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.

 

The Progressive Collapse Challenge

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul


Anyhow, I'm gonna shoot this guy an email back.. any questions you want me to ask?

[edit on 8/27/2005 by QuietSoul]


Is it possible to do a demolition wirelessly?

How do they know if all the charges go off or not?

What happens if a charge fails to go off and the buildings falls anyway?

Would it be possible to rig up a building so that the sounds of the explosives going off would not be noticed from a few blocks away?

How would you place a cutting charge on a box column if you only had access to one face of that column?

If you put a cutting charge on one face of a 12 inch box column that was strong enough to sever that column, how far would the shrapnel fly?

What does a steel beem look like after it has been cut by an explosive charge.

What is the long term stability of the explosives used in demolition projects?




[edit on 27-8-2005 by HowardRoark]




posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by QuietSoul


Anyhow, I'm gonna shoot this guy an email back.. any questions you want me to ask?

[edit on 8/27/2005 by QuietSoul]


Is it possible to do a demolition wirelessly?

How do they know if all the charges go off or not?

What happens if a charge fails to go off and the buildings falls anyway?

Would it be possible to rig up a building so that the sounds of the explosives going off would not be noticed from a few blocks away?

How would you place a cutting charge on a box column if you only had access to one face of that column?

If you put a cutting charge on one face of a 12 inch box column that was strong enough to sever that column, how far would the shrapnel fly?

What does a steel beem look like after it has been cut by an explosive charge.

What is the long term stability of the explosives used in demolition projects?
[edit on 27-8-2005 by HowardRoark]


Keep em coming, I'll send him an email tomarrow with all your questions..

Anyhow, to add to the thread some, I found a nice link regarding different type of explosives..

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Maybe you should post the responses in the "witness" (aka, the "why aren't the conspirators fessing up?") thread, as the opinions of this man have nothing to do with reproducing WTC-like collapses to objectively prove their assertions.

But to help you out, Howard, yes, demolitions can be done remotely.

www.asse.org...

It is not crucial that all charges go off to get a job done (weren't undetonated charges taken from the collapse Murrah Building?
), or that they even go off at the right time (the demolition definition of a squib). It is entirely possible that unconventional methods were used to bring down the towers. Further, witnesses reported loud, steady "metallic roars" as the buildings collapsed, despite how poorly the mics picked up the sound, and the demolition charges could've easily been placed the week before the attacks when Marvin Bush's company laxed security, which would effectively make the issue of their longetivity irrelevant.

So why not get back on topic about now, and pump out some simulations from SAP2000?



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
I am aware that no one in the industry has experience with buildings this big. However, I have demolished several structures over , say 200 Ft., by tilting them a few degrees and removing the bottom 25 feet or so. They accelerate that distance under the influence of gravity...and they keep right on going.. Most crush themselves with no apparent slow-down.

Yes, I often prepare some upper levels of some structures. but it looks to me like the WTC buildings went down on their own ........no advance prep ...no explosives,...none of that


Are you kidding? Before you all start patting yourselfs on the back re-read that quote.

I'll help you with a clue...

'removing the bottom 25 feet or so"

How does that explain your theory that damage to UPPER floors caused the building to collapse like a controlled demo?

Or DID explosives remove the lower floors?

Which point are you trying to make?

Nice try but ya gotta get up early bud.

[edit on 27/8/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
Anyhow, I'm gonna shoot this guy an email back.. any questions you want me to ask?


Have you ever worked with C4 or military-grade explosives before? How do they differ from conventional demolition explosives?

Imagine for a moment that the WTC towers were indeed brought down with explosives, what kind of explosive would you surmise it was done with?

If you severed 10% or less of the support columns near the top of a steel frame building whose core had a load-bearing redundancy of 500-600%, would the building then collapse down to the ground?

If you severed some exterior columns and core columns on only one side of a building such that the building collapsed, will the building collapse tilt to one side or will it fall straight down in a symmetrical collapse. Will the entire floor where the columns were severed collapse symmetrically and simultaneously, the unbroken columns included?

Conventional controlled demolition works by severing a building's supports and then letting gravity do the rest, correct? In your experience in the industry, have you ever seen a steel frame building completely collapse, all its support columns severed, all of its concrete exploded into fine powder and spread into a giant dust cloud several kilometers in width, and 80% all of its exterior columns being blasted outside of the building's footprint, just under gravity alone with no explosives to help it?

