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.

 

The Proof Is In The Core

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
And the answer is.......it does topple as I'd expect. I believe that the toppling of the pieces is what hits the rest of it to make it fall like it did. Thanks all for the discussion. Case closed as far as I'm concerned...unless anyone thinks that it should have fallen any other way? I'm still open for discussion. Thanks again all who contributed to this thread.




posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
i think that's the core. the main support beams in the core were welded all the way up, essentially becoming 1300 ft. continuous beams.
it's my opinion that that is the only thing strong enough to stand up that high vertically with no lateral support.
i see the spire from the second collapse begin to fall like a tree, and then drop straight down so quickly that it seems to dissolve in midair and blow away.

the spire in the first collapse looks completely different, and stood so briefly that there are hardly any good pictures of it.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
oops, double post. i will physically predict that howard roark will post next.

howard roaork, who seems to have given up on science's ability to reduce 'shear' speculation.

[edit on 5-7-2006 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Also, notice how none of the "debunkers" have come in this thread yet. Funny how no-one can explain the sudden breakdown of the welds for the spire after all forces of the building have gone past.


Because it is the same B.S. that has been gone over and over before.

There was NO CONCRETE SHEAR WALL in the core.

It is erroneous to claim that the “spire” collapse was somehow a separate event from the building collapse. You have no idea what was happening to the building structure at the base, below the visible portion of the “spire.” Therefore any assumptions made by you as to the mechanism of the collapse of the "spire" are pure speculation.





edit: Oh, nevermind.





[edit on 5-7-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
BillyBob, the corner box columns were comparable to the box columns in the core. But after seeing the animation STolarZ posted, I'm switching back to the opinion that it was part of the core.


I remember that there was gray stuff stuck to the spire as well, that you can see in closer photos.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Because it is the same B.S. that has been gone over and over before.

There was NO CONCRETE SHEAR WALL in the core.


You never proved this. You just pop up every now and then and say it's already been gone over. Debunking doesn't really work that way, Howard.

And before you post pics of the WTC while it was under construction, keep in mind that the concrete wouldn't have be laid onto the steel at the same time the steel was going up. In fact, that doesn't seem like it would make much sense. So post-construction photos of the core would be nice. Funny that none of those seem to exist.




It is erroneous to claim that the “spire” collapse was somehow a separate event from the building collapse.


You're just dodging a bullet, Howard.


That column should still have obeyed physical laws. Straight down upon itself is the absolute hardest way for it to have fallen, and there was NO PANCAKING on this column, either, so that magical explanation doesn't apply either.

So rather than trying to explain it, you try to brush it off by simply putting on ignorance. We know how it fell. We may have not seem the base of it but it's not mystery that it fell straight down.


Griff, portions fell off to the side while it was stil collapsing, and then the remaining mass of the spire locked together and fell straight down from the base. You've seen this in that video now. I'm not sure on your response, but do you think this occurs naturally with falling bodies or that the base was unnaturally ripped/pulled?

[edit on 5-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
What I think possibly happened was that the pieces that toppled near the end of the collapse hit the base of the remaining spire knocking it out. I still believe that the columns were somehow "loosened" if you will. When this happened, the bottom portion of the spire was knocked away from the remaining columns, thus making it fall straight down and in doing so, knocked the remaining "loosened" welds free. I still believe there is something fishy about the whole thing, but I think I understand a little more about what may have happened to make it fall the way it did. I could be totally off in my thinking though. I'll have to watch the video again to refresh my memory.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Appearently the "continuous weld making for one 1300 foot long beam" is bogus if this transcript from the PBS program NOVA is accurate. This is a contribution from a poster at JREF.



Here is the transcript.

Also, regarding the use and structural properties of welded joints (from here):


source
Thanks for a great program. I was very interested in the analysis of the connection between the trusses and the columns and the bolt sizes used, and I have a follow-up question for Dr. Eagar or one of the people on the program. From the beginning, I noticed one thing I have not yet seen addressed: There is no bending or damage evident at the connections between the three-story high columns and the ones above which rest on them. I am referring to the four holes visible in the horizontal plate forming the base of each column in the groups of three.

If these columns had been fully welded to the one above, or used significantly stronger bolts, would the outside columns been more able to resist the penetration of the plane, and would they also have not "unzipped" as fast during the collapse? I expected to see some distortion or damage to the holes if the connection had been as strong as the column itself, which appears to have enormous resistance to shear and bending. Instead, these preassemblies of columns appeared to be almost intact when found, at least with regard to bending away from vertical. The bases and holes look intact. Could they also have used relatively weak bolts? I assume bolts were used since there are openings in each column just above the top and bottom of the column, maybe to allow wrenches.

