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.

 

WTC North tower burned for 3 hours at 700 degree C in 1975

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun

A: Matter in motion equals energy. A collapsing structure of this mass would generate an enormous amount of heat. Elementery physics.
B: Cascade falures do this. It's almost impossible for a structure to fall to the side. Note when south tower went down in the video footage. The upper floor started a tilt but with the tug of gravity and the overstressing on components it had no where to go but almost straight down. Also consider the steel curtain wall construction that acted like pipe attempting to contain the pressures.
C: Remember the innercore was concrete clad columns, they too once overstessed by the shifting weight lost integrety. Once a cascade starts unstoppable.
D: I can't truly answer this not being there but more than likely mangled up with the rest of the reckage.

I would like to believe the CTs but physics and science tells me otherwise. Maybe I read a lot and work with metal bulding engineers that spoils all the fun but makes sense when all the factors are brough in. I was one of the people watching the live feed saying those two would survive. When they did collapse I was dumbfounded and searching for answers until the farensics came in. I would also like to see them finding some cordite or other incindiary in the pile just to remove the regime from the beltway but it's not going to happen.


A) And that energy seemed to make it hot enough to keep the molten steel/iron weeks after the collapse? I don't buy your theory first of all, of the momentum and force causing high thermal activity resulting in molten steel. Have you seen the NASA thermal imaging? How does that explain away the case for World Trade Center 7?
B) Yes but it managed to symmetrically bring down the whole building. You're putting more force on one side than the other, how do you intend to have a symmetrical collapse? My point is --> Symmetrical collapse out of an uneven applied force. It fell like World Trade Center 2.
C) Obviously

D) How about pre-collapse?

Science also tells a lot of other people otherwise. What factors? Are those the same engineers that claimed steel melting caused the building to collapse?



[edit on 9/11/2006 by Masisoar]




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I don't think some folks are thinking events through, when it is thought that 2 airplanes can bring 3 buildings straight down. The argument should quite honestly end there about whether the official story is completely true, and we then all should start working together to find the real story. We should all be in Bush's face, spitting and cursing, demanding the truth.

If not done so allready, let's all take a moment to remember those who lost their lives on that day.

Troy




[edit on 12-9-2006 by cybertroy]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Forgive my ignorance, but I have a few questions:

1. So there was a fire in 1975 on the 11th floor. How many firemen and how much of the city fire equipment was brought to the scene to fight the fire? Were firemen actually involved in direct fire suppression procedures? Was the fire burning for any period of time without fire-suppression being used on it (i.e. was nothing being done about the fire during these supposed three hours?)

2. On 9-11, how many firemen reached the scene of the fires to begin active suppression? How long of a time did they have to fight the fire?

If the two time frames are not equal or the number of people involved not equal, then it's hard to really compare these two events and draw conclusions from them.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Yes.. we need to get back on topic with the comparison of these two events. I'm going to spend some time researching this topic tomorrow so I'll provide my research within 24 hours, interesting.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun

A: Matter in motion equals energy. A collapsing structure of this mass would generate an enormous amount of heat. Elementery physics.
B: Cascade falures do this. It's almost impossible for a structure to fall to the side. Note when south tower went down in the video footage. The upper floor started a tilt but with the tug of gravity and the overstressing on components it had no where to go but almost straight down. Also consider the steel curtain wall construction that acted like pipe attempting to contain the pressures.
C: Remember the innercore was concrete clad columns, they too once overstessed by the shifting weight lost integrety. Once a cascade starts unstoppable.
D: I can't truly answer this not being there but more than likely mangled up with the rest of the reckage.

I would like to believe the CTs but physics and science tells me otherwise. Maybe I read a lot and work with metal bulding engineers that spoils all the fun but makes sense when all the factors are brough in. I was one of the people watching the live feed saying those two would survive. When they did collapse I was dumbfounded and searching for answers until the farensics came in. I would also like to see them finding some cordite or other incindiary in the pile just to remove the regime from the beltway but it's not going to happen.