If molten steel was found in the basement of a collapsed building where the foundation was, what technology or explosive could possibly cause this? Would the presence of molten steel be unusual for a building that collapsed under gravity alone?

Have you ever seen the footage of WTC7's collapse? Does this look like a conventional controlled demolition to you or not?

WTC7 exhibited a perfectly symmetrical collapse supposedly because of relatively small fires on a couple of levels. How do you summise this occured? Do you think in the future setting buildings on fire could be a cheaper method of demolishing buildings than the current method of using explosives?

Imagine for a moment that you were contracted to demolish the WTC towers, how would you approach the job? How would you do it?

===============================================

I have plenty more questions, but I don't want to swamp the poor guy. If he can answer these I'd be very grateful and will have many more for him.

[edit on 2005-8-27 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I don't know how in the world I've missed this thread for this long!


lol

This is actually a great idea. I have one issue with one of the challenges though:


CHALLENGE #4:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is also capable of withstanding a 100 MPH wind without collapsing. The structure has to be closed in the sense that it cannot allow air to pass through it.


This challenge shows that the people who have written these challenges can't accept the scientific models because these people haven't got enough understanding of physical science to know a right answer from a wrong answer.

The "100 mph wind" challenge can only apply if you totally reconstruct one of the WTC towers at the exact same dimensions and out of the exact same materials. If you scale the model down at all, you must also adjust the wind speed through similitude.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

This challenge shows that the people who have written these challenges can't accept the scientific models because these people haven't got enough understanding of physical science to know a right answer from a wrong answer.

The "100 mph wind" challenge can only apply if you totally reconstruct one of the WTC towers at the exact same dimensions and out of the exact same materials. If you scale the model down at all, you must also adjust the wind speed through similitude.


That part of the challenge is pretty reasonable, because while the building came down so effortlessly, it was also capable of withstanding very harsh winds without damage. So, if you were likewise able to construct a model that could come down so easily, while tossing out its material in every conceivable direction, it would only be fair if that same structure was like the WTC in its ability to withstand harsh winds simultaneously.

But.. I guess I'll let you guys adjust the wind speed, too, if you'd like. I don't know how you could adjust that number while keeping proportion, but if you can figure it out and post it, then have at it. I really am going easy with you guys on this challenge, though. I'm already allowing computer simulations with attached procedures. If you can post the mathematics to go about adjusting the wind speed, go ahead and I'll edit the challenge accordingly.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
Anyhow, I'm gonna shoot this guy an email back.. any questions you want me to ask?


One more question for this guy:

If you were contracted to demolish the WTC towers but had to make it look like it collapsed by itself from the top down, how would you do it?

[edit on 2005-8-27 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Are you kidding? Before you all start patting yourselfs on the back re-read that quote.

I'll help you with a clue...

'removing the bottom 25 feet or so"

How does that explain your theory that damage to UPPER floors caused the building to collapse like a controlled demo?

Or DID explosives remove the lower floors?

Which point are you trying to make?

Nice try but ya gotta get up early bud.

[edit on 27/8/2005 by ANOK]


I'm not trying to make any point, it wasnt written by me. It was written by someone that has alot more experience in the field then you, me, or anyone else on this board. The email doesnt say much at all, but for you to come here and pop a gasket over it really shows your true characteristics.



Edit Addition: I just sent the email with all your questions to the gentleman that does demolitions at 8pm EST Saturday.. ill post if i get a response

[edit on 8/27/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

That part of the challenge is pretty reasonable, because while the building came down so effortlessly, it was also capable of withstanding very harsh winds without damage. So, if you were likewise able to construct a model that could come down so easily, while tossing out its material in every conceivable direction, it would only be fair if that same structure was like the WTC in its ability to withstand harsh winds simultaneously.

But.. I guess I'll let you guys adjust the wind speed, too, if you'd like. I don't know how you could adjust that number while keeping proportion, but if you can figure it out and post it, then have at it. I really am going easy with you guys on this challenge, though. I'm already allowing computer simulations with attached procedures. If you can post the mathematics to go about adjusting the wind speed, go ahead and I'll edit the challenge accordingly.


