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.

 

The Twin Towers: The Proofs Of Demolition

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by geemony
i wouldnt think they would have taken planes impacting as a testing angle. But its very possible.


The greatest force would come from the horizontal. The loads would have been designed for the horizontal loading. The plane came in a horizontal direction. IMO, there wouldn't be much of a difference.




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve-o
I saw the collapse of the twin towers which was pretty close from where I live and I noticed right away that the cause of their downfall was by demolition.The way they quickly came down ,even building 7 ,made me believe in my mind that it was all a plot or pretext for war on some terror -organization.


And that to is why im keeping an open mind here. When I watched the live coverage thats the first thing i thought of was how could these tall ass towers come straight down. It did look like a demo in progress, however I also thought that if you cut the top half of the bldg. just the shear weight of that much bldg coming down, could it do what the bldg did. Im no expert so all i have to go on is what we all have to go on. And truthfully no evidence has come up that is irrefutable yet.

I stayed at the 4 seasons hotel just across the street a month before 9-11 and when I walked through the Trade center to get to my hotel quicker, the one thing i did notice was not alot of support structures down in the resturant area which was off from the main lobby. Could the sheer weight of the bldgs coming down casue their bases to collapse and thus casue a demo effect? again dont know.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
The greatest force would come from the horizontal. The loads would have been designed for the horizontal loading. The plane came in a horizontal direction. IMO, there wouldn't be much of a difference.


Agreed Griff, that they would be looking at horizontal stresses.But throw in the top 4th of the bldg, being cut in half so to speak from the plane impact and the resulting fire damage, and what that would do to escalate the movement of the Bldg. WOW this is such a tough nut to crack for me.

I say we dont give up, and if its our government we do everything we can to bring it to light and make them accountable. I cant give up hope that we as citizens can get our country back someday.



[edit on 28-6-2007 by geemony]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve-o
I saw the collapse of the twin towers which was pretty close from where I live and I noticed right away that the cause of their downfall was by demolition.The way they quickly came down ,even building 7 ,made me believe in my mind that it was all a plot or pretext for war on some terror -organization.


How do buildings with a large gap near the top suppose to fall down? Very slow or very fast?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I'm not much into this topic, but I started looking up some things about the WTC. Although the site was wikipedia which can be editied by users, there are floorplans and the history of the buildings since they were built. One of the major design features was that the buildings used a core of hollow steel tubes to support the weight of the wind on the building, otherwise the building would of toppled over like a stack of jenga blocks. Its possible "not guarenteed" that when the plane impacted that the structual integrity of the core became critical and that it was just a matter of time before the culmination of both the wind and the fires destroying the soft outer shell, that the building came down. I'm no expert and no I don't claim to have seen it with my own eyes, but it looks like it collapsed due to structural damage. Although it is quite possible that there could be some other reasons too. Magnesium metal for example could burn through that building, weaking the core to a degree that the building collapses. Magnesium is a slow burner too, it doesn't consume the fuel as fast as jet fuel.

WTC wiki entry (from multiple sources, not sure of accuracy)

Just my take on this

-Aza

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Azathoth]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
How do buildings with a large gap near the top suppose to fall down? Very slow or very fast?


What gap? There was no gap other than that made by the plane. And the buildings withstood this gap. Meaning, no more weight was added to the building other than that of the airplane. And even then, the buildings withstood this weight.

Do you know that buckled columns still give resistance? Enough resistance to slow down the initial collapse to not be freefall (which is what has been calculated for the initial energy).



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I keep seeing posts and threads commenting on the melting point of steel.
So many are assuming the Steel has to reach that point before it fails.

This is far from the truth
Steel melts at about 2,700 degrees, and granted the burning jet fuel most likely did not reach that temp.

However the temp did not even have to get close to that for the structure to start to fail.
Notie this statement by the American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC)


The strength of steel remains essentially unchanged until about 600°F. The steel retains about 50% of its strength at 1100°F. The steel loses all of its capacity when it melts at about 2700°F. However, for design purposes, it is usually assumed that all capacity is lost at about 2200°F.
www.architectureweek.com...://www.aisc.org

I am a member of AISC and know for a fact that most engineers will not even allow steel erectors to torch cut bolt holes because of the potential for weakening the steel connections.

AISC is one of the agencies that investigated and analyzed the failure of the structure.
This is a exerpt that deals specifically with the cause and subsequent failure of the remaining columns.


