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.

 

Enuff ... I have a question ... please?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Hold someone responsible? For a well-planned attack that took full advantage of the weaknesses in our system? You cannot defend against all probabilities. Indeed, prior to 9/11, most people would have thought the idea of terrorists flying planes into buildings on purpose was too goofy for words (except those who read Tom Clancy and Dale Brown anyway).

Then there is the supposition that WTC2 should have collapsed last due to the burning of the majority of the jet fuel on impact.....except you forget a few things.
WTC 2 was hit at a greater angle (covered more floors) much lower and much closer to the corner of the building, in other words, there was much more mass above the impact point and subject to higher stresses (the corner) than WTC 1.

The fires only accelerated the collapses, both towers were doomed from the moment of impact.

As for the "the towers were designed to handle the impact of a jetliner" I can once again offer this statement.

The Titanic was designed to be "unsinkable"

Or do you think George Bush created the iceberg too?




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Swampfox, no the towers were not doomed from impact, otherwise they would of been compromised at that point and fell. And according to the official story, you had impact damage but contributions of the offices fires afterwords were accused of causing sagging trusses, which in turn caused the accused buckling of the exterior columns.out of the question

As for World Trade Center 2, that is incorrect. The building's structural components (the perimeter columns and inner core columns) were made more robust towards the base than the upper half, so they were in proportion to what they could handle, so the idea of more mass is completely out of the question. You still had to have "intense fires" that would of had to weaken the trusses and cause the columns to buckle on one floor, and that's to the point of maximum compromisation.

Can you show evidence of massive buckling around the perimeter around World Trade Center 2 before it collapsed? I would like to see this, as it IS the blame for why the building fell.

[edit on 8/25/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
No, doomed from the moment impact does not mean an immeadiate collapse. In case you havent ever been around tall buildings, it gets pretty windy, buildings sway. Swaying combined with gravity, plus the widespread damage, those buildings were going to come down, the fire accelerated the collapse.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, doomed from the moment impact does not mean an immeadiate collapse. In case you havent ever been around tall buildings, it gets pretty windy, buildings sway.


Read the NIST Report on this. They state that the winds that day were not enough to cause major stress to the perimeter columns, which were designed to take hurricane-force winds, and obviously the winds that day were nowhere approaching that.

Since the floors were not full of people (most evacuated), this also greatly reduced the stress upon the perimeter columns. NIST also goes over this in their report.


Swaying combined with gravity, plus the widespread damage, those buildings were going to come down, the fire accelerated the collapse.


You have to quantify these things. Simply stating this opinion will get us nowhere, as I can easily pull a contradictory one out of my ass, and then we would have a problem.

Give us some numbers. Show us how many buckled columns. Show us how many it would take for a whole floor to fail, theoretically, assuming a local collapse would not occur first.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Quantify? Another hang up of the conspiracys. Its more common sense than "quantification". Every structural engineer ive talked to or listened to have all said the same thing, most of them were amazed that the towers stood as long as they did. The ARCHITECTS working for the firm that originally designed the towers have said similar things.

There is no way to know exactly how many of the columns on the interior were destroyed, the only supports that you can get a good idea of how many were severed, were the outside ones. As for the supports withstanding hurricane force winds, thats only when the building is whole, the towers were not.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Quantify? Another hang up of the conspiracys.


Yeah, leave it to us to screw things up by asking for verification with numbers, actual hard math and science.


Its more common sense than "quantification".


Funny to use common sense on three totally unprecedented skyscraper collapses.

Considering no skyscrapers have ever collapsed like that in the history of the world, and new terms and everything had to be invented to try to explain them, saying it was just "common sense" strikes me as a pretty dumb thing to say.



Every structural engineer ive talked to or listened to have all said the same thing, most of them were amazed that the towers stood as long as they did. The ARCHITECTS working for the firm that originally designed the towers have said similar things.


Leading structural engineers also had no problems backing the theory that the jet fuel fire melted the steel right after 9/11. I could give you a page that gives sources of probably 10+ structural engineers, civil engineers, and architects agreeing that the fuel melted the columns to cause failure. This is how "expert" these people are on this subject, and this is why there is so much emphasis upon them from government investigations.

They back these stupid ideas because they have no expertise in metallurgy or even dynamic systems. They deal with static loads. Static loads, in case you didn't know, does not include the effects of fire upon steel, or anything that deals with moving masses.