A) And that energy seemed to make it hot enough to keep the molten steel/iron weeks after the collapse? I don't buy your theory first of all, of the momentum and force causing high thermal activity resulting in molten steel. Have you seen the NASA thermal imaging? How does that explain away the case for World Trade Center 7?
B) Yes but it managed to symmetrically bring down the whole building. You're putting more force on one side than the other, how do you intend to have a symmetrical collapse? My point is --> Symmetrical collapse out of an uneven applied force. It fell like World Trade Center 2.
C) Obviously

D) How about pre-collapse?

Science also tells a lot of other people otherwise. What factors? Are those the same engineers that claimed steel melting caused the building to collapse?



[edit on 9/11/2006 by Masisoar]

This will answer you semitry problem. www.zombietime.com...
Observe the debris on the other buildings in the second pic southeast corner.

As for that picture and caption a few posts back "Does this look like it would bring down the towers". The answer is yes. Those were fires on the side, you must consider the fires in the area of impact where a lot of debris was compacted against the inner core where the fire were burning through several open floors.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by AlabamaCajun]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun

This will answer you semitry problem. www.zombietime.com...
Observe the debris on the other buildings in the second pic southeast corner.



[edit on 12-9-2006 by AlabamaCajun]


The symmetry problem was answered by showing pictures of a bottom corner bunch of exterior columns - that solves the symmetry problem - How does that solve the symmetry problem?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Bottom line, we can factor in fire and other things, but if those things didn't come together just right, it really is unlikely that 3 three buildings fell like they did that day. And that is the problem that has to be solved if we are to believe the oficial story of 911.

Troy



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun

This will answer you semitry problem. www.zombietime.com...
Observe the debris on the other buildings in the second pic southeast corner.



[edit on 12-9-2006 by AlabamaCajun]


The symmetry problem was answered by showing pictures of a bottom corner bunch of exterior columns - that solves the symmetry problem - How does that solve the symmetry problem?


To us a viewers of the footage it appeared to be symetrical than it really was. On the south tower, the Southeast corner was pealing away ahead of the NW due to the majorty of the upper 30 floors tilting to the SE. This also resulted in more debris falling in that direction further from the base. Gravity is straight down, its more of the tumbling parts that fell away from the center or CG.
Even if the bottom corner were blown away taking out a large chunk, the majority of debris would still fall close to the base although it would go several blocks. These sturctures would disintegrate once the tilt started. They only stand strong because it's balanced loading. Once a major part is comprimised the whole thing comes apart.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Because everything relatively falls to the center, or the middle of the building, tha tis, if the inner core was completely taken out, which it was apparently "for some odd reason" - for WTC 2's scenario, it began to tilt at initation of collapse, that doesn't mean the whole building's going to get up and say "well, if your going down, I might as well go down too" - if you've got angular momentum/force, pushing a majority in one direction, you're going to have more destruction in that part of the building, not simultaneously throughout the whole World Trade Center til it hits ground zero.

That's pure none-sense.

Symmetrical collapse with WTC 2 impossible? In this case, yes. Well, that is of course, unless the fulcrum's taken out (i.e. inner core miraculously) then you get your simultaneous collapse.




posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Because everything relatively falls to the center, or the middle of the building, tha tis, if the inner core was completely taken out, which it was apparently "for some odd reason" - for WTC 2's scenario, it began to tilt at initation of collapse, that doesn't mean the whole building's going to get up and say "well, if your going down, I might as well go down too" - if you've got angular momentum/force, pushing a majority in one direction, you're going to have more destruction in that part of the building, not simultaneously throughout the whole World Trade Center til it hits ground zero.

That's pure none-sense.

Symmetrical collapse with WTC 2 impossible? In this case, yes. Well, that is of course, unless the fulcrum's taken out (i.e. inner core miraculously) then you get your simultaneous collapse.


