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.

 

Woolworth building

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Hi, I was looking around the internet and I found this link

www.orbwar.com...

Had a quick read of it, certainly new to me....
Sounds a bit far fetched though but interesting in any case and at least its something new to read while we all wait for more info about 9/11..

I done a quick search on ATS and couldn't find anything about this on here
but I apologise if already been posted ...




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Stealthy orbs, or digital noise?



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Wow. That's really interesting. I guess you never know. I'd love to see a video of those orbs or whatever they are.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   
As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that [Woolworth] building, you guys better be careful up there.’ < NYC Fireman

This is new to my ears but credible... I never noticed the orbs in anything ive seen. If anyone reads on it says :

Why the Woolworth Building of All Places?
The Northern tip of the roof of the Woolworth Building would have provided the best angle for viewing the attack of the North Tower compared to all other corners of the rooftop. Plus there are no buildings in the way to block the view. Now isn't it interesting that it was the North corner spire that was the section smoking, as if on fire? Is this perhaps evidence of the destruction of a video surveillance camera installed in that exact location for viewing the 9-11 attacks World Trade Center, and specifically the closer North Tower? Was there anyone who has admitted to seeing the 9-11 attack on the North Tower? Ironically, there is one person who admits to having seen the attack on the North Tower... Bush Junior!

Weird...



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
The brothers that shot the documentary with the NYFD caught the first impact on their tape. There was no missile. Thousands of people say the second impact standing around the city. There was no missile there either.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Not to mention, it would have had to have been a very large missle to deliver an explosive charge sufficient to do any significant damage to a building of that size.

Be that as it may, the most compelling evidence is the free-fall rate at which the buildings collapsed --- all 3 of them. There is simply no reasonable explanation for that other than the fact that the buildings were all pre-wired with explosives on all floors so that upper collapsing floors would meet no resistance as they fell. Otherwise, the collapse of the buildings could not possibly have occurred at a speed so close to free-fall. Anything else is a red herring.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
There was an early report that a missle had been fired from the top of a building was later tied to a 911 call of someone stating they believe (not that they saw) people are firing missles from the Woolworth building.

Notice not 'one' of those reports states "I saw" a missle, they are reports. As far as the Marine, of course there was a wooshing sound, it was the jet. He is making comparison, not stating he saw one.



There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low. It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."


Also, the flashes or orbs, are helicopters. There were 5 in the air around the WTC when the first tower collasped and were very obscured by the smoke. They were attmepting to see if they could get to the roof, and to surveythe damage. THey were the first to report the top of the first tower sliding, prior to collapse.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
There is simply no reasonable explanation for that other than the fact that the buildings were all pre-wired with explosives on all floors so that upper collapsing floors would meet no resistance as they fell. Otherwise, the collapse of the buildings could not possibly have occurred at a speed so close to free-fall. Anything else is a red herring.




Here is a good description of the process by which the failure propagated down the building at near free fall speed.


Regardless of the precise failure mode, experience with buckling indicates that while many elastic buckles simultaneously coexist in an axially compressed tube, the plastic deformation localizes (because of plastic bifurcation) into a single buckle at a time and so the buckles must fold one after another. Thus, at least one plastic hinge, and no more than four plastic hinges, per column line are needed to operate simultaneously in order to allow the upper part to continue moving down. (This is also true if the columns of only one floor are buckling at a time.) At the end,
the sum of the rotation angles of the hinges on one column line, cannot exceed 2 pi. This upperbound value, which is independent of the number of floors spanned by the buckle, is used in the present calculations since, in regard to survival, it represents the most optimistic hypothesis, maximizing the plastic energy dissipation.

Calculating the dissipation per column line of the framed tube as the plastic bending moment of one column times the combined rotation angle and multiplying this by the number of columns, one concludes that the plastically dissipated energy is, optimistically, of the order of 0.5 GN (for lack of information, certain details such as the wall thickness of steel columns, were estimated by carrying out approximate design calculations for this building).

