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.

 

Fires, Trusses and the World Trade Center

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The collapse speed of which building?

And what are you going to define as the initiation and termination of each collapse?

From the first sign of strucutral failure to the moment when every part of the buiding has hit the ground?



The collapse of both towers.

Both collapsed too fast to buy the collapse by gravity/truss theory.

The initiation is when the first floor starts falling.




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
You could argue that the exterior buckling which was appaent several minutes before the total collapse is the first sign of structural failure.

But even from the first point of the major movement, what is the end of the collapse?

The point when the outer parts hit the ground?

If we are to go by the the pictures of the collapse that seem to indicate that portions of the core areas took considerably longer to completely fail, what is the point at which the collapse ended?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Molten Aluminum? Ever throw a can into a fire, it doesn't glow, in the situation it was in, it would just ended up silvery, not hot orange.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You could argue that the exterior buckling which was appaent several minutes before the total collapse is the first sign of structural failure.

But even from the first point of the major movement, what is the end of the collapse?

The point when the outer parts hit the ground?

If we are to go by the the pictures of the collapse that seem to indicate that portions of the core areas took considerably longer to completely fail, what is the point at which the collapse ended?




I saw no such buckling in any video, save for superficial facade and exterior buckling. Nothing to indicate imprending collapse. And nothing to account for the speed of the pancaking.

The beginning of the collapse is when the top of the tower starts going down, and the end is when it is all down on the ground in one big fat pile. In otherwards, about 9 seconds.

If you mean the core areas survived longer than the collapses, I dont see your evidence. The cores came crumbling down with the rest of the bulding.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
The fire must have been pretty hot, then.

www.laaluminum.com...

(btw, that's 1300 F)



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Also, let me see what you're trying to say.

Starting from around the impact zone floors, the fires weakened the trusses significantly, causing the outer columns to buckle, and this began to occur to the surrounding floors, mostly above the impact zone. In which case, the buckling of the exterior columns around the impact zone (around the whole perimeter of that area as well) were weakened to the point where they just gave out, and thus the mass of the building came straight down upon the remaining floors and somehow crushing and pulverizing them in an efficient pancake style with literally no opposing force, even as the upper floors above the impact zone were pulverized themselves as it was initially beginning to fall.

Wow, as the mass of the building was decreasing and falling apart everywhere, you sure did have quite a force bringing down the WHOLE building.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

I saw no such buckling in any video, save for superficial facade and exterior buckling.


“superficial facade and exterior buckling” The exterior columns were responsible for 50% of the load bearing capacity of the building. How is any buckling of this structural element “superficial?”




If you mean the core areas survived longer than the collapses, I dont see your evidence. The cores came crumbling down with the rest of the bulding.


Go to the concrete core hoax threads. Christophera will no doubt try to convince you that the cores were concrete with pictures of the spire and so forth.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The fire must have been pretty hot, then.

www.laaluminum.com...

(btw, that's 1300 F)


Compare that to the pictures of the molten material seen coming out of the building, and your picture seems to give off that it wasn't in a very well lighted area, like in broad day light. The molten metal coming from the building was rather bright. You're saying that sooty flame oxygen starved flame was efficient enough to melt the aluminum to cause it to be THAT bright in broad day light.


Edit: Molten Aluminum

Link

[edit on 6/6/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   


Those fires are oxygen starved?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Try to pan out of the picture and see the bigger picture, yes the fire was oxygen starved. Are you making the implication that those fires were sufficiently fueled by both office/building supplies and air to have enough efficient heat to turn aluminum so incadenscent in total daylight like that?


Link

[edit on 6/6/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


“superficial facade and exterior buckling” The exterior columns were responsible for 50% of the load bearing capacity of the building. How is any buckling of this structural element “superficial?”



Im not talking about the exterior columns. I should have been a little clearer.

I was refering to crumbling concrete finish on the exterior. Not the long columns themselves. Here is a picture of what I mean.




Go to the concrete core hoax threads. Christophera will no doubt try to convince you that the cores were concrete with pictures of the spire and so forth.


I have tried, but that thread got enormous, and I got lost trying to figure out exactly what was trying to be proven, and how that effected the whole demolition or normal collapse theories.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The fire must have been pretty hot, then.

www.laaluminum.com...

(btw, that's 1300 F)


The only molten metal coming out of those towers wasn't glowing that color, Howard. It was glowing a bright yellow-orange.

Here's aluminum just melted:



It's only silvery gray.

Here's a chart for molten steel:



Look at the temperatures associated with the colors you're looking at in this photo:



What's that tell you? Feel free to compare that to colors of molten aluminum btw.

The fires didn't cause that much heating. You're looking at heating of about 2200 F at least in that photo.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The collapse of both towers.

Both collapsed too fast to buy the collapse by gravity/truss theory.



Well that leaves explosives out. When they implode a building all the explosives do is to sever the structural elements with shaped charges and gravity does the rest. If the building fell faster than gravity could make it fall I have no idea what could have caused that.
The other thing is that the pictures here show the towers at the instant of collapse and I don't see any explosions or bright light from thermite.

Maybe the government got some kind of new kind of stuff that defies gravity and inertia from the Greys or was it the Reptillians?

Nice post Howard. The pictures are great. First time I've seen them.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

JIMC5499
Last the whole building didn't have to fail, just one floor had to. The upper part of the tower would then act as a pile driver on the rest of the tower below. This would account for the destruction of the central core.


Umm.. NO. Do you expect anyone here in their right mind to buy into that rationalization? World Trade Center 1 and 2 were perfect candidates for a 'partial' collapse. If the collapse happened the way you said it did the weakened floors around the impact site should have come apart and fell off and 'around' the remaining bottom section/core of the building. There was no "pile driving" involved as you say it: the time it took the building to reach the ground proves this.