No in this case the perimeter columns acted in two ways. One being containment the other being the sheerpoint. With floorjoist mounting points not meant to support the hammering weight of the total mass of 10-30 floors for stuff depending on which tower you are looking at. Those joists were the weak link in the scenario. Now once pulledaway from the perimeter columns the whole thing just disintegrates. It's weak points spread over entire floors that kept the entire structures together as a whole. They were designed to handle many times the weight of fixtures, people and office supplies etc. They were not designed for the total mass + inertia of falling upper levels. Stack a few folding bingo/meeting tables 2 to 3 high. Now get 2 to 3 men to climb upon them. With all probability the tables will hold. Now if they jump up and down then call the EMS. The inner core was more that likely comprimised by distortion for the collapse of the out floor ring. It was not a pancake style collapse but more of what would resemble folding branches of a tree which crumbled around the center. This would hold the majority of materials close the the towers. Remember the small number of survivors in a shaft at the bottom, it collapsed around them. The progression more than likely involved several floors in different stages. Starting first near the edges collapsing down to the floor below. Then the interior collumns would start to bend and crumble while the outer mass is bearing down on the floor below. This would go on until reaching the lower levels. With the floors no longer supporting the walls they would exceed stress poping the smaller stitch bolts allowing the segments to break off like Lego bricks.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
They were designed to handle many times the weight of fixtures, people and office supplies etc. They were not designed for the total mass + inertia of falling upper levels.


No, they were designed to hold many times the maximum expected loads (dead AND live). You cannot rate a dynamic load in terms of a static load. Momentum would be transferred down the building just as the static weight is transferred down the building. A floor's worth of trusses and columns wouldn't just burst all at once and continue along without losing any velocity in the process, the whole way down.


Stack a few folding bingo/meeting tables 2 to 3 high. Now get 2 to 3 men to climb upon them.


This would only be relevant if the structure you've just described would be capable of holding some 6 to 10 men at the same time without failing, but only 2 to 3 climbed on top, and the structure was also efficient at transferring loads and ran into a firm structure in the ground. In this case I think you could pick the men up and drop them all you want (jumping introduces additional energy from muscle contractions, etc.).

It also wouldn't pancake, or fall table-by-table.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


No, they were designed to hold many times the maximum expected loads (dead AND live). You cannot rate a dynamic load in terms of a static load. Momentum would be transferred down the building just as the static weight is transferred down the building. A floor's worth of trusses and columns wouldn't just burst all at once and continue along without losing any velocity in the process, the whole way down.

L+D+W are only used in the calculation of static and mometary forces. Down sheer of truss hangers and welded truses are not calculated with the kind of force applied. These systems were only calculated as diafragm action in initial design. And yes it is true that all moments of inertia are transfered down through the columns, trees, lobby and sublevel loading transfer to bedrock. This is in the origional design but was comprimised by the lose of floor diafragm support. More than likely the whole set of trusses did not go at once but more in a wave. Looking through that report shows a lot of information on the penatration of partition walls on multiple floors, severing of multiple columns and dispersion of fuel and plane contents of varying degrees of flamability including O2 generators mostly full, Pile ups of workstations, office partitions paperwork etc. The total dynamic of a load dispersion system was changed and comprimised. Add the wind fanned fires burning until collapse.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Stack a few folding bingo/meeting tables 2 to 3 high. Now get 2 to 3 men to climb upon them.


This would only be relevant if the structure you've just described would be capable of holding some 6 to 10 men at the same time without failing, but only 2 to 3 climbed on top, and the structure was also efficient at transferring loads and ran into a firm structure in the ground. In this case I think you could pick the men up and drop them all you want (jumping introduces additional energy from muscle contractions, etc.).

It also wouldn't pancake, or fall table-by-table.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by bsbray11]

More than likely the center would break collapsing down upon the table below resulting in it collapsing also. Not realy a pancake but similar scenario where the top collapses onto the lower taking it out in succession. The rate of collapse was almost constant even with the continual accumulation in mass minus debris falling out but the lower sections were designed for higher loads. It's also considered that mass falls at a specific rate attained meeting various forms of resistance along with the mass vs density of falling objects.
As evil as GWB may be, I doubt he would have order a detonation with fire fighter and law enforcment still in the towers.

