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: 20
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   


yes, looks more like a giant penis than the core wcip. get out your fantasy land already.



seriously though, the hot spots and the way they both fell and wtc7. there is some real good evidence for explosives being involved somewhere, somehow.
I agree with alot of what you say.




posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Originally posted by HowardRoark
WCIP, I always like reading your posts. The fantasy world that you live in is rich and imaginative.

I especially like your absurd theory of how the cores should not have failed even while the rest of the building was collapsing around it.



I'd like to see someone's calculations on why they didn't stand. I have not looked into this yet. The thing is.....would the inner core act as one unit, or would it act as individual columns? From NIST (if I'm reading the details right) there are supporting beams connecting the columns every floor. This would lead one to assume that the inner coulumns would act as one single entity core coulumn.......if I'm wrong in assuming this please feel free to correct me and please give calculations (i.e. proof) that my assumption would be wrong.

Now, what the official theory says is that the rivets, welds and bolts are what failed and triggered the fall and what continued to fail bringing down the towers.

If the bolts, rivets and welds are what failed.....then when a floor came crashing onto another floor, say 98 to 97, the floors (97) are no longer attached to the inner core because the connections have failed. When there is no longer attachment to the inner core, there would not be significant lateral forces to destroy the inner core. That is to say IF the floors pancaked onto themselves. This does not take into consideration the lateral forces produced by steel bending and maybe hitting the inner core or something like that....which probably did happen.....but IMO not enough at least for the bottom sections of core....which we DID see stand for at least a little bit.

Keep in mind that the inner core was imbedded into bedrock and would still give significant lateral resistance....unlike what NIST would have you believe....also IMO...if I can be proven wrong please feel free.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by MacMerdin]


Remember that the WTC core was not like a typical high rise building.

In a typical building, the core is braced as so:



The WTC core was like this:



The lateral stiffness for the core was provided by the exterior walls, without that lateral bracing, the core was subject to buckling failure like so:



keep in mind the photographs that clearly show the buckling of the exterior walls shortly before the collapse of both buildings.

The south face of WTC 1



I suppose there is nothing wrong with treating the core as a single column, but then you should look at the exterior wall as a shell structure too. Thus when the exterior wall started to buckle, the whole exterior structural system became unstable. Because the exterior walls and the interior core were connected via the hat truss on top of the structure, when the exterior walls were no longer able to support their loads due to buckling, those loads would have been transferred to the core columns.

Due to the sagging or missing floors in the impact and fire zone, the core columns in that area would no longer be braced against lateral movement. In addition, physical damage to the core area by the airplane impact would have further weakened the structure. Eventually, the core would have failed, bringing the whole structure down.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
FWIW, A few pictures to help illustrate the potential impact damage:







The NIST estimate of the core columns damage to WTC 1




Remember that in both cases, parts of the aircrafts passed completely through the buildings.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
In the NIST report it shows lateral bracing of the inner columns going in both directions. This means that your sketch is fundamentally wrong. Yes, the braces are horizontal and not diagonal but the horizontal braces act in both x and z directions. The same would happen with the diagonal bracing.....think of vectors and the way the forces would act on the diagonal members. So, with the horizontal bracing, there is still a consideral amount of lateral resistance. Think about it.....why would they even have/need to have the lateral bracing if the entire lateral forces are supposed to be handled by the outer columns only? The inner core column MUST have been under some sort of lateral forces or designed to resist them for them to have designed the lateral bracing in the first place.

This smells fishy to me because of the official story saying that the inner core column not designed for ANY lateral forces. Well, they had to have been designed for something because the lateral braces are there. Am I making any sense?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I really wish there was another structural engineer here to corroborate/expell my theories. I am extremely open to both sides of this argument and hope that my theories could be peer reviewed. Just a wish....so, if there are any other structural engineers out there....please let me know if my train of thought is bunk or spot on......hehe I sound British all of a sudden....no offense my Brit friends.

Edited to add: If anyone has any free structural analysis software.....could I have a copy? I'm not asking to pirate any software......only freeware or I would maybe buy something inexpensive.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
In the NIST report it shows lateral bracing of the inner columns going in both directions.


Where is that? (report name and page)



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by MacMerdin
In the NIST report it shows lateral bracing of the inner columns going in both directions.


Where is that? (report name and page)



wtc.nist.gov...

