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.

 

If the twin towers were left burning, could they soon collapsed?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Let the Truth be known:

"It's all fake!"

Thanks for the conversation.

--And where's my @#$% avatar..?!


[edit on 29-7-2006 by Tuning Spork]

[edit on 29-7-2006 by Tuning Spork]

Oh, there it is...


[edit on 29-7-2006 by Tuning Spork]




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

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.



Uh looks like 300 million gain on the deal to me?

Business types always take as little insurance as they can get because business assets often are valued lower in a disaster.

Very few pay the heavy premiums of 'replacement value.'

Also Larry got what he wanted anyways... who was his friend that presided over the case?

You know and I know that the Towers were pigs, energy suckers filled with asbestos and in desperate need for upgrades. Today's requirments alone for I.T. made the Towers a white elephant.

Larry hanging with the boys at the top must have some good clients lined up and I'm willing to be a lot higher rents once his projects are done. It is just a matter of his being floated in the interim but the banks which I'm sure is no trouble for him.

Larry will win big on this deal financially but I still see him being cornered in time on the 'pull-it' phrase.

Yeah Pull-it Larry...



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Still in denial I see........



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I need some *ONE* to do me a favor, please.

I am new to these forums and thus am unable to send private messages among other things.

Could someone please private message theRiverGoddess and ask her to reference her post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please tell theRiverGoddess that i am the one time author of the mars-u.sentientstorm.com site and the scientist which she referenced in the above post.

Tell her if she wishes to contact me, she may do so at marsunearthed@snip.net

Thank you very much.
(sorry for any disruption of this thread)



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

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)


I also have some friends who are metallurgists, some are somewhat normal, if that is even possible, while others are quite eccentric like you say. So i guess it all depends on the person. i think the same can be said from every other engineer I have met.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   

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.


I think we are pass the "freefall speed" theory. The towers did not fall at freefall speed...


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.


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?


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.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

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]


Hey Valhall, can you please point us to what report this is?

Some quotes from one of the links provided by one of our members.


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 800ŽC. The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast.

www-math.mit.edu...



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Seeing how the WTC is different from an overpass or bridge, Jet fuel is different from diesel


REPLY: The bridge was mentioned because Jones brought it up, and also to show that high heat can and does cause structural steel to weaken and sag/deform.

I hate to bring this up, but jet fuel is kerosene, very similar to diesel in burning characteristics and temps, just slightly more refined and triple filtered. Geez.......

Val: The top of at least one tower DID start to tilt.

This is just too much wasted time.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
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?


[edit on 30-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

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.


REPLY: By what kind of math do you figure he came out 300 million ahead? $4.3 billion to rebuild, minus $3.5 worth of insurance. He's about 800 million in the red.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   

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.


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.


Did your opinion change now that you know the towers did not fall at "freefall speed" as you and some others believed?


Absolutely not. Again, they fell at pretty much near a freefall speed. They fell entirely too fast. It looked like freefall speed to me, even though freefall is much lower speed. Read my later posts for my clarification of this.


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.



Like I said, I am yet to hear a credible answer as to why building 7 collapsed. The offical story is, well.........unbelievable. Many more buildings should have collapsed on their own if this was the case.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   

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?


You are confusing fire temperatures with the temperatures to which the steel was heated.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

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.



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



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

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?


Right, I absolutely agree. They fell at 1/3 the accleration of freefall.



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.


It's spread all over the board in several threads - are you requesting I go gather it up for you? I'm not going to. But I'll list it here and then if you choose to get the details you can read through the various threads:

- reports of explosions on lower levels of WTC 1, ranging from Floor 22 down to basement level B4
- collapses and fires in lower levels of WTC 1, ranging from Floor 22 down to basement level B4
- a group of middle-eastern men who were arrested in January 2002 after attempting to obtain drivers licenses with false documents in Tennessee. Two of these men had WTC pass badges. One had a pass badge for WTC 1 with the date 09/05/01 (the second may have as well, but I'm going off memory and can't be sure of that). When questioned about what he was doing in the WTC he said he was there working for a contractor to fix the sprinkler system. The Port Authority states outright "we never use contractors for work on the sprinkler system", he wasn't working for us. The contract company the man listed that he worked for - doesn't exist. The DMV lady, who the men had been working with to get the IDs, and who had turned states witness to get out of charges against her "fixing documents", died just days before she was to testify in court. She died in a freakish wreck where her car was travelling at 25 mph, hit a telephone pole, and unlike any other modern car on the road, unexplainably burst into flames after this low-velocity impact.....coroner states she was dead prior to the collision. As far as I know, none of these dudes trying to get fake IDs served any time other than waiting on their trial. But I don't know that to be true. I do know the dude with the 9/5/01 pass to WTC who didn't work on the sprinkler for a company that didn't exist - was bailed out..by a guy in Manhattan.



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.