I'll give you the Reynold's number equation to adjust the windspeed due to the change in the characteristic dimensions. That's all you need. Be back later with that.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Maybe these will help you out some?



or



or



en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.efunda.com...
www.processassociates.com...

Thought those might help some for those looking into this matter. I don't know that much about it, but a Google search turned up those formulas and pages detailing them, etc.



So then, anybody have any progress to report with the simulations or models?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I'll give you the Reynold's number equation to adjust the windspeed due to the change in the characteristic dimensions. That's all you need. Be back later with that.


the blast from the explosion blew out most of the windows on the floors hit. This would have created less wind resistance by allowing the wind to flow through the towers and out the other side.

make sure you calculate that in too =)



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04

Originally posted by Valhall
I'll give you the Reynold's number equation to adjust the windspeed due to the change in the characteristic dimensions. That's all you need. Be back later with that.


the blast from the explosion blew out most of the windows on the floors hit. This would have created less wind resistance by allowing the wind to flow through the towers and out the other side.

make sure you calculate that in too =)


Cool, cheers mate, you just gave a good piece of evidence on how the fires got enough air to allow them to get up to temperature.. Noted...



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by senseless04

Originally posted by Valhall
I'll give you the Reynold's number equation to adjust the windspeed due to the change in the characteristic dimensions. That's all you need. Be back later with that.


the blast from the explosion blew out most of the windows on the floors hit. This would have created less wind resistance by allowing the wind to flow through the towers and out the other side.

make sure you calculate that in too =)


Cool, cheers mate, you just gave a good piece of evidence on how the fires got enough air to allow them to get up to temperature.. Noted...



Wow, now if only we could get that max temp up to 1500C or so.. stupid physics, always in our way.

The WTC steel met the astm-e119 standards which require it to be submitted to 1100C for SEVERAL hours before structural integrity of ANY kind is lost. Kevin Ryan from UL sent a letter to Frank Gayle of the national institute of standards and technology and argued that all the components in the WTC met those specifications. He says "this story just does not add up, if steel from those buildings did soften or melt, im sure we can all agree that it was not due to jet fuel fires of any kind. let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of grave concern to all americans. Alternativly, the contention that these towers did fall around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths were due to a safety related feature. That suggestion should be of grave concern to my company."

UL (underwriters labratories) have to approve safety of pretty much every product sold.




[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Kevin Ryan was also subsequently fired for sending that letter, and had NOTHING to do with the fire safety devision of UL. He opened his mouth, and made it sound like he was writing for UL, when he didn't have the authority, or position to do anything of the sort, and was terminated for it.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Kevin Ryan was also subsequently fired for sending that letter, and had NOTHING to do with the fire safety devision of UL. He opened his mouth, and made it sound like he was writing for UL, when he didn't have the authority, or position to do anything of the sort, and was terminated for it.


He was an engineer found compitent enough to work for them. That says something in itself.





[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
]Ωèžç©Ω╓╔IçšP╤¼♥~╢Å◘

[edit on 28/8/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Just because he was fired it does not discredit what he said.

In fact he was probably fired because he was telling the truth.

And Agent Smith old chap, even if the wind did blow through open windows the fact that the smoke is black shows the fire was oxygen starved and burning at a low temperature.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
He might have a little more credibility if he actually had worked in the FIREPROOFING division, or SOMETHING related to fire. He was in a water related department, now what does that have to do with fire, except the best way to put out fire? Just because he worked for UL doesn't automatically mean he knows everything about everything.
I could say that I work for UL, and I know what I'm talking about and be a janitor.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Senseless,

Don't be surprised if Howard shows up next, telling you about how the standards no longer applied to the WTC set-up once the fireproofing was knocked off.

He'd love for you to believe that steel practically becomes aluminum without its fireproofing.



And Agent Smith old chap, even if the wind did blow through open windows the fact that the smoke is black shows the fire was oxygen starved and burning at a low temperature.


Yep.


Similarly there is no evidence that the fires "got up to temperature" much beyond 800 degrees at any given time, for any length of time. More likely they hovered around 600 degrees for the majority of the time, until they started dying, etc. The South Tower's fires were barely putting out any smoke at all by the time of its collapse. But if you think that's somehow a sign of horrible, raging infernos..




top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join