Page 28.....let me know what you think.

Edit: oops...page 28 not 90....my bad

[edit on 29-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Keep in mind that the inner core was imbedded into bedrock and would still give significant lateral resistance....unlike what NIST would have you believe....also IMO...if I can be proven wrong please feel free.


Actually, the core destruction was never addressed by FEMA and Eagar in their "pancake theory". And when their theory was shown to be complete poppycock, the job was then handed over to NIST. And what does NIST do? They flap their arms and dance around talking about fires and columns and then quickly scamper away. Ten minutes later after a good deal of head scratching, you suddenly realize, they never described or analyzed the collapses at all. They described the impacts, the fires, and the collapse initiation...and left the rest up to your imagination.

This is what US$20,000,000 and three years of research from a battalion of scientists produces:


NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers - p67

The specific factors in the collapse sequences relevant to both towers (the sequences vary in detail for WTC1 and WTC2) are:

1. Each aircraft severed exterior columns, damaged interior columns, and knocked off insulation from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns.

2. Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft's jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage.

3. These fires, in combination with the dislodged insulation, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.

4. The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the exterior columns.

5. Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the exterior columns to bow inward and buckle - a process that spread across the face of the buildings.

6. Collapse then ensued.


Translation:

1. Planes hit buildings => bad.

2. Burning jet fuel hot. Burning photocopiers even hotter.

3. Fire get super hot. Building get weak.

4. Building get weaker.

5. Building get even weaker.

6. Ooga booga booga!...Building gone!

GAME OVER...CONTINUE?

Did anyone catch the collapse sequence in there? Any pancakes, zippers, or syringes? All these reports with headings like, "Probable Collapse Sequence", and yet they neglect to describe the collapses entirely.

But even in relation to the collapse initiation which NIST so bravely tackled, most of their physical evidence completely contradicts their computer simulations, and yet they ignored the physical evidence and based their findings on the results of computer models. Here's just one example. Below is one of NIST's computer simulations which predicted the fires on floor 97 of WTC 1 reached temperatures of 1000+C.



Pretty impressive, huh? Nice pretty diagrams, fancy software and all. But...if you dig through the reports, back in the deep, dusty corners without diagrams and flashing animations, in a couple of measly paragraphs, you find things like this:


NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel - p43

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250C. These areas were:

* WTC1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web.

* WTC1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web.

* WTC1, 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.
[...]
Similar results, i.e. limited exposure if any above 250C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which had adequate paint for analysis.


This is what happens when the government instructs scientists to fit the facts around a preconceived conclusion. The admission of the preconceived conclusion is right there in the prologue to all the reports. Basically: Fires did it. Now we're going to find things to fit that conclusion. If we can't find anything, we'll get computers to make it look like we did.


But as far as the actual collapses of the towers into dust is concerned, this is how the official story has progressed:

2001, FEMA says: Pancaked.

2002, Eagar says: Pancaked and zippered.

2005, NIST says: ...

But what about WTC7? A much simpler, smaller building. Surely that one will be easy to explain:

2001, FEMA says: Umm...we don't know. But it probably wasn't the fires.

2002, Eagar says: Am I famous yet? Pass me another jelly donut.

2002, Silverstein says: "Pull it."

200? (still waiting), NIST says: ...

This is what 20 million tax dollars of government cover-up buys you, folks.

[edit on 2005-11-29 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
keep in mind the photographs that clearly show the buckling of the exterior walls shortly before the collapse of both buildings.


NIST using that buckling as a crutch for it's explanation. So here's an alternative view:


