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.
Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
regarding cell phones....if so many people from United 93 made cell phone calls, why wasn't this behavior repeated by others on the other flights. The "hero" flight was the only one and it had so many. You'd think any plane getting hijacked would have passengers reaching for their cells. Maybe a mute point, but i haven't heard it argued yet.
Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
Also regarding the comment that cell phones work best around populated areas....shanksville pennsylvania is as unpopulated as they come, as opposed to , i dunno, New York....where i've yet to hear of reported cell phone calls. I may be wrong, just haven't found anything regarding
Originally posted by snoochies
IMHO, there are only 2 types of people who would try and refute the evidence provided by the conspiracy theorists.
1.) The American fascist lemmings blinded by the spoon fed media portrayal of the ACTUAL events of 9/11…
2.) Government DIS-informants trying to prevent exposing the blood thirsty neo-con regime currently in power…AND Fear of them having to REWRITE HISTORY.
I CAN'T believe the lid HASN'T been blown off as of yet to expose the REAL TERRORISTS...
Originally posted by snoochies
..........................
19 hours? The 38 story highrise DIDN'T even WEAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!
Read the rest here....119 pages .pdf format.Phliadelphia, PA Meridian Building Fire
wtc.nist.gov...
Seven major factors led to the collapse of WTC 1:
• Structural damage from the aircraft impact;
• Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over
several floors;
• Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact, that enabled rapid
heating of the unprotected structural steel;
• Open paths for fire spread resulting from the open plan of the impact floors and the breaking
of partition walls by the impact debris;
• Weakened core columns that increased the load on the perimeter walls;
• Sagging of the south floors, that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns; and
• Bowed south perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads.
wtc.nist.gov...
Seven factors led to the collapse of WTC 2:
• Direct structural damage from the aircraft impact, which included more severe damage to the
core columns than in WTC 1;
• Jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over several floors;
• Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact and aircraft and building debris, which enabled rapid heating of the unprotected structural steel;
• Sustained fires on the east side of the tower and an ample air supply;
• Weakened core columns that increased the loads on the perimeter walls; and
• Sagging of the east floors, that led to pull-in forces on the east perimeter columns; and
• Bowed east perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads.
Originally posted by Masisoar
Yes but the fires played the major role as it did take out the majority of the structural integrity, bigger than what the aircraft impact had to offer.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Originally posted by Masisoar
Yes but the fires played the major role as it did take out the majority of the structural integrity, bigger than what the aircraft impact had to offer.
Where does it say that? Are you just making things up now?
CALCULATION:
60 * 2.25 = 135
40 * 5 = 200
135 + 200 = 335
335 / 100 = 3.35
The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80% of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail.
You know those iron stoves? The ones that you build fires in to cook? Those are the same kinds of fires, too, btw. They burn around the same temperatures, if not hotter from being enclosed with only limited ventilation. Do those stoves ever need fireproofing, to prevent them from glowing red-hot or softening or collapsing or any of that?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Wayne Trumpman took NIST's figures and wrapped them up here in his paper:
CALCULATION:
60 * 2.25 = 135
40 * 5 = 200
135 + 200 = 335
335 / 100 = 3.35
The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80% of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail.
Originally posted by bsbray11
If an equivalent of 75% of the support for any given floor had to be lost for that floor to collapse, and the impacts severed roughly 15% of the support columns, that leaves 60% structural failures to the fires -- for a single floor to fail.
Originally posted by Vushta
Wayne Trumpman??
Whos he?
A google search turns up zero credentials for a 'Wayne Trumpman' Are you sure thats his name?
How can it be that the expertise of hundreds of scientists trained in necessary and exacting fields are discounted.........but..WAYNE TRUMPMAN....well 'trumps' them?
Do you mean the old CAST IRON stoves..or the steel firebrick lined ones?
Doesn't matter. Its a straw herring.
Originally posted by Phoenix
So you're going to accept and lead others to believe that this structure sans any other problem such as fire/impact would remain viable with 80% of the perimeter columns removed or 75% of the total as detailed above?
And you have no problem with the math nor the logic in the above assertion?
Suffice to say an individual floor load has little to do with column design strength and factoring ultimate load carrying ability.
The other fallacy not discussed much is the fact that original engineering calculations are based on all structural elements being intact and working together to more or less distribute overloading across and through the frame equally
Deflection is of vital importance when considering column loading. As a column or section of columns has load exceed thier limits deflection in turn transfers much of that load to adjacent columns setting up a "domino" effect if you will. NIST says the design if I recollect correctly was .4" at max rating for a considerable time on an individual column.
The question is and remains how much is too much? obviously we can say deflection did in fact exceed design limits causing an uneven distribution of loading that could well have been a major factor in the resulting collapse.
Bye the bye has anyone carried out this simple experiment demonstrating compression with-out containment?
Spread a fine layer of flour on a flat dry surface. Take a 3'x3' piece of 1/2" plywood with a hole cut in the center representing 15% of it total surface.
Drop the plywood onto the flat dry surface with the layer of flour from a height of a few inchs.
Tell us what you observe.
Originally posted by Masisoar
Vushta, where does your actual expertise in anything lie?
Please address the material of the paper if you want to raise hell about something. His name doesn't mean a damned thing.
Can you explain why? Virtually the same kind of material, and virtually the exact same fire. And I've not heard of a single iron or steel stove ever even glowing a dull red.
Originally posted by Masisoar
Vushta, where does your actual expertise in anything lie?