What about the WTC 1 Spire?

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I agree with AnotherNut

Let's keep this thread on-topic for a change. The way to introduce an alternative topic for discussion is to start a thread about it or revive a dead thread, of which there are plenty that cover nearly all facets of the subject.




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
For me, the smoking gun is that BOTH of the towers fell DOWN (collapsed / pancaked) instead of falling OVER.

These towers would have caused massive, extensive damage to NYC in the hundreds of millions of dollars (maybe even billions) had they of fallen over rather than collapsed in a big pile.

Much of the debris at Ground Zero looked like it had been perfectly sheared off, many of the beams at the same angle. This sort of thing is too coincidental to have happened naturally as the result of a plane impact high up in the tower.

If you took a perfectly sheared piece of metal to any investigator, and other pieces perfectly sheared in exactly the same manner, and told them that this occurrence wasn't man made, they'd laugh in your face.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 



Do you seriously expect skyscrapers to fall over like felled trees ?

As regards your reference to cut steel is this what you have in mind ?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
For me, the smoking gun is that BOTH of the towers fell DOWN (collapsed / pancaked) instead of falling OVER.


How could the towers have fallen over? The damage was rather near the top than the base, so I would never expect them to fall over. If they had, that would be a smoking gun that something else than planes damaged the buildings at the base.

Its odd that what I would regard a smoking gun is the exact opposite of what you would call a smoking gun.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


i have seen a video of said core turn to dust
i think it was on richplanet

but what i find is the big smoking cannon was
the bbc report about wtc7 falling with it clearly
still standing in the back ground



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


when did aluminium become stronger than iron
or steel? and would the wings not just fold to the
sides when hitting buildings
like when a plane hit a skyscraper and was lodged
in the side and the building in question was on fire

oh but what do i know



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by maryhinge
 


I never understood the logic behind "something weaker can't damage or destroy something stronger".

Following this logic, when a car hits a tree, how can the car be damaged? Metal is stronger than wood right?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


exactly



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by maryhinge
 





when did aluminium become stronger than iron
or steel?

Back in high school physics class we pushed a PAPER straw through a raw potato.
All it took was high speed.
If you pushed slowly the straw crumpled in the middle.
If you see sawed in a circular motion the edge tore up.
But if you held the straw like a knife and plunged it like Norma Bates in the shower scene it went clean through with no deformation.

Did you have physics?
Do you remember where if you double the speed you increase the energy by a factor of 8 not 2?

The Empire plane released 1350 million foot lbs of energy.
The WTC plane released 106114 million foot lbs of energy. Plus the burning fuel. Plus the burning office contents.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 




The Empire plane released 1350 million foot lbs of energy. The WTC plane released 106114 million foot lbs of energy. Plus the burning fuel. Plus the burning office contents.

how did you work that out



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by samkent
 




The Empire plane released 1350 million foot lbs of energy. The WTC plane released 106114 million foot lbs of energy. Plus the burning fuel. Plus the burning office contents.

how did you work that out


He used the formula for Kinetic Energy using Imperial units, quite offensive I think! (only joking)

You can work it out yourself: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

and samkent


this is for both of you


then what about the bbc news report about wtc7 falling to the ground
and hay guess what its still stood in the back ground



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by maryhinge
 




how did you work that out

The same way the experts did.

It's one of the first formulas taught to every first yer physics student.
Physics Classroom

It's interesting how those like Richard Gage never give any real world numbers in their meetings or DVD's.

Try plugging the numbers for your auto into the formula.
3000lb car@30mph (use 44 fps) vs 60 mph
Big difference in impact energy.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
The Empire plane released 1350 million foot lbs of energy.
The WTC plane released 106114 million foot lbs of energy. Plus the burning fuel. Plus the burning office contents.


Your physics misses half the story, as usual. This is where that Newtons 3rd laws comes into play, that people claim I don't understand. All that energy from the aircraft impact is felt equally by both the plane and the building, regardless of velocity, equal opposite reaction.

The object with the most mass will always receive the least damage, speed makes no difference to that fact. Increase the speed you increase the force felt by BOTH objects, so the damage will increase for BOTH objects.

Physics only seems to work for the WTC collapses if you misrepresent the physics.

Also regardless of amount fuel only burns at certain temps, it can never get hotter than a certain point. You also ignore heat transfer that means any steel will never get to the same temp as the fire, and it takes time for that heat to transfer to the steel. No way could enough steel get hot enough to cause a whole steel framed building to collapse in an hour.