There is no way to know exactly how many of the columns on the interior were destroyed,


This is convenient for you, then, because NIST largely ignores the core to pin the collapses on perimeter buckling from truss failure.

So it shouldn't be hard at all for you to provide us with a number on the buckled columns per floor.


As for the supports withstanding hurricane force winds, thats only when the building is whole, the towers were not.


I'm not saying they still could have taken hurricane winds. I was showing that your assertion that the wind was a signicant factor in bringing the Towers down is hardly even worth addressing. The stresses presented by the winds on 9/11 were minimal, and nowhere near breaching any design limits. Again, even NIST will tell you this.




[edit on 25-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
And again you ignore the facts. Im still waiting for someone to come up with another instance of terrorists crashing fueled airliners at high-speed into skyscrapers. Of course, prior to 9/11, it hadnt happened. What happened that day was unprecedented. Nothing had to be "invented" to explain that day. It was a matter of coming to understand a new issue.

So the winds THAT day werent that strong, big deal. I didnt say that the winds played a major factor THAT day, but they would have been a factor had the fire not accelerated the collapse. The buildings had both suffered fatal damage to their structures from the impacts, you dont need math to explain that.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And again you ignore the facts.


What "facts" am I ignoring? It's such a freaking cheap shot to head off your posts with garbage like this.


Im still waiting for someone to come up with another instance of terrorists crashing fueled airliners at high-speed into skyscrapers.


I'll give you some facts on the impacts. They failed a small minority of the columns where they hit, in either Tower.

For the perimeter columns, see FEMA 2.2.1.1 (North Tower) and 2.2.2.2 (South Tower), and for the core columns, see NIST's impact modeling. They absolute worst they came up with was 22 damaged columns out of the 47, and less than half of that were actually severed. For perimeter, it was less than 15% for either building in the impacted regions. The perimeter columns were 500% redundant. This is when the math comes in handy, despite you not wanting to look at it.


Nothing had to be "invented" to explain that day.


Concepts for progressive global collapses were invented. Progressive collapse originated from the Oklahoma City Bombing. 9/11 was the first time this imaginary mechanism caused whole buildings to collapse, or so we're told, and of course the buildings just happened to be some of the most over-engineered, massive skyscrapers in the world.


So the winds THAT day werent that strong, big deal. I didnt say that the winds played a major factor THAT day, but they would have been a factor had the fire not accelerated the collapse.


Talk to Valhall about that and see what she has to say about creep, and how slow it is, and how the buildings would have failed instantly if the impacts could've done it alone. Why do you think NIST tries to pin the collapses on the fire? The office fire, no less, as the jet fuel burned off early. Do you think it's because they're dense, and want to sell a dense story to the population?

[edit on 25-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Yes and NIST ran right up both Towers to fully inspect the damage that day. Their report was based on the very limited evidence they had.

And in the end, it comes back to 'engineering'. Engineers are prone to screw up just like everyone else. Actually they seem to be much more proficient at it. The Titanic was overengineered, the Concorde was overengineered, the DeHaviland Comet was overengineered, and yet they ALL failed because the engineers were convinced they had it just right.

Yes, the WTC towers were impressive feats of engineering....until the events of 9/11 highlighted the flaws.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yes and NIST ran right up both Towers to fully inspect the damage that day.


Again, they computer simulated the impacts, and the absolute worst they got was 22 out of 47 damaged.

I might add, that they changed Flight 175's flight path, from an angle to a direct-hit, in order to get those results, too.


And in the end, it comes back to 'engineering'. Engineers are prone to screw up just like everyone else. Actually they seem to be much more proficient at it. The Titanic was overengineered, the Concorde was overengineered, the DeHaviland Comet was overengineered, and yet they ALL failed because the engineers were convinced they had it just right.


I could swing it right back at you: structural engineers think they have the collapse mechanism pinned because they have no idea what they're talking about with building fires and collapses. They have much less of an idea here than they would with their own field of study.


Yes, the WTC towers were impressive feats of engineering....until the events of 9/11 highlighted the flaws.


I'd like you to back this up, too.

It's like all you do is make assertions that sound plausible on the surface, but that you never bother to back up, or even want to back, or even think backing up is worth it, or even productive. Wouldn't you be the classic conspiracy theorist?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join