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.

 

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:
XL5

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Once you weaken a structure and go beyond the max load of the supports, stuff happens! Bricks are solid, trees are soild, buildings with solid supports in them are not solid anymore, they become like cars. Cars are not meant to be rolling bricks and the un-crumpled parts crumple faster then the crumpled parts.

Find the amount of bricks it takes to start to flex/buckle a pop can and then heat it to 400Deg. C. I use the pop can example to show that metal can be crushed downward.

Why aren't all the demolition and structural Eng.s going after bush and rising a stink?




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I would like to just repost these pictures of the inward bowing of the exterior faces of both towers shortly before they each respectively collapsed.



and

external image

Please note that what is significant about these photos is that they show the failure of not just a few columns, but the buckling failure of an entire structural system, namely the exterior wall column structure.


I find it interesting that NIST did not take into account two things that have a bearing on any conclusions arrived at based on these images. One is lens distortion, and the other is light refraction due to heat.

I've done the same as NIST and put straight lines in line with the base of the columns in the photo below:



If you look at the columns on the right, you will see that they deflect enormously to the right from their original line. But wait, look to the left and you'll see the columns deflecting to the left! Well I must say, judging by this photo it's no wonder the towers collapsed since they were bending and bowing all over the place, but what's truly puzzling is why they didn't split in two straight down the middle like a split log!

And look at this car driving over a hot road:



It seems that the wheels on this vehicle are grossly out of shape. Quick, call NIST and let them know there's an impending car crash they may need to investigate!

Does this prove that there was no column bowing at all and that it was all due to lens distortion and light refraction from heat? No. Does it indicate that the column bowing was likely not as pronounced as NIST would have us believe from these photographs? You betcha.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
WeComeInPeace....or anyone

Do you happen to have any kind of blueprints for the WTC buildings? All three would be great. I know that the blueprints are being hidden but anything to help me out in figuring the construction of the building would be great.

What I'm trying to figure out is the interior columns' strength in compression.

I can understand the "pancaking" effect on the floor supports and outer columns, but if this structure is actually falling in on itself, then the interior columns would withstand the compressive force because there is nothing really to compress them after the caps are destroyed.....because the only thing left to compress the inner columns would be the floors....but the supports are suppossedly not strong enough to support the added weight, so therefore there is NOTHING left to compress these huge columns into dust. I don't know how to import a sketch onto here or I would draw a sketch to illustrate this. Think about it....if you have a tube within a tube, the floors and the outer tube I could see "pancaking" but the inner tube will not be under the amount of pressure needed to fully blast them apart into dust.....just wouldn't happen.

That's why I want to figure out the compression strenght of the materials they used for the inner core. To do this, I need heights and diameters, etc.

BTW, the inner core columns WOULD act like trees...thats what they essentially are is steel trees....a tall straight object that is larger at the base and smaller at the top. These columns would topple at the cap NOT dissintegrate IMO.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Hey, MacMerdin,

You are correct, the feds are holding the blueprints close to their chest and refuse to release them, which speaks volumes. There are many 9-11 investigators who posit the construction of the towers in certain elements was in fact different to that portrayed by FEMA and NIST. However their evidence is usually based on unclear photographs and such, so unfortunately the only description of the towers' construction we have to go by is NIST's.

You can find their reports on the WTC towers and WTC7 here:
wtc.nist.gov...

A complete listing of reports here:

wtc.nist.gov...

Assessing the construction of the towers, you would be best to start with this one:
NIST - WTC: Project 2—Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis

These are reports on the steel:

wtc.nist.gov...

wtc.nist.gov...

Be warned, the files are large.

[edit on 2005-11-18 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Well this is it now isnt it. an actual scientist with credible knowledge and real evidence to back up his claims has opposed the official story.

The flood gates are open, you know full well what people are like, everyone is afraid to be the first to do anything but after one does it everyone is going to follow.

Lets just hope the real evidence turns out to be less elaborate than the anecdotal evidence (aka, Bush did it, the plane pieces were planted etc) weve had so far.