Anonymous


Dr. Eagar responds:

This is a very perceptive question. One of my faculty colleagues pointed this out to me a few days after Sept. 11. It turns out that the connection between the column sections was only tack welded; well, maybe a bit bigger than a tack weld, but they were not continuously welded. These joints are in compression, so the weld is not load-bearing—unless the floor joist connections give way, which is what happened during the fire. The welds were only needed to hold the pieces together during steel erection. In service these welds were not really needed.

It is true that a continuously welded piece of structural steel should bend before it breaks. The column sections were not continuously welded, so they did not have the weld strength to bend the steel before the partial welds broke. That is why you do not see the sections twisted and distorted as much as if they had been welded.

Does this mean the building was defectively designed? I do not think so, because once continuous welds started to bend, the building would have been done for anyway. Even with the weaker partial welds, the primary loads in the columns were still compressive, and the distortions that popped these partial welds represented a building in a serious state of distress. Maybe the buliding might have survived a few more minutes with continuous welds, but there is no reason to conclude that the building would have withstood the entire fire without collapse if continuous welds had been present.



Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
[edit: added source link and appropriate [ex] tags]

[edit on 7/6/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Griff, can you offer an illustration of some sort showing how something could fall vertically and knock out the base of the spire, causing it to fall straight down, without simultaneously causing the spire to lean one way or another?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Griff, can you offer an illustration of some sort showing how something could fall vertically and knock out the base of the spire, causing it to fall straight down, without simultaneously causing the spire to lean one way or another?


You can see the huge sections of beams hitting the 'spire' and causing the quake from the shock and them see it waver and lean very much off its COG and them snap.

You can't see this?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I'm thinking of it as like a column of pencils balanced on each other (just balanced because like I said before, I still believe something severed or at least half severed the connections). Then if you kick out the bottom pencil, the whole column will come crashing down in on itself. So, I guess basically it goes back to the original question of what caused the connections to be weak enough that this would happen. I don't believe that the fall of the surrounding building would have severed the connections enough, but may have. This one is a tough call. I keep contradicting myself in my own mind so I hope I'm not confusing people. Also, I could be totally wrong in my thoughts.

Or like how you can split bolling pins by hitting one pin and sending it into the other. But, imagine some more pins lightly connected to form a column. Kinda like how a magician can pull out a tablecloth underneath a set table without making things crash down.

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to come to the conclusion again that it should have toppled more than fall the way it did. The only thing that would make it fall straight down like that would be the severing of some welds/connections. I'm thinking that the pieces at the end hitting the columns may have done this to the already weakened connections. I'm definately not ruling out that there was some outside help to weaken some connections other than the collapse itself. Confused yet? I am.....



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Appearently the "continuous weld making for one 1300 foot long beam" is bogus if this transcript from the PBS program NOVA is accurate. This is a contribution from a poster at JREF.


very nice, except that the info you are citing is discussing the PERIMETER, and not the box columns in the core.
the main box columns were welded all the way up. i had no idea the perimeter was welded AT ALL!? i'm 'eager' to learn, though. i always assumed the four bolts were the sole fasteners of the perimeter tree columns. extra strength, eh? cool.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Appearently the "continuous weld making for one 1300 foot long beam" is bogus if this transcript from the PBS program NOVA is accurate. This is a contribution from a poster at JREF.


very nice, except that the info you are citing is discussing the PERIMETER, and not the box columns in the core.
the main box columns were welded all the way up. i had no idea the perimeter was welded AT ALL!? i'm 'eager' to learn, though. i always assumed the four bolts were the sole fasteners of the perimeter tree columns. extra strength, eh? cool.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Vushta
Appearently the "continuous weld making for one 1300 foot long beam" is bogus if this transcript from the PBS program NOVA is accurate. This is a contribution from a poster at JREF.


very nice, except that the info you are citing is discussing the PERIMETER, and not the box columns in the core.
the main box columns were welded all the way up. i had no idea the perimeter was welded AT ALL!? i'm 'eager' to learn, though. i always assumed the four bolts were the sole fasteners of the perimeter tree columns. extra strength, eh? cool.


Heres the source link for my previous post.

www.pbs.org...

I had no idea that leaving that out was a form of plagerism. I always thought you had to somehow make or attempt to make financial gain for it to be plagerism..Guess not.

What makes you think its only the perimeter columns?
Got a link?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I was just watching "Scarborough country" and he showed a tower implosion. It looked exactly like the spire imploding upon itself. I'm trying to find the video on MSNBC if anyone can help. It's from the show aired on 7/6/06. I want to find this video because it shows exactly what we are talking about. If anyone can help in finding it....please. I'll look more.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I was just watching "Scarborough country" and he showed a tower implosion. It looked exactly like the spire imploding upon itself. I'm trying to find the video on MSNBC if anyone can help. It's from the show aired on 7/6/06. I want to find this video because it shows exactly what we are talking about. If anyone can help in finding it....please. I'll look more.


Sure it looks Exactly like it? I'd like to see that too if you find it. I missed the history channels show on the history of demolitions last week..just caught the last 5 min. Crap. It looked like a good show. Did anyone see it?

