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.

 

Ask me (union ironworker) your questions about 9/11

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
BSBray11,

I definitely lean into your camp when it comes to these discussions.

I got a little sidetracked earlier and my appologies.


My question for whatwilludo is this:

What is your theory on what happened to the core during the collapse based on the knowledge that you have? Is it possible that the stuff falling apart around it could have "pulled" it apart? That aside.. There is still the glaring fact that part of the core was still standing after the collapse as Ben stated earlier.. What on earth could explain the behavior of this "remnant" after the collapse? It stood for a couple of seconds and just fell.. (Not over mind you)




[edit on 28-9-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]




posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Thats what puzzles me.If the steel was softened from the heat wouldn't the building topple?They both came straight down.And I emphasize BOTH.They came down in the same manner.Definitely strange.


[edit on 28-9-2006 by crowpruitt]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Thats what puzzles me.If the steel was softened from the heat wouldn't the building topple?They both came straight down.And I emphasize BOTH.They came down in the same manner.Definitely strange.



i figger, they'd buckle and twist and deform before they had any kind of catastrophic failure.

i've seen crane booms(steel latice) and tow truck booms(box column) fail before, and they buckle. steel buckles, UNLESS there is some HIGH VELOCITY force acting on them.
the towerws should have settled gradually, and assymetrically. a sudden catastrophic failure is the earmark of a sudden release of beaucoup de energy. AKA, bombs.

it is the same principle that allows a waiter to whip out the table cloth without affecting what is on top of the table cloth. it is all about force over time.
the towers COULD have broken themselves apart using heat and gravity, but it would've taken MUCH longer than an hour or two.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Can anyone tell me why the op has no points box on their profile?

I'm starting to agree about the fishing expedition.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
x-ray?
what's the difference in the information gleaned from an xray vs. that gleaned from an ultrasound?
what would make an inspector choose one over the other?


more input would be cool.


I can get this one. Two things - practicality and size of defect the instrument can detect (precision). x-ray requires taking your part, however big it is, and getting x-ray'd which can be unfeasibility if the part is huge. Then the detection method is ye ol' peepers. You're basically looking for the defect on the image. So you will still be limited by what the human eye can detect. If it is an extremely tight crack, or a very very small pit, it might not even show up on the x-ray.

The UT is very portable and so the size of the part being inspected isn't as much of an issue. UT machines can detect extremely small defects (pinholes in welds). It does not rely on the human eye as far as limiting the lower range of defects it can detect.

A third inspection method for inspecting welded parts is MPI (magnetic particle inspection). It is good for detecting cracks, but again relies on the human eye - but gives a little help with the fluorescing particles that accumulated at the crack. There are portable MPI devices.

[edit on 9-30-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
*excellent, detailed answer goes here*


thanks for that knowledge, valhall.

i am hearing somewhere else that the perimeter steel was tempered steel, and more likely to fracture than bend, and that the core was mild steel, more likely to bend than fracture.

i wonder. does that make sense from a design standpoint?
would the part that has to compress and stretch the most be better served by tempered steel?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Id hate to be another fishy but didnt the jet fuel flood the core elevator shaft. I am a union carpenter and was also thinking of the balloon framed floors. Not like your house where each floor is supported by walls in different places, in balloon framing the whole tower makes a "skeleton" and non structural (meaning weaker and cheaper built) walls and floors are built. This style is weaker but lighter on a floor to floor basis. No fire corridors and not many floor to ceiling walls are built. This is why it seemed very open inside. It is much easier for fire to spread without fire corridors in the way. Even if thier was one or two bathroom walls ,drywall only has a 30 minute fire rating for each layer. I also think that this was an office building and had a sheet load of paperwork in it. And paper will burn hot at this short time. This still doesnt go against a possible ignition thoery though. Considering thermite needs a hot source to ignite, and anyone who has mixed aluminum and rust together and tried to light it knows you need atleast a sparkler to do it. You still have the skeleton frame that should have stayed up or atleast fall at a different time. And since it didnt, the whole system failed at the same time. Demolition companies couldnt pull this off especially 2 in a row. And yes union trained employees are required to be educated in college level trade schools. It definitely hit me more when i heard the towers fell, I thought to myself, those *people*. Maybe this is what they wanted.