Not only that but SAGGING trusses cannot put a pulling force on the columns. So it makes no difference what you claim happened, NIST lied. When someone can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns I will change my mind, but I know that isn't going to happen.

edit on 12/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Your physics misses half the story, as usual. This is where that Newtons 3rd laws comes into play, that people claim I don't understand. All that energy from the aircraft impact is felt equally by both the plane and the building, regardless of velocity, equal opposite reaction.

For every action, not every energy. The plane's components received the same forces, that is why they were utterly destroyed.


The object with the most mass will always receive the least damage, speed makes no difference to that fact. Increase the speed you increase the force felt by BOTH objects, so the damage will increase for BOTH objects.

This is a non accurate self derived rule. Prove it please.


Also regardless of amount fuel only burns at certain temps, it can never get hotter than a certain point. You also ignore heat transfer that means any steel will never get to the same temp as the fire, and it takes time for that heat to transfer to the steel. No way could enough steel get hot enough to cause a whole steel framed building to collapse in an hour.

Already addressed this point, the surface area exposed to fire was over 100 times greater than the conduction area available. The steel rapidly heated and every test has confirmed this. NIST literally rebuilt representative sections of parts of the tower.


Not only that but SAGGING trusses cannot put a pulling force on the columns. So it makes no difference what you claim happened, NIST lied. When someone can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns I will change my mind, but I know that isn't going to happen.

Once again ANOK this is a fun thread because all I have to do is link this:
www.sciencedirect.com...

Or one of the few other articles on the topic, and you become unable to respond as you refuse to read it! What's that? You can't see evidence that you are deliberately avoiding? That is a huge shock



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Sagging trusses . And physics of planes hitting buildings. Can be left at the collapse.

The spire was still standing . So what physics bought it down?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Sagging trusses . And physics of planes hitting buildings. Can be left at the collapse.

The spire was still standing . So what physics bought it down?


The lower core columns likely broke apart at their splices due to the swaying nature of the top. It was designed to be braced by floors and exterior walls, and so without any resistance and with massive damage and loads imposed it would only need to lean a few degrees in order to break apart.

This is what we see, as the debris falls it strips rows away from the core columns, removing some of the strongest and leaving a partial spire with very little ability to support itself.

When buildings are built as the core of the WTC was, they need additional structures in place to help resist the wind loads imposed. The core didn't have that and so it was vulnerable to a lot of factors.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Sagging trusses . And physics of planes hitting buildings. Can be left at the collapse.

The spire was still standing . So what physics bought it down?


The lower core columns likely broke apart at their splices due to the swaying nature of the top. It was designed to be braced by floors and exterior walls, and so without any resistance and with massive damage and loads imposed it would only need to lean a few degrees in order to break apart.

This is what we see, as the debris falls it strips rows away from the core columns, removing some of the strongest and leaving a partial spire with very little ability to support itself.

When buildings are built as the core of the WTC was, they need additional structures in place to help resist the wind loads imposed. The core didn't have that and so it was vulnerable to a lot of factors.


First they didn't most likely fail at the welds. A weld if done properly is just as strong as any other part.i will assume they were done correctly. Therefore they shouldn't have failed there. They resisted swaying and came to a near vertical orientation ( its strongest point) before falling.

Like that straw that cqn go through a potato. A straw on end can hold massive loads while vertical.

why would all 40+ columns all fail at the same time and place? And why would it break at multiple places along the column? And where is all that steel?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
First they didn't most likely fail at the welds. A weld if done properly is just as strong as any other part.i will assume they were done correctly. Therefore they shouldn't have failed there. They resisted swaying and came to a near vertical orientation ( its strongest point) before falling.

The debris was studied after collapse. We know that in fact they did break apart at their welds. Consult NIST NCSTAR 1-3C for information on the debris.


Like that straw that cqn go through a potato. A straw on end can hold massive loads while vertical.

And just like a straw, the slightest wind will send it toppling to the ground. In this case we're talking about thousands of straws stacked on top of each other with a lot more than just wind.


why would all 40+ columns all fail at the same time and place? And why would it break at multiple places along the column? And where is all that steel?

They didn't, it was likely a progressive failure. They break in multiple places as they are collapsing downwards and impacting the ground. The steel was at ground zero.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


so you have gone from " likely" to "did" .

They resisted the horizontal loads during the swaying. Therefore saying it was the horizontal loads that brought it down is flawed.

The steel is not at ground zero. See photos.

And still all 40+ failed at the same location? Look at the debris. All columns were severed within feet of each other.

Eta they found 236 structural steel pieces divide that by the number of columns gives you aproxx 5 pieces of steel per column

1100 feet divided by 5 is aproxx 225 feet per piece. Show me this steel. And you still have another building to account for.

edit on 14-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join