. The WTC towers were a bundled tube style construction.


You said in an earlier post it was the inner core that failed, when that was proven to be impossible you shifted to this theory. Stop changing your story to fit your argument. We on the other hand have been consistant.


I don’t remember saying that it was just the core area. I believe that I said that it was a combination of all factors. The increasing loss of load bearing capability of the exterior walls due to the exterior buckling, plus the impact and fire damage to the floor slabs, and the exterior and core columns eventually reached a point where the entire structure became unstable and a global collapse ensued.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

There is no way that the aluminum facade pieces could have buckled INWARD if the columns were not buckled also.


I'm sure a dislocated aluminum covering could move in any direction it was inclined to.


Once again I ask: how could the have moved INWARD into the building. There was only a couple of inches at the most between the columns and the exterior façade. Examination of the photographs indicate that some of these moved inward over 4 feet!

How could they have moved inward 4 feet if the column was just a few inches inside of it?


And I'm sure there were "buckled" columns near the impact-damaged regions for obvious reasons.


The photograph that I posted is of the south face of WTC 1. The aircraft impacted the North face. The only impact damage to the south face is where the landing gear knocked a column tree outward and into the street. So any inward buckling in this area is due to structural deformations, not as a direct result of the impact. In fact photographs don't show the buckling untill just before the collapse.

here is an interesting (although a bit technical) primer on buckling. Note that the building would have most likely behaved like a shell in terms of the walls buckling.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

How could they have moved inward 4 feet if the column was just a few inches inside of it?


I just said I have my reasonable doubts, because the aluminum came off the steel out the kazoo that day, and all you can see in the pic is aluminum. This is the last time I'm responding to this. We're repeating ourselves.

Even if that section did buckle, why would that cause a whole building to collapse? It certainly does not look like it was a very widespread occurance, if such columns actually are showing buckling. If such minor incidents can cause whole, massive buildings to collapse, then I must say Howard, that structural engineers quite frankly blow enormously at their jobs and we should never build another skyscraper again for the sake of human life.

I don't think I've seen you comment on the fact that these collapses are not reproducible either. That means, in labs, or anywhere, no progressive collapse has ever been reproduced. You can try models made out of whatever you like, or even a whole building if you have access and want to try, but scientists can not reproduce the collapses we saw three times on 9/11, going by the official story alone.

Why do you think this is, Howard? Is it because your explanations of buckling and "hot" fires won't account for such a collapse in reality? Usually when something is scientifically accurate, it is reproducible. After all, what is our science based on but repeated experiments? And your explanation isn't reproducible. It doesn't work. You're chucking rocks at a car and expecting it to explode.

The Progressive Collapse Challenge.

Have at it, Howie.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Even if that section did buckle, why would that cause a whole building to collapse?


Simple, because buckled columns are no longer supporting the loads that they were designed to support. Therefore those loads were transferred to the other columns on that floor. So now the remaining columns on the floor (both core columns and exterior columns) have to carry the loads that hey were designed to do, PLUSS the loads formerly carried by the columns damaged by the airplane impact, PLUSS the loads formerly carried by the buckled columns. As the buckling gets worse, those remaining columns will reach a point where they will fail completely and instantaneously.


It certainly does not look like it was a very widespread occurance, if such columns actually are showing buckling.
That is because when it got worse, the building collapsed.


If such minor incidents can cause whole, massive buildings to collapse, then I must say Howard, that structural engineers quite frankly blow enormously at their jobs and we should never build another skyscraper again for the sake of human life.


If any skyscraper in the world had columns that were 36 inches out of plane, the building would be instantly condemned.


I don't think I've seen you comment on the fact that these collapses are not reproducible either. That means, in labs, or anywhere, no progressive collapse has ever been reproduced.


They were reproduced by each other.

I believe that they have been accurately reproduced by computer modeling.

Scale models don’t work very well, because you can never get the exact same strength to weight ratios as a real building, and as for a real building, the WTC towers were unique.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   


Even if that section did buckle, why would that cause a whole building to collapse?


Simple, because buckled columns are no longer supporting the loads that they were designed to support.


Gah, I've heard about enough of this cock and bull. I shouldn't have asked.


Squibs, squibs, squibs....


That is because when it got worse, the building collapsed.


When I watch the videos, this isn't how I see a collapse initiating. But then again, according to you, the videos themselves are somehow misleading.
I don't see how they could be, but I guess I should just turn to a government agency to tell me what *really* happened anyway.



I believe that they have been accurately reproduced by computer modeling.


Then you could at least reproduce that if NIST was being totally honest and open, ie, scientific, right? I mean, didn't they tell you exactly how they did it so you can go and try it yourself to see whether or not they're lying? If so, then what's stopping you?

