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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Big Train
Your lack of understanding of the subject matter is laughable at best and is the subject of many jokes in the engineering community.


Apparently, not everyone is laughing.

And don't you understand that if there is something wrong concerning tthe time it took for the the buildings to collapse that there is something wrong with EVERYTHING?


Thank you Wecomeinpeace, you are doing something quite frankly I don't have the patience to do right now. The whole timing issue of the collapse time of the building has been discussed in great length in other threads as well yet, a couple of our favorites keep glossing over it or just ignoring it alltogether.

WTC 1 and 2 should not have fallen as fast as they did,,(If you go by the official story) Simple simple simple. You can't get around it, you can't escape it.




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Wrong?... Is that after the fact the the bush family was directly tied to the security of that building or that the crap load of gold that was buried was only "partly recoved" or all the other crap that makes no sense what so ever and most of the country just takes the governments words as gold? WTFE....



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan

Wrong?... Is that after the fact the the bush family was directly tied to the security of that building or that the crap load of gold that was buried was only "partly recoved" or all the other crap that makes no sense what so ever and most of the country just takes the governments words as gold? WTFE....


What the hell does that incoherant rant have to do with the topic of this thread?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
www.rediff.com...

wasnt it recovered?

enlighten me


howwwaard you beat me to it


[edit on 7-6-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
WTC 1 and 2 should not have fallen as fast as they did,,(If you go by the official story) Simple simple simple. You can't get around it, you can't escape it.


Based on what?


Originally posted by TxSecret
WTC 1 and 2 should not have fallen as fast as they did,,(If you go by the official story) Simple simple simple. You can't get around it, you can't escape it.


Based on what?

This isn’t a physics issue it is an engineering issue.

The collapse of the buiding was a buckling failure of the exterior walls.

As they buckled, they pulled free of the floor trusses.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
If you read the official report it claims that all the jet fuel burned up in a few minutes and and didn't have enough energy to create a big enough fire. They claim it was the contents of the building that created the intense fire. The problem is that the clean up crew all claim they found little contents just steel glass and concrete none of which burn very well. There was an important historic fire called triangle shirt factory which was full of combustables but it didn't collapse even though burned to a crisp.
The structural engineer for the biggest construction project in history was fresh out of college? even though the building had a revolutionary design. After it was built mass dampers were developed to prevent buildings from swaying, WTC towers had swaying stability issues. It had much structural steel on it's surface making it an armour plated building which didn't save it. The north tower and WTC 7 were the secret police HQ containing FBI,CIA, SS even NY govenor office. Thats why it was attacked twice.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Looter
If you read the official report it claims that all the jet fuel burned up in a few minutes and and didn't have enough energy to create a big enough fire. They claim it was the contents of the building that created the intense fire. The problem is that the clean up crew all claim they found little contents just steel glass and concrete none of which burn very well.



So........ 2 100+story office buildings, each floor having about an acre of floorspace had just steel, glass and concrete. I don't know about you, but maybe, just maybe those combustibles for the most part were consumed in the fires. Are you claiming since you seem to doubt the "official report" that there were not literally TONS of combustible material on each floor?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Looter
The problem is that the clean up crew all claim they found little contents just steel glass and concrete none of which burn very well.


There were fires going on in the rubble for a long time after the collapse.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
This isn’t a physics issue it is an engineering issue.


And what is engineering based on, if not physics, my friend?

However...

It ceased to be an engineering issue when NIST had to tweak their fire models progressively hotter and their damage models progressively more severe to levels unsupported by the physical evidence in order to initiate a theoretical collapse.

It ceased to be an engineering issue when NIST couldn't find any steel that had experienced temperature excursions over 250ºC.

It ceased to be an engineering issue when NIST admitted that in their truss assembly fire tests, "All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing."

It ceased to be an engineering issue when Kevin Ryan of UL confirmed the above.

It ceased to be an engineering issue when the DCR recalculations after impact and projected load redistribution showed the buildings should have held easily.

It ceased to be an engineering issue when yellow-hot molten metal was filmed pouring from WTC2 just before the collapse.

It ceased to be an engineering issue when molten steel was found under the wreckage of all three buildings.

It ceased to be an engineering issue when both towers collapsed at the same rate as would occur with zero structural resistance.

It ceased to be an engineering issue when the concrete, carpet, and everything else was pulverized into average



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
See what hurts the NIST as well as their investigation of the initial collapse, that is, their study and search of the steel, they should of called a hault on all steel being disposed of and sent overseas so they couldn't cast a thorough investigation into the steel beams to determine stress loads, buckling, temperatures of the fires, and a lot of factors that influenced the collapse.

Rather they took the speculative approach by making a model of the buildings and making computer simulated versions and inserted parameters of what they would want to suspect to happen to bring down the buildings... and even then..

So what everyone here against the NIST is arguing is that we are applying the physics what should of happened rather than what the NIST wanted to happen and what their "computer models" showed.

-----------------------

Hypothetically speaking:

A plane could crashed into the ground during a high wind storm and I could be in charge of the investigation of why it crashed and say I have video tape footage of it crashing. I study the video and look at a few pieces of the plane and make the assertion that the rudder failed to help stabilize the aircraft, so it lost control. But rather the plane actually crashed due to the high winds and not faulty equipment.