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Be careful when you say something looks exactly like something else, Griff. Vushta can't see a single similarity between the WTC squibs and normal demo squibs, even though they both consist of long puffs of whitish dust being ejected from the buildings laterally as they collapse straight down upon themselves. How many similarities is that? And Vushta can't see one of them.


Btw, Vushta, even if something did strike the spire before it collapsed, it still fell from the base, not from the top. I'll leave ATS and never return if you show me something, anything that collapses straight down upon itself like the spire, just from something falling and hitting it near the top. I don't care for any more silly talk from you. Start supporting your own arguments instead of relying on others to debunk you.


Griff: the whole reason I asked you to post some kind of visualization was to get you to visualize how that would work, something hitting the base and making it fall straight down, and then show me how you got it (though I realize you're not hard and fast with this idea). Because I honestly can't see how that could happen at all. The columns had at least some lateral strength, right? At least some welding, bracing, what have you. So, the way I see it, if anything knocked a lower portion, it would fall one way and tug the above column in that direction if they did indeed try to separate (weak welds or whatever). If there weren't weak welds, then the whole issue would be settled right there because the whole thing would topple to one side like other large sections did.

The most plausible things I can see bringing the spire down, straight down like that, are either thermite eating somewhat vertically/at an angle, or else something cutting the base so fast and with so much force that it didn't get a chance to be pushed or lean (high explosives).

[edit on 6-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
What makes you think its only the perimeter columns?
Got a link?


only the perimeter columns, because the huge box columns, are HOLLOW, and so there are no four bolts. they are welded(and ground flush). there's a great picture of a guy cutting up the wreckage where you get to see the weld, and the scale of the steel in the huge, rectangular, HOLLOW beams. the box columns had to be made in japan, because america didn't have a factory that could make steel beams that huge.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Vushta
What makes you think its only the perimeter columns?
Got a link?


only the perimeter columns, because the huge box columns, are HOLLOW, and so there are no four bolts. they are welded(and ground flush). there's a great picture of a guy cutting up the wreckage where you get to see the weld, and the scale of the steel in the huge, rectangular, HOLLOW beams. the box columns had to be made in japan, because america didn't have a factory that could make steel beams that huge.



Intuitive deduction? Got anything better?

What does where the steel was made have to do with how they were utilized on site?
You may be right but do you have any more relible evidence?
You could start with that picture you mention.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Griff, can you offer an illustration of some sort showing how something could fall vertically and knock out the base of the spire, causing it to fall straight down, without simultaneously causing the spire to lean one way or another?


If you want 'some sort of illustration' why not look at that gif you posted?
See any explosions?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   


Be careful when you say something looks exactly like something else, Griff. Vushta can't see a single similarity between the WTC squibs and normal demo squibs, even though they both consist of long puffs of whitish dust being ejected from the buildings laterally as they collapse straight down upon themselves. How many similarities is that? And Vushta can't see one of them.



How many similarities is that??..well..I count one. And its only a similarity to you.

The 'squibs' share nothing in common with a CD 'squib'.
What are you looking at? A 25 story building has an even sequence of about 100 explosions of which the vast majority detonate before any collapse begins..the building shows obvious signs of massive preparation work...and it falls much too slow..not even close to freefall.


On ther other hand you have a building with 110 stories showing 4or 5 random 'squibs'..no sign of explosives .. collapse starting before any 'squibs' and zero evidence of prep work.

With this in mind, how would a non-explosive pressure induced 'squib' visually differ from whats seen in the towers collapse? If they would appear similar, then other things evident in a CD would have to be present...they aren't.



Btw, Vushta, even if something did strike the spire before it collapsed, it still fell from the base, not from the top. I'll leave ATS and never return if you show me something, anything that collapses straight down upon itself like the spire, just from something falling and hitting it near the top.


Low is where it was hit. What do you mean 'hit it near the top'?

If you knock out ANY section from the part thats visible, the remaining structure will fall straight down. It has to do this or levitate in the air.

What you're saying--if I understand you correctly--is what happened is that some type of explosion with a force great enough to knock out a section at least as tall as the remaining spire allowed for the unrestricted drop. The base at this point is deep in rubble with much particulate matter in the air. An explosion of the magnitude needed should have been visually evident by either throwing debris up into the air or obviously dispersing the existing particulate matter which would have been visually obvious. This didn't happen.

Could you provide some type of illustration to show how your idea would work?
Didn't think so.

Heres a good idea from a smart person..please take the advise.


Start supporting your own arguments instead of relying on others to debunk you.





. I don't care for any more silly talk from you


Oh My!



The columns had at least some lateral strength, right? At least some welding, bracing, what have you.


Did they?
Lateral strength? From what?
Tack welds and no..zero bracing. You can see this. What were they braced to?

Thermite isn't plausible and there was no sign of explosives.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join