To attain the combined rotation angle of the plastic hinges on each column line, the upper part of the building must move down by the additional distance of at least one floor below the floor where the collapse started, and so the total release of gravitational potential energy is ~4.2 GN m. To arrest the fall, the kinetic energy of the upper part, which is equal to the potential energy release, would have to be absorbed by the plastic hinge rotations, i.e., Wp would have to be larger than Wg . Rather,

Wg /Wp ~= 8.4

So, even under the most optimistic assumptions by far, the plastic deformation can dissipate only a small part of the kinetic energy acquired by the upper part of building. When the next buckle with its group of plastic hinges forms, the upper part has already traveled many floors down and has acquired a much higher kinetic energy; the percentage of the kinetic energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%. The percentage continues to decrease further as the upper part moves down. If fracturing in the plastic hinges were considered, a still smaller (in fact much smaller) energy dissipation would be obtained. So the collapse of the tower must be an almost free fall.


That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

(note the above is edited somewhat to remove formula notations and symbols which are not supported by this forum. See the original source if you want to look at the math.)



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Regardless of the precise failure mode, experience with buckling indicates that while many elastic buckles simultaneously coexist in an axially compressed tube, the plastic deformation localizes (because of plastic bifurcation) into a single buckle at a time and so the buckles must fold one after another. Thus, at least one plastic hinge, and no more than four plastic hinges, per column line are needed to operate simultaneously in order to allow the upper part to continue moving down. (This is also true if the columns of only one floor are buckling at a time.)

So according to this we need at least one plastic hinge on each column line.
This did not happen.
On each corner a number of vertical columns were disconnected from their neighbours and remained standing for several seconds after the collapse front had progressed beyond their position. There were column failures within the perimeter walls but not in these corner sections. If the walls and corner sections had remained contiguous it would have been impossible for two adjacent walls to suffer the vertical deflection necessary for buckling failure if such a deflection did not occur in the columns within the corner sections.
I have detailed this in the opening post to the "how they rigged the towers" thread and the videos below show these corner sections

www.plaguepuppy.net...

www.plaguepuppy.net...

images.indymedia.org...


I am not prepared to believe that Nist, with all of the facilities at their disposal failed to identify this phenomenon so I must conclude that they ignored it. You do not have the luxury of being able to ignore it since I will continue to remind you, until and unless you or anyone else explains the fact that a section containing a number (4-6) of the corner perimeter columns became vertically disconnected from its neighbours and remained standing for several seconds after the collapse front had passed below their topmost point.

Your postings on energy betray your ignorance of the subject, irrespective of whether you think it was 1/10 or 1/100th of a nuclear weapon. You do not mention the strain energy capacity of the building, which, by necessity would be a multiple of all of the potential energy of the building. Without the addition of additional energies the energy balance would have remained in deficit and no collapse could have occurred.


(This is also true if the columns of only one floor are buckling at a time.)

This is bunkum. A buckle failure could not occur over a single storey height since at this column length, the minimum buckling load, the Euler Load, would be some five times greater than the compressive failure mode. Any failure over this length would thus be a compressive failure at a lower load than the Euler load.

Thus, at least one plastic hinge,
A failure involving a single plastic hinge can only occur on a beam with one free end and necessarily involves a lateral movement of the length of the beam. There was no free end and if there had been a lateral movement equivalent to the minimum buckling length the top section would have fallen off.

Gordon.


[edit on 21-3-2006 by gordonross]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I posted about this back in November





Well this is abit out there Orbs and missiles around and fired at the WTC.
Can it be more dis-info to add to the already compiling evidence of the US / Bush government involvement of the destruction of the World Trade Centre.
I don't know you decide.

ATS
Missiles Fired at the WTC From Woolworth Building





posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   


Your postings on energy betray your ignorance of the subject, irrespective of whether you think it was 1/10 or 1/100th of a nuclear weapon. You do not mention the strain energy capacity of the building, which, by necessity would be a multiple of all of the potential energy of the building. Without the addition of additional energies the energy balance would have remained in deficit and no collapse could have occurred.


strain energy capacity...I know you don;t belelive NIST but...

www.nist.gov...

You are expressing the same thing. My post was stating the amount of built up energy, that was suddenly released when the collpase occured. The balance of energy was shifted because 3/4 of the columns and support structure (elelvators) were destroyed, and there was uneven distribution. A scholar working on it expained that the amount of force released was equivelant to that of a partial nuclear explosion and that is what I posted. Also, the Last thing you want to do is call anyone ignorant, okay, just ask a question, or pose a theory and don't think that because you present the same old tired movies people will think different. I mean, your video shows the building falling forward, and then it collapsing?That is not a demo job....It was also seen that floors were actually bucklng so far that the floors seemed to merge . This was verified by Police helicopters who were radioing to make sure everyone was evacuated.