My point: Speculative research and what actually happened are two different things.

That's what we're arguing.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace



Physics.


[edit on 2006-6-7 by wecomeinpeace]


Im so glad you posted the above picture because it destorys the very conspiracy you're trying to present. You stated that in order for the building to collapse as fast as it did, there would have to be cutter charges running down the entire building, Then explain to me physics man, how does the top of the building OUT-RUN the bottom if the cutter charges are detonate in a maximum of milleseconds? Because from that photo, we see the upper portion of the building, 100's of feet below a still standing middle structure. So if all floors were cutter charged, then why is the building outrunning itself?

Seems to me that the reason the upper floors are out-running the rest is because the buidling is providing resistance to collapse.

Train



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
One word:

Delay.

Conventional demolitions are a good example, as charges go off at different, pre-determined times. The amount of time planned between each charge (or set of charges) is a delay. All kinds of technology uses delays.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
One word:

Delay.

Conventional demolitions are a good example, as charges go off at different, pre-determined times. The amount of time planned between each charge (or set of charges) is a delay. All kinds of technology uses delays.


Hmm, funny, I dont recall other demo'd buildings outrunning themselves, plus, dont thy initiate the demo charges from the ground floor to prevent the effects we see in the collapse of wtc 1 and 2?

Train



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain

Originally posted by bsbray11
One word:

Delay.

Conventional demolitions are a good example, as charges go off at different, pre-determined times. The amount of time planned between each charge (or set of charges) is a delay. All kinds of technology uses delays.


Hmm, funny, I dont recall other demo'd buildings outrunning themselves, plus, dont thy initiate the demo charges from the ground floor to prevent the effects we see in the collapse of wtc 1 and 2?

Train


Just like the speculation used to determine what might of happened to cause the collapse that the NIST concluded, people critical of the NIST report are also in a trial and error process of determining how the building fell if explosives or charges were used and where they could be placed, how it was executed. That is for those that believe it anyways.

Furthermore Train, how many demolitions have you actually seen? Really..



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain

Originally posted by bsbray11
One word:

Delay.

[...]


Hmm, funny, I dont recall other demo'd buildings outrunning themselves,


x.x... wtf?

BigTrain, define the word delay for me. I want to see if you know what it means.

The charges were sequenced at a steady rate under free fall, for obvious reasons. That's where a delay comes in! There are audio analyses out there that identify a steady ticking at a speed that corresponds to this steady sequence speed as can be determined by the collapse times. It's roughly 0.1 seconds per floor. BillyBob has even pointed out in the past that the collapse wave was ahead of the free-falling debris for a short period of time while the debris was still accelerating. The falling building didn't have to accelerate, *somehow*. It was being brought out at a constant rate from start to finish, while the free-falling debris zoomed past ahead of it and all around it, obscuring vision of the actual collapse. This is the kind of show you could expect from the military industrial complex. Nothing half-assed or not thought out.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying about the delay for the charges, then I really don't know what else I can say to try to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't understand how conventional demolitions set off charges at different times? Maybe you don't understand how digital clocks work? Maybe you don't understand how anything with a built-in timer of some sort works?


plus, dont thy initiate the demo charges from the ground floor to prevent the effects we see in the collapse of wtc 1 and 2?


What genius would blow the towers up from the bases and then try to blame the collapses on airplane impacts and fires about 100 stories up?

Think for christ sake.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
If steel is such a bad conductor of heat.. then how did an unconcentrated office fire that was not to mention oxygen starved, substantially weaken the floor trusses around the tower?

Also by common sense, with the outside fires being exposed more to oxygen, they could burn more efficiently as well, so would we notice any type of warping or noticeable effects due to heat from columns weakened that were more than just a few moments before the collapse since they too were made of steel? Because if the fire were hotter on the outside, which I do believe they were in all honesty, wouldn't you notice substaintial buckling in certain areas not related directly to the impact zone as the fires were strong enough to weaken the trusses substaintially to allow this "Failure"? Or no, just asking.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   


"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600" ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)"



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Another question: Why did it take the WTC 1 fire almost twice as long to take down the that building when it took the WTC 2 just 56 minutes. I understand the building impacts were different but it was the fire that was accused of bringing them down however.

What made the WTC 2 fire more stronger? More Jet fuel from the second plane was ignited and burned up in the initial impact than than first one so not as much seed for a large widespread fire.

Eitherway as the NIST claims, you still had to weaken all the trusses sufficiently for collapse - what about the WTC 2 fire made it so much more brillant in bringing down the building.

Talk about such a short time for steel to take time to absorb the heat and weaken enough to bring down the buildings, even with the presence of sprinkler systems, whatever fire proofing spray-on material left, concrete and the oxygen-starved fire.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
It ceased to be an engineering issue when NIST couldn't find any steel that had experienced temperature excursions over 250ºC.



If you beleive this, then do you also belive that thermite could not possibly have been used.

IIRC NIST said that the samples they tested didn't experience over 250C. If you take that to mean there were no temperatures over 250C at all then that rules out any thermite.

So, just for clarification, do you really think that no temps exceeded 250, or do you believe that thermite was used.

They seem to be mutually exclusive ideas.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Then the NIST is killing two birds, one their friend.. with one stone.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join