Impact Damage + Fire + Contents + Time = Failure.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by AlabamaCajun]

[edit on 16-9-2006 by AlabamaCajun]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
L+D+W are only used in the calculation of static and mometary forces. Down sheer of truss hangers and welded truses are not calculated with the kind of force applied.


This in no way indicates that a pancake effect could go on indefinitely, but rather that the resistance would be less than if dropped onto regions directly supported by columns. And of course, the columns themselves (even the perimeter) would not fail at the same time, but would rather be left exposed to lateral forces, and cave inwards/outwards, as the walls of WTC7 did.


And yes it is true that all moments of inertia are transfered down through the columns, trees, lobby and sublevel loading transfer to bedrock. This is in the origional design but was comprimised by the lose of floor diafragm support.


It would still apply to any lower floors. Those are the problematic regions for any pancake-derived theory of collapse. I won't even bother discussing whether or not the impact-affected floors should have held up against this-or-that, but suffice it to say that I do not believe those fires should have induced any global movement to begin with.


More than likely the center would break collapsing down upon the table below resulting in it collapsing also.


Exactly, and if you want to make a point, try a structure that is clearly stronger and MORE stable than the WTC, not less.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
To some of us the collapse makes sense, it is of our intention to share this knowlege so that people comming here for logical explanations have more then conspiracies. The pancake explanation actually makes it harder to understand as it would seem to conclude at some point. I've been talking of the downward force but neglecting to include the outward forces. Look at the perimiter wall panels, they span multiple floors and are interlocking. Look at the one panel sheered from the building by landing gear exposiing multiple floors and the floor trusses to dangle and loss of diafragme. Consire that as eash floor crashes in a caotic fasion that these panels are being ripped away from the floor trusses. As panels are ripped away, two floors below are weaked. I know building engineers and they do not account for these forces as they didn't exist except in times af war. I could show other examples of systems failures on otherwise solid examples of code complying engineering and construction but that too would be ripped apart for the sake of argument.

If you are attempting to do a brick by brick comparison of buildings to folding tables there lies your confusion. The tables are only a dramatization of systems collapse including consecutive collapses.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
If you are attempting to do a brick by brick comparison of buildings to folding tables there lies your confusion. The tables are only a dramatization of systems collapse including consecutive collapses.


Well then show me any other steel structure that has ever done this. Just one, if you can. My point is, the example you provided is not at all comparable to what happened. My ultimate point, is that you cannot show me any other skyscraper that has ever fallen like either WTC1 or 2, or even 7, without explosives being involved. So you can't sit there and say "oh this stuff will happen", when it has never happened before.

Again, resistance would have been there. If not enough to cause the collapse to come to a complete stop (and again keep in mind that some 90% at least of the mass was ejected outside of the footprints and could NOT have contributed to the collapse), then at least enough to slow it down, wouldn't you think? Or does less and less falling mass, against increasingly strong trusses and columns, equate to no velocity loss to you?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Pointless argument now you are saying it did not happen. I did see David Copperfield nearby. Or maybe it was little grey creatures running floor to floor planting thermite on each floor.
I've always believed that the failures were caused by the impact and fire. I've now seen more structural reason as a result of pushing rope in this thread.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:59 AM
link   
The most conventional way to bring down the building, I've hypothesized, was to plant cutting charges on about 4-5 key points (Sections) of the inner core up and down the building, for the sake of preventing resistance from stopping the collapse. You plant them on a certain floor, the pilots (terrorists) are informed of this height ahead of time, program it into their auto-pilot.

Bam.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Bump.



* For purposes of pleasing the ATS.com gods, I have revived this post in that I feel further debate is actually healthy on the subject matter of 9/11 with this situation. In that I feel, this specific matter, on the effects of the structural integrity of the components in the building, from the fires, can help us paint a more accurate picture of what should of happened from not what the NIST has claimed to of occured on 9/11, but the observations commonly agreed upon as accurate in the moments/time following the impacts and prior to the collapse.

Love,
Masisoar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join