In its final report the government asserts multiple times that fires weakend and "bowed" columns. On page 148, "The south perimeter wall was first observed to have bowed inward at 10:23 a.m. [5 minutes before collapse] The bowing appeared over nearly the entire south face of the 94th to100th floors. The maximum bowing was 55 in.[1.4 m] on the 97th floor." Take a look at the picture on page 33 of the final report. This the government's best evidence. Can you corroborate the government's findings about "bowing"? Of the 59 columns of the south face, one can only see about 16 columns that appear to be "bowed". And this "bowing" phenomenon is only seen on 3, maybe 4 floors (98-95), not the 7 floors asserted. The government's overstatements amount to 800% reality. Why? In addition, it cannot be determined beyond speculation that the steel columns were "bowed" and not be an aberration, such as optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns. In these pictures and others there are places where the aluminum facade has been removed exposing the steel columns underneath. The exposed steel columns are ALL straight. [!] If exposed steel columns were straight, how can it be asserted that deformed aluminum facade is an irrefutable indicator of bent columns? This is nonscientific. In addition, if columns were bent as much as 1.4 meters spanning 7 floors and across an entire building face, where is the evidence of structural fatigue and failure caused by the 40,000+ tons of building above? How can load bearing columns bend significantly but horizontal floors maintain their position and rigidity during the same fire? In addition, the fires that burned in the "bowing" area were all young, less than 6-25 minutes old. Can random office fires less than 25 minutes old be able to make floors systems sag and bend steel columns with intact fireproofing? Science says no way. For one of the largest public safety events in history, this type of substandard research by the government is a mistake. The American people deserve better than this.


Unless NIST has anything more to offer than that misleading pic that you so often post, Howard, for no doubt the same reasons as NIST (it's the best evidence you have
), there is no scientific evidence of any major buckling. Only an assertion by NIST that is, not surprisingly, not backed up with any real science.

And an address of the bolt issue, an apparent paradox in the official story:


A "truss theory" promoted by the Mainstream Media attempts to explain away some of these impossibilities. The theory basically says that fire made floors sag and this caused inward pulling of columns and made them buckle easily. Fire also caused weak bolts to break and this initiated the collapse. Besides this theory ignoring certain facts about the WTC towers and its general lack of evidence, there is also a problem with its logic. If weak bolts broke to cause the collapse, how is it that these same weak bolts were strong enough to pull on the hundreds of massive steel columns and make them bow? How can weak bolts withstand fire, but entire floor systems droop and sag? How can weak bolts during fire be strong and weak at the same time?


Both excerpted from 911research.wtc7.net...


Originally posted by HowardRoark
FWIW, A few pictures to help illustrate the potential impact damage:


Howard, you have posted those images a few times, and never have you posted anything to substantiate them. They are based on guesses. Someone's vivid imagination and the ability to make animations. That's it.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by MacMerdin
In the NIST report it shows lateral bracing of the inner columns going in both directions.


Where is that? (report name and page)



wtc.nist.gov...

Page 28.....let me know what you think.

Edit: oops...page 28 not 90....my bad

[edit on 29-11-2005 by MacMerdin]


You want to check that page number again?

Page 28 has no pertinent information on it.

Page 81 is an elevation showing the cross bracing in the sub levels,

Page 82 is a plan view of a typical floor,

Page 90 is a framing plan for a typical floor,

Figure 2-18 on page 95 is an elevation view showing the hat truss.





[edit on 29-11-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
you probably can find more about lateral bracing or braces.
Detailed descriptions of the condition survey programs and findings are given in that attachment to report 1-1.

In that link to NIST 1-1 there are ONLY 2 hits in a search for "lateral bracing".
(Ofcourse you could use more terms, but I looked for drawings of lateral braces : Not one to find)
On page 180 they sent you to NIST 1-1C for the surveys I mentioned above.
On page 243 they mention lateral bracing together with seismic matters regarding the standpipe system.

On page 149/280, Capter 6, they only review :
1. - Lateral-Load-Resisting System
2. - Composite Floor System
3. - Viscoelastic Damping Units
4. - Wind Tunnel Tests
No lateral bracing !

But from page 136 to 148, so before that Chapter 6, they review longwinding, the Live Load Reduction Criteria for floors outside and inside the core.

Then from page 125 to 136 they show heaps of Loads Calculations.

NOTE:
I would like to draw your attention to page 194, where you find a Summary of Natural Frequency tests results for floors of WTC 1, from March 1971.

They used as their equipment also piezo-electric acelerometers.

Those are exactly the tools which I was talking about, when I explained how I would have computerized the whole demolition sequences.
I could not come up with the right english words then, but these are the "stretch and crimp meters" which I referred to, to be able to let a mainframe on floor 22 decide when the demolition had to be initiated.
If a certain, preset amount of these piezo-electric acelerometers connected to the collumns and floors and to the program did signal to the program of excessive stretching or crimping, the time-released thermite charges and then the displacement bombs would go off in a computerized sequence of events.
For military experts, that's not really difficult to install and detonate.
It would also take care of blowing the 4, reinforced with heavy concrete and extra steel beams, elevator and AC equipment floors to pieces when the sequence reached them. These are exactly the much heavier explosions you can observe in the bulk of posted videos, and those were the ones propelling heavy debris to all sides, far beyond natural fall pathes.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
in a pdf-search in NIST 1-1 for the search term "lateral".
I'm off to read them. And to read and search the NIST 1-1C attachment.

