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.

 

How does the OCT say the core beams fell?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
If the beams at or near the impact point supposedly melted or weakened ..

then how did the beams BELOW that point fail?

In other words, how does a fire on floor 80 affect a steel beam at floor 30?

A pancake collapse scenario should have the concrete floors falling down AROUND
the core beams .. leaving them largely intact. Especially since the lower you go,
the COLDER the steel would have been.

Are they saying that in one hour, so much HEAT traveled down 80 stories and 47 core beams that ALL the beams gave out?

Does that make sense to anyone?

What does the official story say about this?

[edit on 3-12-2006 by bvdd]

[edit on 3-12-2006 by bvdd]




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
You never see that addressed.....the fire did not burn long enough to melt steel anywhere much less burn long enough for a simultaneous collapse of all the core beams.

I have a grill at home that burns at 1200 degrees its amazing how the steel grate never melts and falls apart like the WTC towers supposedly did.

A lot of people like to say it was the weight from above the impact zone that caused the collapse but that weight was already there and there was no additional weight added.

Back to my grill analogy when I cook pizza on the grill I put a 5lbs pizza stone on top of the grate and the fire burns for hours at 1200 degrees and yet the grate never melts and collapses.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Nobody said the beams melted. PERIOD

The Pancake Theory is not the official theory. "Global Collapse" is what NIST reported.

There are several threads that tackle this.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
I have a grill at home that burns at 1200 degrees its amazing how the steel grate never melts and falls apart like the WTC towers supposedly did.

Back to my grill analogy when I cook pizza on the grill I put a 5lbs pizza stone on top of the grate and the fire burns for hours at 1200 degrees and yet the grate never melts and collapses.


What sort of grill is that


Are you cooking with a kiln or something

I've never heard of or come across any sort of "grill" being able to get anywhere near that sort of temperature


MR



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bvdd
If the beams at or near the impact point supposedly melted or weakened ..

then how did the beams BELOW that point fail?

In other words, how does a fire on floor 80 affect a steel beam at floor 30?

A pancake collapse scenario should have the concrete floors falling down AROUND
the core beams .. leaving them largely intact. Especially since the lower you go,
the COLDER the steel would have been.

Are they saying that in one hour, so much HEAT traveled down 80 stories and 47 core beams that ALL the beams gave out?

Does that make sense to anyone?

What does the official story say about this?

[edit on 3-12-2006 by bvdd]

[edit on 3-12-2006 by bvdd]


Well all the fire chiefs on the scene were only worried about the upper floors above the fires collapsing. They never expected or were worried about the whole builidngs collapsing.

Here is a quote from the 911 commission rpeort.

None of the chiefs present believed a total collapse of either tower was possible. Later, after the Mayor had left, one senior chief present did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and so he said that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the sixties.




[edit on 3-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   


What sort of grill is that




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Nobody said the beams melted. PERIOD

The Pancake Theory is not the official theory. "Global Collapse" is what NIST reported.

There are several threads that tackle this.



"Global collapse" is a generic term that means the entire building fell. It is not a collapse theory.

And there are no threads that discuss NIST's alternate theory, so far as I have ever seen in my membership here. Maybe you can point me towards one.

It'd be pretty sad if I were the only one hear to even understand NIST's global collapse analysis, eh?



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bvdd
A pancake collapse scenario should have the concrete floors falling down AROUND
the core beams .. leaving them largely intact. Especially since the lower you go,
the COLDER the steel would have been.



This hasn't really been addressed. The closest I've seen to addressing this, is someone suggesting that the floor trusses ripped the cores out by their connection bolts before the bolts themselves actually failed, which is a nonsense theory considering the same bolts were supposed to be the WEAKEST part of the structure, that allowed the collapse in the first place.


If the theory isn't pancake collapse, can anyone here explain what it is? In detail?



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Nobody said the beams melted. PERIOD


I said: "melted OR WEAKENED".

Address that.

How do YOU think the lower beams failed, Cameron?



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



"Global collapse" is a generic term that means the entire building fell. It is not a collapse theory.



lol...I'd have to agree with that statement. Saying "the whole damned thing fell" isn't really a theory. It's like pointing like you're Gomer Pyle and saying "Shazam!"


It's like a Captain Obvious statement.

[edit on 12-3-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Was anything really explained or investigated for that matter? It was all a show. The elites 'explained' to the peons that the peons couldn't comprehend the intricacies of the phyics invovled ergo TRUST ME!



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
The core is what makes me believe there were explosives used,I mean 47 steel columns should have held up even if the fires burned all day.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

wtc.nist.gov...


Also interesting to note is that, for some odd reason, you seem to think you know more than:



Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

wtc.nist.gov...


What's especially interesting is that the core did, in fact, fall after the rest of the tower. Watch "What We Saw" by Bob and Bri on Google Video and watch the Second Tower collapse. It takes at least 15 seconds AFTER the collapse for the core to finally fall entirely.

Here's a picture. You can clearly see the core.



It was the rest of the building falling that dragged the core down. In a real controlled demolition the core would have fallen first, not last.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
It was the rest of the building falling that dragged the core down.



Yeah, like I was saying, the only attempted explanation is that the same connections that were the weakest part of the structure, allegedly, managed to yank out massive, laterally-braced core structures, column by column. This does not make sense. Though, Fungi didn't make his assertion here that clear, and just left us to guess on the specifics of how this would happen, exactly.