JIMC5499
Well that leaves explosives out. When they implode a building all the explosives do is to sever the structural elements with shaped charges and gravity does the rest. If the building fell faster than gravity could make it fall I have no idea what could have caused that.


Oh really?? Maybe not explosives per say but thermite with sulphur burns very much the color of the stuff you see coming out of the WTC right before it collapses.. (Sulphur is routinely used in thermite to increase the temperature at which it burns at, also, iron when melted by thermite is orange.

One example here:

videos.streetfire.net...

In this particlar video, I don't think sulphur is used in the thermite but aluminum obviously is.. The orange color is from the molten iron of course. (Please don't ask me who gifporn is, I have no idea)


AND how could you expect to see the initial ignition stage of the thermite if it's happening inside the building? DUH

And Howard.. funny you mention the concrete core hoax thread: I don't think everyone was saying the core was 'concrete' as you are putting it. Concrete however was used in the core of WTC 1 and 2 above and beyond the floor slabs but why don't you keep that debate in the thread it belongs in?




[edit on 6-6-2006 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret

AND how could you expect to see the initial ignition stage of the thermite if it's happening inside the building? DUH


If all of the so called thermite was inside then what caused the failure of the outer structure ? DUH



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Well that leaves explosives out. When they implode a building all the explosives do is to sever the structural elements with shaped charges and gravity does the rest. If the building fell faster than gravity could make it fall I have no idea what could have caused that.


How does it leave explosives out? I didn't say gravity played no part. try reading again. Gravity/truss meaning part of the same theory. meaning, the trusses weakened so much that the towers collapsed under their weight.

The speed the towers collapsed was about the rate of freefall. In otherwards, like there was little to no resistance slowing the collapse. Which would be pretty damn impossible if just some trusses failed and got weak.


The other thing is that the pictures here show the towers at the instant of collapse and I don't see any explosions or bright light from thermite.


There are many pictures which show squibs, clouds of gas and debris caused by demolition explosion. And i have observed demolitions before where no bright flash was seen before the building was brought down.

911research.wtc7.net...


Maybe the government got some kind of new kind of stuff that defies gravity and inertia from the Greys or was it the Reptillians?


If you want to believe aliens and reptiles were involved in the WTC collapse, be my guest. I dont see what they have to do with 9/11.

Im more concerned with the offical story violating the laws of physics than I am of lizardment and gravity rays.




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

JIMC5499
If all of the so called thermite was inside then what caused the failure of the outer structure ? DUH


Well, if the inner structure gave way for some 'odd' reason (Hint, core components being melted by thermite maybe??) what is the outer structure attached too? DOUBLE duh..


Not to mention, the remaining structure (Including the core in case you didn't notice) below the impact point just "conveniently" collapses out of the way for the top thats coming down from above CONVENIENTLY offering up NO resistance allowing the building to just FREE FALL.. RIGHT into it's own footprint.

Even if the building 'pulled' itself apart as some say the building WOULD have taken longer than free fall because there was simply too much energy that had to be expended "tearing" apart all the "points of connectivity" that was holding the building together in the first place. (Especially the core) The only that explains the time it took for WTC 1 and 2 (And building 7.. ESPECIALLY building 7) is that the core components HAD to be dismantled AS the building fell.. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. How that was accomplished? Seems different people here have different ideas but I'm pretty sure how it happened.





[edit on 6-6-2006 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Anyone know what happens when you bend mild steel.... The friction of the bending of the carbon molecules, do what things, they create movement and the expend thermal energy.

Thats why when you bend steel it gets warm. Now lets put millions of lbs of compression pressure on the same steel. It is going to deform and .......

DAn DA DA. GET HOT.

The more compression the higher the kenetic to thermal transfer. You dont need a fire to get steel hot, you can get it hot by compressing it with kenetic energy. Like shooting a bullet at a lead plate the kenetic energy suddenly stopping in motion has to change form. Since it can no longer stay in motion it (the kenetic energy) must change to Light, Sound and Thermal energy. The lead bullet having a lower thermal threshold then the now changing kenetic energy melts from the thermal transferance. Thus changing the shape of the bullet into a flat mushroom shape as the outer rim begins to splater away as kenetic to thermal transferance is not immediate and it not 100% at the moment of impact you get some fragments that retain velocity. The heavier the mass of the bullet the more of a remenant that may remain. The higher the velocity lower mass round and you could get an almost vaporization of the round depending on the target mass and density of material.

So you have all these steel beams, that get crushed by millions of tons of concrete and steel falling under the force of gravity some of the internal beams with millions of lbs of pressure. Thus creating lots and lots of thermal energy, molting the steel, this condition also creates the liquid state of concrete momentarialy which retains the thermal energy for longer periods of time because it is a poor conduit for the release of energy unlike steel. This is why you had piles of "burning" masses still after the collapses



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Roberfenix
Thus creating lots and lots of thermal energy, molting the steel, this condition also creates the liquid state of concrete momentarialy which retains the thermal energy for longer periods of time because it is a poor conduit for the release of energy unlike steel. This is why you had piles of "burning" masses still after the collapses


"also creates the liquid state of concrete momentarialy which retains the thermal energy for longer periods of time because it is a poor conduit for the release of energy unlike steel"


Whaaaa?



heheh

Please elaborate on this.. Howard, could you chime in on this as well?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Taking out the center core in both World Trade Center 1 or 2 from the basement would pretty much give you your collapse implosion since everything is centered around it and that's the theory I support.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join