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 Swampfox46_1999
It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted.
www.nypost.com...
So, the total price of the rebuild will cost 4.3 BILLION on top of the insurance settlement.
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
Originally posted by Valhall
Yeah, my calculations came out 16 seconds.
Okay, so that puts the acceleration of the fall at about 10.2 ft/s^2 - that's one-third the acceleration of gravity.
*blink blink*
Originally posted by Valhall
.....................
I have found information that points to the possibility the terrorists could have planted explosives in lower level floors prior to that day. So, see? There's more than one possibility. And I'm staying open to all of them at this point.
Originally posted by Valhall
No, not structural. Degreed Aerospace Engineer with 15 years experience in mechanical designs, and about 10 of that heavy in metallurgical aspects of mechanical design. I know a fair bit about metallurgy, but just because 1. it turned out that way, and 2. some of the neatest people I've ever met were metallurgists (they're like the hippies of the engineering world - ever damned one of them are eccentric and totally unique characters)
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I still have found nothing credible in the offical accounts as to why the Twin Towers fell at the speed the fell, also known as freefall, which is consistant with demolition.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The speed alone at which the towers collapsed is perhaps, in my opinion, the most incredible part of the whole thing.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
And of course, I still am yet to hear any credible explaination for building 7.
My .8 pence.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by Phoenix
Its not pathetic to ask for credentials when peer review is done by doctors of philosophy and such with no expertise in the subject matter used by CT'ers.
Well, here's where I'd like to point something out (from my perspective). Before the FINAL FINAL NIST report came out, I was 100% convinced the planes and fires brought down the buildings. Then the report came out and the NIST told how many columns they felt were taken out by the planes, and made the statement no single structural member ever saw sustained temperatures above 250 C for any appreciable length of time. The relatively low number of columns identified as taken out in the NIST record, along with the statement of no sustained elevated temperatures, led to a situation that looks to me like the towers shouldn't have fallen!
[edit on 7-29-2006 by Valhall]
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C. The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast.
Seeing how the WTC is different from an overpass or bridge, Jet fuel is different from diesel
Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
Originally posted by Muaddib
I think we are pass the "freefall speed" theory. The towers did not fall at freefall speed...
Well, I guess then your opinion is changed now, since Valhall posted for us at what speed the towers fell, which was 1/3 the speed of gravity, proving the towers did not fall at freefall speed.
Did your opinion change now that you know the towers did not fall at "freefall speed" as you and some others believed?
The explosions from the crashes of the planes which sent pressure waves to the surrounding buildings, the burning debris blown by the explosion of the planes, the fact that the fall of both towers produced earthquakes which helped weaken wtc7 and other buildings, the fact that there was debris which fell and damaged WTC7, plus the fires weakening wtc7 even more, they all contributed to the collapse of that building.
Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, VAlhall, if there was only 250 C temperature at the WTC from the fires, how is that possible when temperatures in a residential fire often reach 500 C to 650 C?
So how come the fires at the WTC were less than those in a residential fire?
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
No, my opinion has not changed. When I used the term freefall, I was using the 14 second figure. Val came up with 16 seconds for another tower. So technically, it wasn't "free fall" in the most literal sense.
But it was still entirely too fast given the building and circumstances. Please read my later posts for details of my view on this.
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by Valhall
Yeah, my calculations came out 16 seconds.
Okay, so that puts the acceleration of the fall at about 10.2 ft/s^2 - that's one-third the acceleration of gravity.
*blink blink*
Which proves that the buildings "did not fall at freefall" like some people claim.
Don't you agree?
Originally posted by Valhall
.....................
I have found information that points to the possibility the terrorists could have planted explosives in lower level floors prior to that day. So, see? There's more than one possibility. And I'm staying open to all of them at this point.
Could you tell us what information is that?
Thanks.
Muaddib says:
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
And of course, I still am yet to hear any credible explaination for building 7.
My .8 pence.
The explosions from the crashes of the planes which sent pressure waves to the surrounding buildings, the burning debris blown by the explosion of the planes, the fact that the fall of both towers produced earthquakes which helped weaken wtc7 and other buildings, the fact that there was debris which fell and damaged WTC7, plus the fires weakening wtc7 even more, they all contributed to the collapse of that building.
Muaddib states:
Originally posted by Valhall
Well, here's where I'd like to point something out (from my perspective). Before the FINAL FINAL NIST report came out, I was 100% convinced the planes and fires brought down the buildings. Then the report came out and the NIST told how many columns they felt were taken out by the planes, and made the statement no single structural member ever saw sustained temperatures above 250 C for any appreciable length of time. The relatively low number of columns identified as taken out in the NIST record, along with the statement of no sustained elevated temperatures, led to a situation that looks to me like the towers shouldn't have fallen!
Hey Valhall, can you please point us to what report this is?
The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact. The fires that burned for almost the entire time that the buildings remained standing were due mainlyto burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel.
As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.
As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the core carried 6 percent less gravity loads after impact and the North face carried 10 percent less loads. The East face carried 24 percent more gravity load, while the West face and the South face carried 3 percent and 2 percent more gravity load, respectively.
As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percentmore loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening.
As a result of thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact), theEast wall carried about 5 percent more gravity loads and the core carried about 2 percent less loads. The other three walls carried between 0 and 3 percent less loads.
Typical office furnishings were able to sustain intense fires for at least an hour on a given WTC floor. No structural component, however, was subject to intense fires for the entire period of burning. The duration of intense burning impacting any specific component was controlled by:
•The availability of combustible materials
•Fuel gases released by those combustibles
•Combustion air in the specific area
•The typical floor had on average about 4psfof combustible materials on floors.Mass of aircraft solid combustibles was significant in the immediate impact region of both WTC towers.
NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using
observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature
reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were
examined on the perimeter column panels; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the
perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns
on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.
These areas were:
• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector
Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.
Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.
Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fireaffected floors of the towers. Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, VAlhall, if there was only 250 C temperature at the WTC from the fires, how is that possible when temperatures in a residential fire often reach 500 C to 650 C?
So how come the fires at the WTC were less than those in a residential fire?
Originally posted by JackJuice
As i said in a previous post that the building did not fall as fast as you think it did again please look at the pictures from my source site, parts of the building fell really fast but the dust cloud covered up the rest of the building that fell much slower.
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Source look at pics