I also am looking forward if and when , hopefully proper scientific analysis of 9/11 by structural engineers, scientists, demolition experts, physicists etc produce computer simulations of the planes crashing (logically even to me i get an image of that plane crumpling into nothing leaving a small dent, but im not the expert now am I, so lets just wait and see shall we).

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Silverstein Development Corporation, will have them. Your best bet is to cough up to get them as they are public domain items. If they refuse to sell them to you or to give them to you...that in itself raises many questions.

Here is an interesting article which is worth a read.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
I also am looking forward if and when , hopefully proper scientific analysis of 9/11 by structural engineers, scientists, demolition experts, physicists etc produce computer simulations of the planes crashing (logically even to me i get an image of that plane crumpling into nothing leaving a small dent, but im not the expert now am I, so lets just wait and see shall we).


NIST did in fact do this, but they did not test for explosives, there were no demolition experts consulted, and the collapse mechanism itself was not investigated nor described. Only the fires, the plane impacts, and the collapse initiation were described. Secondly, they started with a conclusion as to the cause of the collapses (i.e "the fires did it") and then worked backwards; flying in the face of established scientific practice. Furthermore, NIST's crystal ball computer modelling of the fires and impact damage do not match with observed data.

For example, NIST's computers predicted steel column exposure to temperatures upward of 800-1000degC, however the testing they conducted on core columns recovered from the wreckage directly contradicts this, showing that none of them were exposed to temperatures in excess of 250degC, and none of the perimeter columns were exposed to temperatures in excess of 600degC for any significant time. They have buried this information deep in their reports, but it's there if you really look:

NIST Report NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel


E.3.6 Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel - p43
Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.
These areas were:
• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector
Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.



6.6.3 Metallographic Analysis of Elements Exposed to Fire - p147
Finally, in the several [exterior] columns with known pre-collapse fire exposure, metallographic analysis provided no conclusive evidence that the steel exceeded 625 °C, based on calibrations in furnace exposure studies of WTC steel reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-3E.



6.8.5 Fire Exposure of Exterior Panel Sections - p149
Based on microstructural analysis of the recovered structural steel, there was no evidence indicating that the pre-collapse fires were severe enough to affect the steel microstructure of these pieces. Based upon this evidence, it is believed that no steel was recovered which experienced temperature excursions above 600 °C for any significant length of time as a result of the pre-collapse fires.



6.8.6 Fire Exposure of Core Columns - p149
Two of the core columns with as-built locations in the fire-affected floors were examined for paint cracking. The few areas with sufficient paint for analysis did not show mud cracking patterns, indicating the columns did not exceed 250 °C. (It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core).


But what is needed is an independent investigation, not a report by a government institution fitting the facts around a preconceived conclusion.

[edit on 2005-11-18 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Its so baffling.


  • Various things already discussed state that an aeroplane should have brought down the twin towers, as in short "demolition workers would be out of a job, all theyd have to do is knock out a few support beams" and many more statements like that, some accurate, some not, but it would take decades to dscuss each point in depth.

  • We know, most blatantly obvious, that a plane hit each of the towers, thats a fact disregarding wild theories of holographic planes etc.

  • The scientist on which the topic surrounds himself stated that basic physics tells him there had to be some other factor.

  • An aluminium plane connot take down a building of that size, that is just any intellent persons common sense, which is one reason why there is a conspirical argument in the first place!!! If a plane carrying crates of potassium, no one would even think of having this question, there wouldnt be the slightest notion that we were being lied to (a freight plane would likely have been easier to hijack)

  • The question at hand is, IF the plane alone could not take down that building, IF physics physically could not take down the towers, why then DID they fall?

  • Where there explosives involved? Do I dare ask was it an inside job? What reason would they have to do this, or cover it up?



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
intellent persons




Back to the topic:

Originally posted by Shadow88

  • The scientist on which the topic surrounds himself stated that basic physics tells him there had to be some other factor.


  • Said scientist is not a structural engineer. Structural engineers do not agree with Steven Jones.


    Originally posted by Shadow88

    An aluminium plane connot take down a building of that size, that is just any intellent persons common sense,


    Are you a structural engineer? Structural engineers have always seemed to me to be intelligent and well grounded in common sense.