Well, we'll be waiting for you to dish out the info to us so we can all try it ourselves, Howard. That is, if you can get it to work at all, and source where your critical info came from, etc. I don't think anybody but NIST has so far, which is somewhat suspicious to me at least.



Scale models don’t work very well, because you can never get the exact same strength to weight ratios as a real building, and as for a real building, the WTC towers were unique.


Already wiping your own tail for knowing that you can't reproduce the collapses?

I didn't think it would be that hard to reproduce a progressive collapse, seeing as how three easily happened in one day.

But then again...

something doesn't add up here anyway:







[edit on 17-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

They were reproduced by each other.



Case closed, mr Howard proved we're wrong.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
so due to the failure, of let's say roughly in the radius of 10 floors, this total failure in support on those floors were enough to perfectly put the entire floors below it in a free-fall without any resistance what so ever?

is this correct? i'm no knowledgeable physicists but im not stupid either. if a few floors gave way, the supporting floors should somewhat slow or stop the collapse of the higher floors especially if they are a sufficient amount of floors below compared to the amount on top don't you think?

i need to get in contact with some building architects and constructors to get their take on the event provided with this information. if anyone already has some comments, please post. and please do not post any that comment on the official story but their own take on it. will be appreciated.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
If the collapse of the Twin Towers was a normal collapse, you wouldn't have pieces of the building laying in their own footprint. In a normal collapse, you would have pieces of the building scattered over a large area for several city blocks. Even though the Windsor Tower in Spain was built differently, it was constructed with the same material like what was in the towers.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
If the collapse of the Twin Towers was a normal collapse, you wouldn't have pieces of the building laying in their own footprint. In a normal collapse, you would have pieces of the building scattered over a large area for several city blocks. Even though the Windsor Tower in Spain was built differently, it was constructed with the same material like what was in the towers.


Wait a minute; I thought the fact that there were pieces of the building flying all over the place when it collapsed was supposed to be evidence that “explosives” were used. Now you are saying that it the collapse wasn't normal because pieces of the building didn’t fly all over the place.

Which is it?




posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
If you spread the weight to 4 walls and the center column, instead of just the center column, it would even be more magic for a progressive collapse to occur.


That is precisely the reason that the buildings did not collapse when they were first struck, the structure was able to redistribute the loads from the damaged columns to other undamaged columns.

[

Because the fires would have to be as hot at the center, plus all four walls/corners.

Actually the fire had to heat up the floor slabs until they began to sag and fail.


And even IF that occured, the central column would still be there to slow it down, tip it over, anything but dissapearing into thin air.


By “central columns” is take it you mean the are structure, which is composed of a number of columns and beams.




Originally posted by Conspicuouz
so due to the failure, of let's say roughly in the radius of 10 floors, this total failure in support on those floors were enough to perfectly put the entire floors below it in a free-fall without any resistance what so ever?

is this correct? i'm no knowledgeable physicists but im not stupid either. if a few floors gave way, the supporting floors should somewhat slow or stop the collapse of the higher floors especially if they are a sufficient amount of floors below compared to the amount on top don't you think?

i need to get in contact with some building architects and constructors to get their take on the event provided with this information. if anyone already has some comments, please post. and please do not post any that comment on the official story but their own take on it. will be appreciated.



OK, since you both seem to be asking essentially the same question, I will try to answer it the best I can.

1) Momentum of the falling mass. No one can deny that as the top part of the building dropped downward, it rapidly built up a staggering amount of momentum. I’ll grant you that this falling mass was somewhat elastic, in that it could absorb some of the impact with the floors below, but, the overwhelming downward motion of the mass would have crushed everything in it’s path.

2) This was a buckling failure. As the initial columns buckled and broke, they twisted the columns that they were attached to so that they too buckled and failed. You could almost visualize it as a “wave” of buckling steel progressing down the building followed by the falling mass. In fact, the falling mass would have pushed the walls outward, breaking them away from the floors below. Most of the breakage occurred at the bolted connections. That is why you had column sections that were 30 feet long afterwards.

3) The collapse of the buildings was not a perfect free fall by any means, at least not at the start. It just looked that way because the dust and debris that fell on the outside of the building envelope DID freefall, obscuring the actual progress of the collapse of the bulk of the building mass. I think that there is probably a 1 or 2 second difference between the actual collapse time and a true free fall. That may not seem like much, but it wouldn’t have taken that long for the top of the structure to build up enough momentum to make any resistance of the lower part a moot point.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Wait a minute; I thought the fact that there were pieces of the building flying all over the place when it collapsed was supposed to be evidence that “explosives” were used. Now you are saying that it the collapse wasn't normal because pieces of the building didn’t fly all over the place.