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
There was no blazing fire in neither of the two towers. Not in the elevator shafts, not in the pantry, not anywhere. This has been proven over and over and over again.

No uncontrolled fire can and ever will bring a steel meshed structure down. Anyone telling you otherwise is taking your stupidity for granted, and hopes you will swallow instead of spit.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
and that too was kind of my point. But if thier wasnt fuel fire in the shaft then the elevators would have been used by the fire fighters. They couldnt be used. but the bias goggles wanna see whateva. This will also spread the fire to burn out faster by surface area. And these planes didnt dump fuel like other crashes i see compared. These planes were full, and that seems like a good detonator for something u know is gonna be on tv and these threads. You cant just use explosives. it has to be almost invisible, or right in your face. like a fully fuel plane flown into the worst design against fire. Thier is too many hidden things here. and definitly other factors of tampering.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i am hearing somewhere else that the perimeter steel was tempered steel, and more likely to fracture than bend, and that the core was mild steel, more likely to bend than fracture.


i believe the buildings were designed to flex in high winds? so it is probably doubtful that they used steal that would fracture rather than bend?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
and another thing...is thier some other way to build a finishing blow to the towers? Like microwave pulse or some other particle or wave energy. I mean, these do exist so whats up for the smart guys in here. Is thier any un conventional weapons that do this kinda stuff?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot

Originally posted by billybob
i am hearing somewhere else that the perimeter steel was tempered steel, and more likely to fracture than bend, and that the core was mild steel, more likely to bend than fracture.


i believe the buildings were designed to flex in high winds? so it is probably doubtful that they used steal that would fracture rather than bend?


i'm just trying to confirm what someone else said.
yes to what you say, but tempered steel can still bend. the thing is, when it fails, it fractures more easily than 'mild' steel. it is still steel, and it can still bend. just not as much as mild steel.

in my mind, it would make more sense to use the tempered steel in the core, for rigidity, and the mild steel on the perimeter for flexibility.
maybe i'm missing something, logically speaking, or the guy who said ity was wrong.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
sorry people, ive been away from the comp. for a while. i think a few people are confused as to my claim of ironworker, im an ironworker as in the guys , who erect these structural steel buildings. (the skeleton of the building) the main problem though with the trade centers are how they were built, most things have not changed in the process of erection over the years, but im just wandering if there were any differences from then until now?? also i have not gotten the chance to work on a project of this size. 110 floors up or whatever. but anyways, i have been in this trade for quite a while erecting buildings, in the rodpatch doing rebar, and also in shops fabricating the steel members themselves. and there comes a time when common sense has to take over - and in a situation like this there is no doubt in my mind that this was orchestrated by our own . there is to much circumstantial evidence, along with physical evidence to even start to think that "osama' could pull this off. And it makes me sick to see the media covering it up. To the people who wander about this event just study it yourself!! if you want to spread the word more, do what i have done and burn everything you can find on this onto cd's and hand them out to random people all over the place to try to spread the word. every floor in a structural building must be able to support 2 1/2 times the weight that is going to be placed on top of it. ( from that floor on up to roof) and plus even more to take into account the wind, possibility of earthquakes, etc. An airliner even at top speed built of the lightest aircraft aluminum is not going to make more force than the winds on the entire side of building. as for the melting of iron... which i laugh at the peoples stupidity who believe this... just for fun lets say it did, how is that same steel going to still be molten metal months after they have fallen??? IT IS AIRCRAFT GRADE KEROSENE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!! it would burn up very fast, and cant even get hot enough to melt the steel in the first place. Go to a fab shop and get some mild steel used for construction; grade 50 also if you want; it doesnt matter... how about also some a325 structural steel bolts- poor kerosene on them and hold your breath until they melt if you believe the governments retarded story. ill come again and try to answer more questions later, im just getting to ticked off.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
ooo I got a feeling this will turn into a 18 page thread, whatwilludo you've basically brought up everything that people have been discussing here since the event. Hope you enjoy urself and bring your views and experiance to the board.




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join