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:25 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
    I find it interesting that NIST did not take into account two things that have a bearing on any conclusions arrived at based on these images. One is lens distortion, and the other is light refraction due to heat.




    You really don’t give up easily, do you. You are getting farther and farther around the bend with every post.

    They did take the angle of the building into account. If you look closely the columns above and below the bowed areas are straight.

    Lens distortion.
    nice try. . . .not.




    And look at this car driving over a hot road:


    It seems that the wheels on this vehicle are grossly out of shape. Quick, call NIST and let them know there's an impending car crash they may need to investigate!

    Does this prove that there was no column bowing at all and that it was all due to lens distortion and light refraction from heat? No. Does it indicate that the column bowing was likely not as pronounced as NIST would have us believe from these photographs? You betcha.


    So where was the pavement in front of the WTC in those photos?

    You do realize that the refraction effect is caused by the hot pavement, don’t you?




    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:32 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by MacMerdin
    BTW, the inner core columns WOULD act like trees...thats what they essentially are is steel trees....a tall straight object that is larger at the base and smaller at the top. These columns would topple at the cap NOT dissintegrate IMO.



    How would the columns withstand the lateral forces put upon them as the building collapsed?

    Do you know how the WTC towers achieved lateral resistance from wind pressure?

    How was this different from a conventional box girder type structure?



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:45 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by HowardRoark
    So where was the pavement in front of the WTC in those photos?

    You do realize that the refraction effect is caused by the hot pavement, don’t you?


    I can understand your confusion, but no, it's not caused by the pavement, it's caused by the air above the pavement being hotter and hence less dense, thereby altering the index of refraction of the air - just like the heat from a fire in a burning building. Here, this should help you out in understanding the concept:
    online.cctt.org...

    If that one's too tough, here's a simpler explanation

    science.howstuffworks.com...


    [edit on 2005-11-18 by wecomeinpeace]



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:54 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by HowardRoark

    How would the columns withstand the lateral forces put upon them as the building collapsed?


    What lateral forces are going to act upon them from floors "pancaking" upon themselves? You do know that lateral means horizontal right? The only lateral forces that day were the force of the plane hitting the building and wind. Please name anymore LATERAL forces acting that day. BTW, the force of the weight of floors on top are being drawn straight down.


    Do you know how the WTC towers achieved lateral resistance from wind pressure?


    Wasn't it transferred to the core via the floor joists? I could be wrong...that's why I want some prints of the place. I have only started researching this so I'm not totally sure.


    How was this different from a conventional box girder type structure?


    Not knowing exactly how the WTC was constructed, I can't make a comparison. Can you set me up with a link of how the floors were constructed?



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:03 PM
    link   
    Does anyone have an idea if NIST has shown their calculations. All I'm finding so far is just what they have concluded without seeing any of the real work involved? I know I'm asking for a bunch of stuff that I'll have to go through but....I'm the one who got into this so know I'm very curious.



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:16 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK
    It doesn't work like that. When an object falls on a simular object, lets say 2 bricks, the lower brick is not gonna give way with no resistance.

    In the WTC you had bricks faling on bricks not bricks falling on hands.

    If the lower floors were equaly weaker than those above then yes maybe you would get what you're saying.


    It has to do with the weight the beams are designed to support. They weren't designed to support the weight of serveral stories crashing down upon them. There is a HUGE difference in what is taken to support 10 floors stable or 10 floors falling. Take a cheap card table and stack ten 40lb bags of salt on it. The table will probably support it. Take those same ten bags and drop them at one time from ten feet above the ground onto the table and see what happens. The table will get smashed. Of course the more weight that is falling the more damage it can do. Each floor that joins the fall adds to its ability to destroy on the way down.



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:17 PM
    link   
    Sorry, MacMerdin,

    I gave you a couple of wrong links before. Here is an index of all the final NIST reports:
    wtc.nist.gov...