Fungi, do you support pancake theory? Or, given the opportunity to explain how you think the global collapses progressed (not NIST!, because they didn't study the ENTIRE collapses, but only the first floor or two that began each collapse!), how did they progress?


In a real controlled demolition the core would have fallen first, not last.


Replace "real" with "conventional" and you're right on the money.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Am I to believe that a couple floors failing would cause 47 steel columns that make up 100 plus stories of core structure to be drug down?Even IF that were possible it would have taken alot more time than the collapse we saw on 9/11.NOT BUYING IT!!!!!



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi


It was the rest of the building falling that dragged the core down. In a real controlled demolition the core would have fallen first, not last.


No, not according to the the data in the beloved NIST report. Maybe if you continue to get enough data and then see what NIST did with it, you'll start understanding my position. I don't question the DATA, I'm pissed that the NIST reported data and then made conclusions that can't be so based on the data they reported.

ACCORDING TO THE NIST DATA, the floors failed in a downward position shearing the connections at the EXTERNAL WALLS in a DOWNWARD motion, but NOT on the core side.

The mode of failure cited in the NIST report requires that one of the following scenarios occur:

1. The external walls jump up in the air shearing the connections away from the floors. (IT COULD HAPPEN! REALLY, I'm serious...not).

2. The floors fall downward at the external connections and then are dragged down by the core or,

2.b. the floors (sans the external walls) drag the core down with them.

But the falling of the external walls must take place after the floor shears away in a downward motion, so you can't count the external walls in pulling down the core. It won't work according to the data.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Am I to believe that a couple floors failing would cause 47 steel columns that make up 100 plus stories of core structure to be drug down?Even IF that were possible it would have taken alot more time than the collapse we saw on 9/11.NOT BUYING IT!!!!!


I agree. The reason why we use steel in high buildings in the first place is because it is FLEXIBLE... When a storm hits a steel highrise building, the building sways. Had it been built out of concrete alone it would have broken.

Steel will not break into pieces unless it is frozen first. This was probably why the Titanic sank, as the steel they we're using became brittle when cold (I've read that they dropped one of the plates from a crane by mistake and it shattered when it hit the ground). However, when warm the steel becomes MORE flexible and will bend a great deal before breaking completely.

Thus, the steel in those buildings should delayed the collapse considerably even if it was weakend beyond 50% or even 60% of it's load capacity. There should have been tangled and twisted core colums sticking out of the ground. Instead we see a long and completely straight piece of the core standing left a few seconds after the building collapsed.

This to me indicates that there was no force pulling on that part of the core, which again would indicate that it was not connected to the floors when they fell. So the joints we're either blown CD style, or the bolts just spontaneously jumped out of their place withouth any resistance.

So in conclusion - the observed events do not match the official explanation of "global collapse" caused by weakening of the structure, whether this weakening was caused by planes, fires, broken columns or a combination of these.

QED



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I think if I ran an explosive demolition company I would seriously consider using a new technique next time I was asked to tender for a job.

I mean just think about the savings I could make

I'd be able to cut down on labour, environmental impact, planning, logistics and above all time.
I'd be sure to win the contract because of the cost savings to my client


How would I achieve this?
Well, I think all I would need would be a few 000 litres of jet grade kerosene a couple of well positioned fires 2/3 of the way up in a weakened area of the building and hey presto I reckon it should pulverise itself within an hour or two.
Neatly collapsing, ensuring an easy and fast clean up.

No idea why noone hasnt thought of this before?


But I think I'll just stick to excavator based demolition.........for now.

MR



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by doctorfungi


It was the rest of the building falling that dragged the core down. In a real controlled demolition the core would have fallen first, not last.


No, not according to the the data in the beloved NIST report. Maybe if you continue to get enough data and then see what NIST did with it, you'll start understanding my position. I don't question the DATA, I'm pissed that the NIST reported data and then made conclusions that can't be so based on the data they reported.

ACCORDING TO THE NIST DATA, the floors failed in a downward position shearing the connections at the EXTERNAL WALLS in a DOWNWARD motion, but NOT on the core side.

The mode of failure cited in the NIST report requires that one of the following scenarios occur:

1. The external walls jump up in the air shearing the connections away from the floors. (IT COULD HAPPEN! REALLY, I'm serious...not).

2. The floors fall downward at the external connections and then are dragged down by the core or,

2.b. the floors (sans the external walls) drag the core down with them.

But the falling of the external walls must take place after the floor shears away in a downward motion, so you can't count the external walls in pulling down the core. It won't work according to the data.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Valhall]


Kinda goes along with my theory of the core failing FIRST doesn't it? As far as the core still standing in the end, my theory is that whatever was used to bring them down, took a little longer than what was thought (maybe because of larger columns). Anyway, I'm not going to speculate what brought the core down BEFORE the exterior columns/walls.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
As fast as the wtc towers fell the core had to go first.Just look how they both fell straight down at a very high rate of speed.If the core held up and the floors that were hit by the planes failed first ,wouldn't the building topple over from the impact zone up and the 80 or so floors from the impact zone down should have remainded standing?At least that makes a little more sense, imo.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by crowpruitt]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join