What you could've expected from a gravity-driven collapse:

The building to fall in some way other than straight down upon itself, ie, towards the missing columns, which would've provided the least resistance to gravity (like how a tree would fall with a big cut in its side). This would create a center of mass for the debris somewhere other than the footprint, as a huge chunk would've just fallen off sideways.

What you can't expect from a gravity-driven collapse:

Shards of the steel columns being shot out to unprecedented distances from the collapsing building, while the building itself falls right down onto its footprint, taking out everything below on its way down.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I’ll grant you that this falling mass was somewhat elastic, in that it could absorb some of the impact with the floors below, but, the overwhelming downward motion of the mass would have crushed everything in it’s path.


This is impossible howward, physically impossible for this to happen.

The only way that could happen is if the top portion of the building was heavier than the bottom. And we all should agree it wasn't.
In fact the support structures got thinner to wards the top.
And what overwhelming downward motion? If it collapsed from weakened floors plates on certain floors where did the "overwhelming downward force"come from?
If a concrete slab falls on another concrete slab it will not pulverise it into dust.

And again I see you're changing your story. What is it, aircraft impact, fire melting the columns, fire melting the floor slabs(?)...LOL

Take care agent howwerd...



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Originally posted by Hector
The pilots at Otis had warnings of the hijacking BEFORE NORAD was notified. (See page 365, 368, 369 of The Terror Timeline) Boston Flight Controlled contacted Otis directly between 8:34 and 8:40 AM. They took off before CNN coverage of the story broke (8:48 AM) and headed directly toward NYC.
"NORAD claims the first fighters are scrambled before the first WTC hit." (8:46AM) page 376 The Terror Timeline.


I'm not sure where that info is from? Can you post a link.


"An F-15 departing from Otis can reach New York City in ten to twelve minutes, according to an Otis spokeswoman." Page 380 TTT



~Peace :Cool:~


These references are from "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson and the Center for Cooperative Research. Do a search for "Otis" and you may find the link.
www.cooperativeresearch.org...



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Natural gas lines? What? Last time I checked gas explodes when extreme heat is applied to it.


Where was the extreme heat in the lobby???? There was a MASSIVE explosion in the lobby or below seconds BEFORE collapsing of the towers.

Even firefighters on the recent tapes reported explosions going off.

~Peace
~


The extreme heat in the lobby came from the explosion at WTC 6 at 9:03 AM which was next to tower WTC 1.

Jules Naudet saw two persons on fire (to his right) as he entered the lobby.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hector

The extreme heat in the lobby came from the explosion at WTC 6 at 9:03 AM which was next to tower WTC 1.

Jules Naudet saw two persons on fire (to his right) as he entered the lobby.


Yeah from a neighbouring building... and we're the conspiracy theorists ?



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by Hector

The extreme heat in the lobby came from the explosion at WTC 6 at 9:03 AM which was next to tower WTC 1.

Jules Naudet saw two persons on fire (to his right) as he entered the lobby.


Yeah from a neighbouring building... and we're the conspiracy theorists ?


Yeah, that doesn't even half explain the witness accounts, especially the firefighter account of hats being blown off in a huge gust of air from below. Neither natural gas nor Building 6 even begin to explain that problem away.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The building to fall in some way other than straight down upon itself, ie, towards the missing columns, which would've provided the least resistance to gravity (like how a tree would fall with a big cut in its side). This would create a center of mass for the debris somewhere other than the footprint, as a huge chunk would've just fallen off sideways.



The building was 200 feet wide. THis would mean that the top of the building would have to rotate over 100 feet laterally. The structure would have never been able to cope with the stresses of that.





What you can't expect from a gravity-driven collapse:

Shards of the steel columns being shot out to unprecedented distances from the collapsing building, while the building itself falls right down onto its footprint, taking out everything below on its way down.


I've already addresses the footprint issue.

As for the steel shooting out, there were a lot of torsional forces on the individual components. When some of the bolts broke, those pieces shot out like arrows.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Howard look at the video of the collapse a few more times. The top portion of the building is nearly obliderated before it gets to the half way point of its fall. There is not hardly any mass left at that point and the top portion has nearly turned to dust. How does it keep faling after most of its mass is pulverized.

No person that is thinking straight can justify those building collapsing after seeing the video of them falling a few times. Its like the people that believe what they have been told instead of what they witnessed are under some wierd brainwashing, like zombies repeting the same thing over and over without really seeing whats going on while they whach the video.





top topics
 
3
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join