    This one specifically will give you a low-down on NIST's description of the design and construction:
    NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems - pdf

    WTC Project Summary:
    NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower - pdf



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:21 PM
    link   
    Found an interesting article for you:


    Source
    After Corley was named to head the Trade Center investigation, there was some grumbling among steel industry leaders because the Skokie engineer is known as a specialist in concrete. The steel people fretted that Corley would blame the collapse on the steel frame of the Trade Center towers and say that structures that relied more on concrete, such as the Petronas Towers in Malaysia, currently the world's tallest buildings, would have fared better.


    Here in the link to the full article by Steven E. Jones, which is going to be published in 2006.

    The article raises some key questions in my view.



    ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

    The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)


    On the one hand, we have people saying it didn't 'melt' the steel but caused it to 'bend' and on the other we have people saying it was still molton 21days AFTER it had fallen down.

    There seem to be as many reasons as to how and why it fell coming from the Government as from the members of this site. I would like to see the Government answer why they gave out false information. [Either it bent or melted...or both.]



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:22 PM
    link   
    There were a number of lateral forces. The wind, although it was light that day, would have exerted some lateral pressure. More importantly, as the floor trusses heated and began to sag and fail, the forces that these structural members exerted on the columns changed from vertical forces to lateral forces. This is what caused the exterior walls of the towers to bow inward shortly before the collapses.

    Once the collapse began, there were plenty of lateral forces on the structural members as they buckled, twisted and sheared under the force of the falling weight of the building. To suggest that they would have done anything else is just silly.

    There is plenty of information in the NIST reports
    wtc.nist.gov...

    The lateral stiffness was provided by the exterior columns. This is different from most conventionally framed building where wind bracing or masonry walls in the core area provide the lateral stiffness.

    Once the exterior walls buckled, the core would not have been able to support the loads imposed upon it. It too would have failed.

    As for the NIST calculations, you can always write or e-mail them. I think that they used some pretty heavy duty software and hardware to run the models, however.



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:35 PM
    link   
    Thanks WCIP,

    That looks like just what I needed...thanks again.

    If I knew how to post a picture, I would show a picture of what I'm trying to talk about with the core columns.....in WTC2 (I think) there was a moment when the core columns could still be seen standing before crashing.

    But, you might say that proves there wasn't explosives. Well, I say they only needed a few upper floors to be destroyed with explosives and the basement (remember the molten steel in the basement) and the "pancake" effect would work. Now this is telling because the core columns would still stand after all the debris (forces) is gone unless the bases were ALREADY sheered in half before the buildings came crashing down. The only thing I can think of that would have sheered the core columns at the base is explosives.

    Am I making any sense or just babbling?



    posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:46 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by HowardRoark
    There were a number of lateral forces. The wind, although it was light that day, would have exerted some lateral pressure. More importantly, as the floor trusses heated and began to sag and fail, the forces that these structural members exerted on the columns changed from vertical forces to lateral forces. This is what caused the exterior walls of the towers to bow inward shortly before the collapses.


    I thought that Eager et al said that the supports NOT the floor trusses are what failed...if this is so then there would be little to no force acting on the columns anymore because the floors are NOT attached after the supports have failed. Sorry can't have it both ways...either the supports failed and the floors "pancaked" or they were still supported and the whole "pancake" theory goes out the door.


    Once the collapse began, there were plenty of lateral forces on the structural members as they buckled, twisted and sheared under the force of the falling weight of the building. To suggest that they would have done anything else is just silly.


    Silly eh? What twisting and shearing would act on the columns once the supports are no longer attached?


    There is plenty of information in the NIST reports
    wtc.nist.gov...

    The lateral stiffness was provided by the exterior columns. This is different from most conventionally framed building where wind bracing or masonry walls in the core area provide the lateral stiffness.

    Once the exterior walls buckled, the core would not have been able to support the loads imposed upon it. It too would have failed.

    As for the NIST calculations, you can always write or e-mail them. I think that they used some pretty heavy duty software and hardware to run the models, however.


    Ok..I was wrong in thinking that the inner core was used as the lateral support. Once I've read more of the NIST report, I'll know for sure.

    [edit on 18-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



    new topics

    top topics



     
    4
    << 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

    log in

    join