Anyway, What we are talking about here though is the Woolworth building, so why don't you add your views to that?







[edit on 21-3-2006 by esdad71]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally by esdad71:
You are expressing the same thing. My post was stating the amount of built up energy, that was suddenly released when the collpase occured. The balance of energy was shifted because 3/4 of the columns and support structure (elelvators) were destroyed, and there was uneven distribution. A scholar working on it expained that the amount of force released was equivelant to that of a partial nuclear explosion and that is what I posted. Also, the Last thing you want to do is call anyone ignorant, okay, just ask a question, or pose a theory and don't think that because you present the same old tired movies people will think different. I mean, your video shows the building falling forward, and then it collapsing?That is not a demo job....It was also seen that floors were actually bucklng so far that the floors seemed to merge . This was verified by Police helicopters who were radioing to make sure everyone was evacuated.


Built up energy? - What does this mean?
Balance of energy shifted? Do you mean the load was transferred?
3/4 of the columns and support structure (elevators) were destroyed? - Not true, and elevators are not structurally loaded.
Uneven distribution - would have produced an assymetric collapse.
Also, the Last thing you want to do is call anyone ignorant, okay, just ask a question, or pose a theory and don't think that because you present the same old tired movies people will think different. - I call it like I see it and when I present this information to people who are receptive and informed on the subject they do "think different" Your statement may apply to yourself but the implication inherent in your statement is that you will not change your ideas irrespective of what evidence is presented.
I mean, your video shows the building falling forward, and then it collapsing?That is not a demo. It was also seen that floors were actually bucklng so far that the floors seemed to merge - You will therefore be able to point out why this does not fit my theory.
You seem to have missed the most important point. How was it possible for the walls to buckle if the corner section columns remained upright?

Gordon.

[Mod Edit: quote tags added]
When quoting another member's post please be sure to use the feature. Also, when quoting material from an external source be sure to use the appropriate tags (i.e. [ ex] and [ /ex]) with a link to the source.
See here, and here, for information on proper and acceptable usage. Thanks.

[edit on 3/21/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by gordonross]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The corner sections did not remain upright and intact. In fact, the upper floors twisted so much the view out the windows actually changed. People on phonse calls verified They were looking in a different direction after it was hit the impact was so intense. The supports buckled, not the walls. Are you familiar with the design of the WTC 1 and 2?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Esdad 71 said, The corner sections did not remain upright and intact. In fact, the upper floors twisted so much the view out the windows actually changed. People on phonse calls verified They were looking in a different direction after it was hit the impact was so intense. The supports buckled, not the walls. Are you familiar with the design of the WTC 1 and 2?


Are you familiar with the design of the WTC 1 and 2?

Yes, and I am able to understand it and neither do I stick my head in the sand. That is why I know that the perimeter walls were the supports. What do you assume held about 5/8ths of the floor load? I say it was the perimeter walls while you appear to accept that this was carried by some other form of support. What was that?
The corner sections remained intact several seconds after collapse had passed beyond their position. What do you think the "spire" was, if not a corner section? You can see this quite clearly in the videos if you have the desire. It would appear that the OCT now requires that supporters deny the evidence of their own eyes. This is perfectly understandable since the behaviour of these corner sections drives a coach and horses through their arguments.
Buckling failure requires a vertical deflection of some 3% before any lateral movement. The fact that these corner sections remained upright would preclude this deflection from being present in two adjacent faces, and hence the buckling could not progress from one face to another.

Gordon.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   


To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.



www.tms.org...

There are no corner supports.




As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


For some reason this all makes perfect sense, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Its make your mind up time.
Eagar says that the perimeter columns deflected outwards.
Nist says that the perimeter columns deflected inwards.
Who is telling the truth?

Gordon.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Eagar's theory that they were deflected outward was a guess based on an a' priori analysis. (without the benifit of the extensive photographic data that NIST had available.)

NIST's finding is based on photographic evidence.

The end result was the same.

whether the buckle was inward or outward is inmaterial really.



[edit on 22-3-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by gordonross
Eagar says that the perimeter columns deflected outwards.
Nist says that the perimeter columns deflected inwards.


The FEMA Report suggested both -- at the same time.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join