Hang on....those calculations were WTC 1 (and I believe there is video evidence for WTC 2 that puts it about in the same range, but I haven't done any calcu-ma-lating on that one) BUT - WTC 7 fell real damned fast. There's no getting around that. It fell at freefall as best as I know (again no calculations, just watching videos). I'm sure there are several members willing to provide video footage of that collapse to show you the time. It was really fast.


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?


wtc.nist.gov...

www.nist.gov...

In particular - here's the cliff notes -

wtc.nist.gov...

And don't quote MIT to me when we're dealing with the only body (NIST) that has been able to do proper metallurgical analysis and who refuses to share any data with any other group to have a second set of experts run modelling and calculations to verify their findings! NIST is the ONLY body of experts who have access and knowledge of the evidence, methodologies, etc. that result in their findings - so not Steven Jones or MIT can set in the balcony seats and "change the story". Because if MIT gets to change the story, so does Steven Jones or Alex Jones or bsbray11 for that matter! You don't get it both ways.

Here is what NIST states:

Concerning the jet fuel:


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.


Concerning the redistribution of load after impact (WTC 1):


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.


...and for WTC 2:


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.


And for redistribution of load on to perimeter columns due to thermal degradation of core strength (WTC 1):


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.


...and for WTC 2:


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.


Concerning the exposure of structural elements to instense heat:


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.


Slide 31 will show you that for WTC 1 they have exactly one core column getting to about 400 C - all the rest are lower. For WTC 2, three core columns at 250 C, nothing else above that. (It also depicts the missing columns after the impact.)

www.house.gov...

wtc.nist.gov...

www.nistreview.org...

www.nistreview.org...


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?


I don't think I said this, did I? If I said "there was no temperature above 250 C" then I mis-spoke. What I said was that the NIST report states - what it states above. That no structural member was exposed to the elevated temperatures for the duration of the fires, and that the cores columns saw about 250 C max (for WTC 2, and a couple at 450 C in WTC 1). And that would make sense if the "no structural element was exposed to the elevated temperatures of the fire" for the duration. I mean, for WTC 2, you're talking about less than 1 hour before collapse - and then when you add the statement that no structural element was exposed to the fire for that entire time you're down to something less than that!


[edit on 7-30-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
And then I'd like to point out one more factoid that I don't believe I've ever seen anybody share when discussing thermal degradation of steel strength...

it's not permanent. If the steel is allowed to start cooling back down, it follows the same strength curve back to ambient that it followed getting to temperature. So if you start with an 50,000 psi piece of steel at ambient, bring it to 250 C (and therefore decreased yield strength), and then burn up all the available combustible fuel and the fire passes on to another area allowing that piece of steel to start cooling. If it comes back to ambient it's going to have 50,000 psi yield strength again (especially when you're talking about less than an hour at the elevated temp).

Just thought I'd slip that in.


[edit on 7-30-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
My personal thought on the theory it was the fire/fuel ladden craft bringing down WTC is an unanounced call for staking out a region dominated by oil (Iraq). Kind of a call of insiders that it was "oil" that was responsible.
If you look at the video of the collapse, it occured about 1/3 of the way down from the fire, where obviously a structural weakness was introduced from the impact of a speeding jetliner.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

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


It fell in about 14 seconds for one, 16 for the other. Thats going by seismic records and video eveidence.

14 or 16 seconds is entirely too fast for a building that is supposedly weakening to fall. The rate and totality of the destruction. The lower floors were heavier and were not damaged by fire or plane impact. Thus, they should have given alot more resistance, slowing down the collapse.

And val makes excellent points about building 7.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Okay, but to me, 16 seconds isn't unreasonable. Nor is it unreasonable that if a 30 story chunk of building falls on the floor below an impact point there will be a subsequent collapse. The pancake collapse theory makes perfect sense to me, and that's where I don't understand why some people have a problem with it.

Let's take the initial floor collapse only: let's put the floor height at 10'. Okay, it's going to take about .79 seconds for the top 30 floors to fall through a 10' distance and smack the next floor. It's going to be travelling at about 25 ft/s by the time it impacts.

That's 30 story (300 feet) of a 207 x 207 building falling at 25 ft/s. That's a butt-load of energy. All bets are off on the static load rating of the structural elements in the impacted floor at this point because you are in a dynamic loading condition. Further to that, with each floor impact you get jerk (the derivative of the acceleration) which is going to act like the world's largest jack-hammer on every structural element below the impact point, and this happened over and over and over - for about 78 floors (on WTC 2). This would DECIMATE the bolting members and weld points before you ever even got to them!

I personally do not believe the WTC towers (1 and 2 that is) fell in any unbelievable fashion EXCEPT FOR the way WTC 2's top 30 floors righted themselves. And I still can't get comfortable with that one. Doesn't mean I won't end up getting comfortable with it, I just haven't seen anything that explains it to where I can accept it.

BUT - what I do have an issue with is that (according to the NIST report) there were neither enough structural elements missing in the core, nor high enough sustained temperatures to the remaining members to warrant the initiation of the collapse in the short amount of time the fires burned. That's why I suspect there may have been something else going on in the buidling (that and the explosions and collapses at lower levels).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join