HowardRoark, I adore you as the MAIN force which keeps us all going, please keep up the good work, don't leave for gods sake!

Edit: Where did you get your psychological degree, my friend?
And that last word is definitely not meant as a sneer!

[edit on 29/11/05 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Aha, the Findings chapter beginning at page 52 are a MUST read !

Finding 4 : Ahy, documents related to the design were not needed to be retentioned for more than 7 or 8 years, but for WTC 1 and 2 a great deal of them were found back at several outside sources.
But for WTC 7, key documents were lost in the collapse !

Finding 7 : Provisions to mitigate progressive collapse, only for buildings that used precast concrete wall panels, how convenient.

Finding 8 : Lateral load carrying system of the structure. They did not use concrete in the stairwells, just 2h fire rated partition walls, with little structural integrity, and the core framing was required to only carry gravity loads.

Finding 14 : is the most important one regarding lateral forces, READ it.!

Finding 21 : A beauty! In effect, they say they could NOT reliably calculate fire effects on the structures !
So then they evaluated excisting wacky calculations and proceeded into fairy tale land. LOL.
Ofcourse in a government paid investigation you have to please the funders!
That report not even has a shimmer of free research fundamentals, they basically walked on the leash of their Instructors......


I'll leave the rest to you all, that was enough for me for now.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
page 70 is where they explain how the collumns were horizontally connected.
The last sentences on page 71 and the first on page 72 explain that 50 % of the lateral and gravitational forces were devided each over the inner core collumn packet and the outer wall structure.

EDIT : Page 149 of 280 : The lateral-load-resisting system explained in words, no drawings!

[edit on 29/11/05 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Theodore Olsen, close friend of G.W. Bush :

It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday. "It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."


story.news.yahoo.com.../020323/79/1ao0k.html
or
www.smh.com.au...

This vision has always, everywhere, preceded good old pure honesty, but especially in US political and military-industrial circles. And in the last decade this behavior has become rampant.

Time to change, and prevail honesty above greed, or the USA, and all of its citizens, will loose all remaining credibility abroad.
You say you don't give a damn?
Since you have the strongest standing army on Earth, so bring it on!

Ever thought about just 1 huge hydrogen bomb, exploding at 400 km height above the central USA ?
The EMP effect will effectively bring your whole digitally based economy to a halt. And cripple most of your military strength.
Let's please not even contemplate an idiot throwing their strongest Neutron bomb on top of you.

Don't start shouting at me now, that I'm an idiot, please contemplate all possible attacks, and start feeling not so superior anymore.

Your Administrations are making far too many enemies, and the real strong ones are lurking behind their straight faces and curtains, waiting for a chance to get to your underbelly.

We don't want you, the silent majority, to die for a pack of sneaky liars.
Speak up!



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Ever thought about just 1 huge hydrogen bomb, exploding at 400 km height above the central USA ?
The EMP effect will effectively bring your whole digitally based economy to a halt. And cripple most of your military strength.
Let's please not even contemplate an idiot throwing their strongest Neutron bomb on top of you.



I know this is off topic, but c'mon.

Over the central USA?

Who wants to knock out Nebraska and Wyoming? I think the East coast is a more realistic target though. Please look at a map before you say such things. Or maybe a link that shows that EMP can travel that far.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
[edit on 30-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
[edit on 30-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
DAMN...I'm being an ass myself...sorry.


edited to say: yes I was being an ass myself in the last 2 posts...that is why I deleted them. Sorry ATS staff and the person it was directed at.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
BTW...anyone who has gotten this far....is it a good read?

Seriosly(sp?).....I have given my opionions, that is it.....nothing more. Howard...please keep up the good work...and WeComeInPeace...also keep up the good work. This is great. Although my opinions lie with WCIP....that does not negate the work that Howard has done. I hope this debate still continues....I'm learning a lot....most of you don't even know??????



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join