What about the WTC 1 Spire?, page 9


Pages: <<  6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 18-12-2012 @ 01:26 PM by -PLB-
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer



Most of the core columns left standing were not unbraced, they were also connected to each other. You can see this in the video I posted earlyer.

I don't believe Euler buckling caused the spire to collapse. It seems much more likely to me that it was the damage as result of the collapse of the floors and perimeter columns. The core columns would be deformed by all the debris. You can see the spire parts starting to fall over, and then either continue falling over, or collapse. With the columns standing at a slight angle there would have been an asymmetric load, which the core structure was unable to sustain, resulting in collapse. Of course Euler buckling could have happened duding collapse, it would not be the cause. I strongly doubt that an intact core structure with inter column bracing (without floors and perimeter columns) would collapse due to Euler buckling. I have never seen evidence of this.

Just for illustration, this is what the core inter-bracing looked like:



edit on 18-12-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 18-12-2012 @ 03:08 PM by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by -PLB-



Crap, I wrote a lengthy reply to this, but I accidentally closed my browser and lost it. It'll have to wait until later. Sorry.

Short Version: the connections between the core columns and beams are not sufficient to provide effective bracing, absent the perimeter walls and floors.


reply posted on 18-12-2012 @ 03:17 PM by -PLB-
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to
post by -PLB-



Crap, I wrote a lengthy reply to this, but I accidentally closed my browser and lost it. It'll have to wait until later. Sorry.

Short Version: the connections between the core columns and beams are not sufficient to provide effective bracing, absent the perimeter walls and floors.



The bracing may not have been effective against instability of the structure, but it seems strong enough to prevent Euler buckling. Therefore the collapse scenario I propose seems more likely to me than Euler buckling as cause. I can be wrong though so I will await your reply if you find time to rewrite it.
edit on 18-12-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 18-12-2012 @ 03:33 PM by Another_Nut
reply to post by -PLB-



www.11-septiembre-2001.biz...

This photo also seems to show some form of crossbraces between floors?

Looking for better shots of if.


reply posted on 19-12-2012 @ 04:22 PM by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Another_Nut



It's going to be a while before I can jump back on this; It's going to require quite a bit of research and a careful write up with links and etc, to make my point clearly enough. I'm getting busy and I'm involved in another debate that's heating up at the moment. Thanks for being a sport and not flinging recriminations. I'll try and do the same....

That's an interesting photo, I'll try to figure out what's going on there: the pattern of braces which is probably what they are, is strange. It could be that these are temporary braces to keep things straight, until the next few floor slabs are in place, or it could be that these are a permanent part of the structure. My Euler-buckling argument certainly hinges on there not being very much of this cross bracing as part of the permanent structure. I'll look into it...

I wish we had the complete structural drawings, as opposed to only having the architectural drawings. It would resolve my argument nicely, one way or the other.


reply posted on 20-12-2012 @ 01:20 PM by Another_Nut
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer



Hey have you read this? truthfully I prefer photographic evidence over number theory and this seems to have a lot of that. Seems he( and most if not all those interested ) run into the same problem...that is the pulserization of the concrete.


Also found a site talking about a "concrete core" in wtc2. Looking into that.

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:385


reply posted on 17-4-2013 @ 11:54 AM by richierich
reply to post by bsbray11



What other heat source could turn the steel intio dust? We all know the towers were dustified, but the core steel was made so brittel and lacking in integrity that it turned to dust or was melted. many of the outer support beams were on fire..literally smoking from the heat as they fell. What could create heat of multi-thosand to hundreds of thousands of degrees? Nukes, thats what. Exploding steel simply flings it away from the blast but does not alter it's properties substantially. The steel in these cases was melted and dustified and showed signs of such extreme heat that it defies any other explanation. Remember the " eutectic steel " that was the " greatest puzzle " for engineers? It was exposed to such extreme heat and force that it was made razor thin, curled, literally evaporated in places.

NO FIRE could possibly affect the steel in the manner we find it..no office fire, no kerosene fire, no jet fuel fire..only a nuke could flash the core with a brief almost million degree blast of heat and render the core almost useless...held together by the compenents so lightly that regular explosives finished the job off..the steel provided NO resistance! For steel to lose all of it's ability to withstand force requires extraordinary temperatures, and only nukes can provide that kind of heat. Recall that the basements blasts that lest 50 ton presses evaporated...gone..and sking hanging from people who had no direct exposure to fire, and you get the point.

There is ample evidence of nukes, from EMP effects documented ( the official story drones HATE these first hand testimonies because it cannot be explained by their theories in any way) to the heat and effects, many of which are so highly anomalous that they defy the illogical and empty efforts of the apologists for the fairy tale believing official story partisans to explain. Recall giant upward and outward explosions of massive dust clouds from the towers, how they turned to brown and black dust as eruptions blasted materials in all directions..it was convulsing with energy and expelling vast quantities of dustified concrete, people and furnishings for hundreds of yards around...how plain and clear it is: Nukes explain the effects seen better than any other means. Period.


reply posted on 21-4-2013 @ 01:45 PM by Another_Nut
reply to post by richierich



ok so the biggest problem I have with mininukes is that it would have shredded everything .

The 9\11 surfer should have been destroyed but instead rode a cloud of dust 200 feet.


reply posted on 21-4-2013 @ 02:03 PM by BriGuyTM90
Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to
post by richierich



ok so the biggest problem I have with mininukes is that it would have shredded everything .

The 9\11 surfer should have been destroyed but instead rode a cloud of dust 200 feet.


The thought of nuclear reactions taking place is a good start and I'm glad people are taking notice. Elevated levels of Tritium were found at the site. (about 50x backround) so there was some sort of nuclear reaction taking place. But there was no Ionizing radiation detected so this eliminates any kind of fission process or thermo-fusion. So do we know of any processes which involve nuclear reactions but does not produces large amounts of heat or ionizing radiation sense there is no proof for either at the site?


reply posted on 22-4-2013 @ 12:23 PM by GenRadek
reply to post by BriGuyTM90



Tritium is found in many items found in an office. Most commonly in emergency lights and smoke detectors. Does not mean anything about nuclear explosions.

There was no nuclear detonation of ANY kind at the WTC complex. If there as, then Manhattan Island would have a new harbor on its southern tip.



reply posted on 22-4-2013 @ 03:38 PM by samkent
reply to post by richierich





What other heat source could turn the steel intio dust? We all know the towers were dustified,

Are you serious?
What were they sending off to be recycled then?
What are all those pictures of bent beams then?

You need a better source of facts.
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why the Pentagon?
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags
NEVER FORGET 9-11….Maybe we SHOULD forget.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags
The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Note from trapped workers surfaces 10 years after 9/11
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags
Where were you when the world stopped turning...
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags