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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I agree Masisoar. I'm %100 convinced that thermite was involved and I feel strongly that explosives were also used. How this 'stuff' got into the building before 911 only God knows but I think Bush's little brother had something to do with it.

Also, this whole argument is rather mute and pointless until someone can explain how WTC 1 and 2 fell in FREE FALL. Until that can be done with any decisiveness any energy expended to argue anything else is fruitless. Howard, why don't you focus on that for awhile. (The freefall element of the collpases) Show us some magic math or something along those lines that will explain how the building 'just came apart into it's own footprint' because of a localized failure and please don't try and foist upon us the silly 'pile driver' or 'pancake' argument because it's pretty obvious to even the average intelligencia that this was not the case.

Also, someone PLEASE explain why WTC 1 and 2 didn't just partially collapse.. If I recall the plane didn't hit the entire building.




[edit on 6-6-2006 by TxSecret]




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret

and please don't try and foist upon us the silly 'pile driver' or 'pancake' argument because it's pretty obvious to even the average intelligencia that this was not the case.


Thats weird, its obvious to the average person, but not to us structural engineers who design skyscrapers for a living? Your lack of understanding of the subject matter is laughable at best and is the subject of many jokes in the engineering community.

Train



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
(P.S... Don't forget when fires burn, they displace mass for energy, so don't say the floors that had weakened trusses had a substaintial amount of mass.)


What is your estimate of the weight of one floor of the WTC minus the combustibles on it?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Everything posted here by Howard requires quite a few leaps of faith. I also believe that very little of his work would hold up to the scrutiny of an expert in the field. Conversely, Steven E. Jones has written the definitive paper on this subject matter and has gone through the peer-review process to prove his work. Jones has gone as far as to reproduce his findings in the lab, which is proof of concept. I suspect that with access to the beams from the WTC he would have conclusively proven the whole premise he presents. Unfortunately that evidence is long gone and will never be subject to the testing it should have been.

Here's a link to Mr. Jone's work.

www.physics.byu.edu...



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
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.

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


And then you look under any building that has been demolished ever and......

DUN DUN DAAA! NO MOLTEN STEEL.

You look under massive rock slides and...

DUN DUN DAAA! NO LAVA.

You look under the gravity = steel-melting, concrete-liquifying free energy theory and...

DUN DUN DAAA! No basis in reality.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Thats weird, its obvious to the average person, but not to us structural engineers who design skyscrapers for a living?


And what's your experience with the physics of steel skyscraper collapses? I think your arrogance has gotten to you a little unless you study that sort of thing for a living, too. Making buildings stand isn't the same as knowing how they're supposed to fall via the laws of physics, and I somehow doubt that you regularly work with designing any skyscrapers anyway. So laugh it up and feel big.


[edit on 6-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   


Also, this whole argument is rather mute and pointless until someone can explain how WTC 1 and 2 fell in FREE FALL.


They didn't fall in free fall. They fell within a couple seconds off free fall.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I believe one of the larger problems here is how the NIST report is purely speculative, so in essence, even that is hard to argue for or against, as is everything we are trying to prove. This is what makes it difficult, but none the less, I cease to give up, and continue onwards in my quest through the jungle of B.S.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae

Also, this whole argument is rather mute and pointless until someone can explain how WTC 1 and 2 fell in FREE FALL.


They didn't fall in free fall. They fell within a couple seconds off free fall.


It still bothers me how this whole issue is slighted simply by adding on, "Oh, they were a little slower than free fall."

Realize that free fall means absolutely no resistance. So what does a few seconds slower than free fall tell us?

It amazes me how people either don't think about this, or else assume that hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete offer very little resistance to a much smaller body of the same substance.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
BSB, I think it's because they feel that's how fast the pancaking occurs to support their theory!



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   


It amazes me how people either don't think about this, or else assume that hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete offer very little resistance to a much smaller body of the same substance.


I agree with you bsbspray, but if we want our argument to be heard we have to be correct.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Oh, yeah, I totally agree with you. It just strikes me as being so surreal sometimes, that people pick at the technicalities of whether it was free fall or a few seconds off, without really thinking about what they're talking about in the first place. But I totally understand that by saying the Twin Tower collapses were free falls, one is just opening up for an immediate correction. And then that correction stands as if it's explanation enough, as if those few extra seconds suddenly make it all perfectly plausible.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I think the greatest evidence is with WTC. If you don't count the pent house collapse it collapsed as fast as an object falling in a vaccuum.
Now you can say well the cores of the building collapsed during the initiation, but even so there still would of have to of been resistance.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Free fall in vacuum is ~9.22 seconds from the top of the towers, but adding transfer of momentum into the equation as each pancaking floor simply bumps into the other, I worked it out at ~14 seconds. That is assuming absolutely ZERO resistance from the structure and ZERO air resistance.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm stil leaning towards the Foot of God Theory. It's the only one apart from demolition that fits all the observations, and coincidence theorists don't seem to object to it so vehemently.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   


I worked it out at ~14 seconds.


I would say about 10.5 seconds for the South Tower and about 12 seconds for the North.
I wouldn't say 14. You have to remember that even though there was still dust in the air at 14 seconds, the Towers themselves had turned into dust.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
I would say about 10.5 seconds for the South Tower and about 12 seconds for the North.
I wouldn't say 14.


No, I wasn't measuring the actual collapse time. What my calcs show is that the if the gravitational pancake collapse theory were true, even with zero resistance from the structure, zero air resistance, and assuming the cap stayed intact for the entire event, the collapse would take at least 14 seconds. Since the collapse took around that time or less with structural and air resistance in the system, it therefore shows that the gravity-driven pancake theory is impossible as an explanation for the collapse.

From my earlier post:
====================================================
For an example, something we can do is look at it from a simple conservation of momentum point of view. Assume a model where each floor was a flat slab simply floating in space, held up by a magical forcefield that turned off as soon as anything touched it. Hence, when each floor collided with the next one below, that floor gave way without any resistance at all. Assume the collisions are perfectly inelastic. In this bizarre example, the only thing slowing the collapse is the momentum imparted to each floor below by the ever-increasing falling mass.

Conservation of momentum tells us that the momentum after the collision is the same as before, and since p = mv, with momentum, mass, and acceleration due to gravity known, we can calculate the new velocity after each collision, after each 12 foot free fall, and hence the total time for collapse. Using Eagar's figures for the building and cap mass of 500,000t and 45,000t respectively, and assuming an increase in floor mass in increments across the three sections of the building, I get 13.05 seconds. Further assuming that 30% of the mass of each struck floor (but not the cap) falls off the side, that brings the collapse time up to 14.08 seconds (30% is quite conservative when you consider the 236 steel columns supporting 50% of the vertical load were on the skin of the building which was thrown out all over Manhattan, when you look at debris distribution in the satellite pics taken after the event, and when you consider I didn't subtract anything off the 45,000t cap). So, that's at least 14.08 seconds assuming the structure provided ABSOLUTELY ZERO RESISTANCE, the cap stayed intact as a single, rigid structure throughout the collapse, and also discounting air resistance. Do the math yourself and tell me if I'm wrong, my math sucks so I could well be.

Assumptions:

* For distance purposes (except for the cap striking the ground), each floor is an infinitely thin slab with all of its mass concentrated into that slab.

* Collapse initiates at the 98th floor.

* Air resistance is zero.

* Resistance from the structure is zero.

* Collisions are "flush" and perfectly inelastic, meaning the falling mass of the cap "acquires" each floor it collides with.

* 30% of the mass of each lower floor is lost over the side of the building (note this only adds 1s to the total time).

* None of the mass of the original cap is lost.

* When the cap strikes the ground, it collapses on itself in free fall.

(What may seem like minor errors are in fact because the xls file calculates using all of the decimal places, but I only set it to display four.)







And this calculation is using Thomas Eagar's figures for the weight of the cap and the building. He gives 45,000t for the cap and 500,000t for the entire structure, the cap thereby comprising about 10% of the weight, which means that Eagar has assumed (or deliberately lied) that each floor of the structure was built the same across its entire height, and therefore the 12 floors of the cap comprising 10% of the height equates to 10% of the weight. This is nothing short of calculated deception. We all know that the towers, as all skyscrapers, were built progressively stronger and heavier towards the base. The cap would therefore be MUCH lighter than 45,000 tonnes, and the 14 second figure would be adjusted UP accordingly. Add in air resistance, and most importantly the mechanical resistance of the structure, and once again the global progressive collapse hypothesis is revealed as the complete fairytale it is.





[edit on 2006-6-7 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
I would say about 10.5 seconds for the South Tower and about 12 seconds for the North.
I wouldn't say 14.


No, I wasn't measuring the actual collapse time. What my calcs show is that the if the gravitational pancake collapse theory were true, even with zero resistance from the structure, zero air resistance, and assuming the cap stayed intact for the entire event, the collapse would take at least 14 seconds. Since the collapse took around that time or less with structural and air resistance in the system, it therefore shows that the gravity-driven pancake theory is impossible as an explanation for the collapse.


Your arguement (if correct) also shoots the controlled detonation and thermite theories in the foot as well. Your statement is that the towers fell faster than they could have by gravity alone. Unless there was an unseen force acting downward on the towers, there is no way that this could happen. Even if every structural connection was severed at the same instant it would still take about 14 seconds for the total collapse. Either the laws of Physics were suspended or there is a mistake in your calculations.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Even if every structural connection was severed at the same instant it would still take about 14 seconds for the total collapse. Either the laws of Physics were suspended or there is a mistake in your calculations.


That is incorrect. If every single connection was severed at the same instant, it would take 9.22 seconds for the collapse plus time added by air resistance. That is, free fall.

However as I said, maths and physics are not my forte, so please feel free to check the calcs and the science.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
That is incorrect. If every single connection was severed at the same instant, it would take 9.22 seconds for the collapse plus time added by air resistance. That is, free fall.

However as I said, maths and physics are not my forte, so please feel free to check the calcs and the science.


No there isn't anything wrong with the math you have used. I just don't think that you are solving the correct problem. I understand that the 9.22 seconds is a theoretical figure, but people have timed the total collapse at around 14 seconds. In my opinion that number is incorrect and it is being used to justify the validity of one theory and to eliminate another.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
No there isn't anything wrong with the math you have used. I just don't think that you are solving the correct problem. I understand that the 9.22 seconds is a theoretical figure, but people have timed the total collapse at around 14 seconds. In my opinion that number is incorrect and it is being used to justify the validity of one theory and to eliminate another.


9.22 seconds is free fall in vacuum from the height of WTC1. ~14 is free fall plus simple-model momentum transfer in vacuum. Since, according to the official theory, each floor has to overcome the next before moving on, the real-world pancake collapse time will be ~14s...

...+ time added by mass loss due to disintegration of the cap (remember in my model the cap stays intact) + time added by mass loss due to perimeter columns removed from the crushing mass (my 30% estimate was conservative) + time added by air resistance + time added by resistance from buckling columns + time added by resistance from snapping truss-perimeter-core connections + time added by resistance from snapping column splice connections + time added by resistance from breaking core lateral bracing and girder connections + time added by kinetic energy transformed (effectively lost from the available crushing energy) in the process of pulverizing the concrete, people, office furniture, office equipment, industrial carpet, etc into powder.

And this is not even beginning to approach the issue of the cap being disintegrated into constituent parts, which meaning that the crushing mass would involve many non-fatal smaller impacts, causing decay in and eventual halt to the collapse. This concept was even openly admitted to by Bazant & Zhou.

So if the actual collapse time is anywhere near 14 seconds, the official theory is bogus. Even an 18 second collapse time would imply that all the resistance I listed above, plus the disintegration of the crushing device, would only add 0.04s per floor to the collapse time.

So what time do you get for the collapse?


Then we also have to consider that the disintegration of the building at the collapse zone, which is what we are timing visually from video and discussing here, was actually preceded by a wave of what I can only describe as explosive destruction racing down the sides of the buildings. The destruction waves actually proceed ahead of free-falling debris for a time - a physical impossibility if the collapse was purely gravitational. This can clearly be seen in videos close to the collapses. Unfortunately those close enough to film this phenomenon didn't have a chance to film the destruction waves all the way to the ground, so we can't time them.

For your consideration (careful with your speaker volume, the second one may be loud):



images.indymedia.org...

terrorize.dk...

terrorize.dk...

terrorize.dk...





[edit on 2006-6-7 by wecomeinpeace]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join