Using software developed for the Department of Defense,
the engineers from Weidlinger Associates, led by Matthys
Levy, P.E., and Dr. Najib Abboud, developed sophisticated
and detailed computer models of the effect of each plane’s
impact on the towers to understand what happened within
the building on the impacted floors. Working with researchers
from LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti, led by
Dan Cuoco, P.E. and Dr. Gary Panariello, P.E., the team determined
that the impacts destroyed 33 out of 59 perimeter with a steel framework known as a “hat truss,” the weight or
“loads” meant to be carried by the impact-damaged
columns were redistributed to the remaining columns. This
load redistribution allowed the towers to remain standing
for as long as they did. The team concluded that, absent further
fire damage, the towers would not have collapsed.
Matthys Levy of Weidlinger stated: “The fact that Tower 1
stood for 103 minutes after losing approximately 53 column
lines and that Tower 2 stood for 56 minutes after losing approximately
34 column lines is a testament to the strength of
the buildings and the skill of Leslie Robertson and the other
engineers who designed them. I believe that few, if any, other
buildings could suffer that amount of damage and not collapse
immediately.”

The analysis also shows that the tremendous force of each airliner crashing into a tower and breaking apart not only
fractured columns outright but also stripped other columns
of fireproofing (See Fig. 1). No fireproofing is designed to
withstand such devastating impacts. The loss of fireproofing
left those columns vulnerable to the subsequent fires, which
after time, caused them to fail. Additional computer models
of the towers assessed the status of each building at the time
of collapse. Those models identify the failure of columns that
either lost fireproofing or were destroyed on impact as the
specific cause of the collapse of each tower.

www.architectureweek.com...://www.aisc.org



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azathoth
but it looks like it collapsed due to structural damage.


It would have looked the same had they demoed it IMO. At least the way my theory is starting to shape up.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I hear a lot about molten steel. Are there any proof of the pools of molten steel besides just a witness? Photographs maybe??



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
If the buildings' collapse was only caused by the impact why did it fall in pancake fashion ,rather than the top half fly off and hit another building or the street. another thing that makes no sense is how building seven collapsed the same way with a "little fire" that was'nt enough to make it fall.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve-o
If the buildings' collapse was only caused by the impact why did it fall in pancake fashion ,rather than the top half fly off and hit another building or the street. another thing that makes no sense is how building seven collapsed the same way with a "little fire" that was'nt enough to make it fall.


What do you expect the top part of the building to go actually? You expect the wind to carry the top part of the building and push it to somewhere else? The top part didn't exactly fell straight down in one large piece, it broke down in large pieces while collapsing on top of the bottom part of the builiding causing a chain reaction.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
I am a member of AISC and know for a fact that most engineers will not even allow steel erectors to torch cut bolt holes because of the potential for weakening the steel connections.


I am also a member. I believe it is automatic when you join ASCE. The reasoning is that torch cut holes were not designed for. Even the slightest mistake and your connection could fail. I don't think it has to do with temperature. I could be wrong though.


“The fact that Tower 1
stood for 103 minutes after losing approximately 53 column
lines and that Tower 2 stood for 56 minutes after losing approximately
34 column lines


That's interesting. What did they conclude that the mechanism was for tower 1 to have more damage and more fire but not collapse first? Thanks for posting that.

Can I ask? Are you an engineer, metal worker etc.?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
I hear a lot about molten steel. Are there any proof of the pools of molten steel besides just a witness? Photographs maybe??


Here ya go.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Hey deltaboy,you still did't explain why building 7 collapsed the same way without no plane coming in contact with it,did you expect it to collapse the same way the towers did ?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve-o
Hey deltaboy,you still did't explain why building 7 collapsed the same way without no plane coming in contact with it,did you expect it to collapse the same way the towers did ?


And you must be wondering how WTC7 caught on fire in the first place with a large gash in the middle.



Look carefully at some of the debris heading towards WTC7.

Fix video link.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


Here ya go.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


OK, and who is that old man making suching a bold statement? Just an old man making a bold staement thats who.
Shouldnt he have some lab equipment with him or something testing that blob? lol



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Thanks for the info, since I've gotten such a few "facts" about it but just from" word of mouth" and other conspiracy websites that I have checked out.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
OK, and who is that old man making suching a bold statement? Just an old man making a bold staement thats who.
Shouldnt he have some lab equipment with him or something testing that blob? lol


Since you didn't bother reading the whole thread, the old man is Bart Voorsenger the architect that was employed by the Port Authority to collect steel samples for the 9/11 museum. Since he was there to collect steel samples and is an architect, I'd take his story over some internet "debunker" claiming this is just him (and others) mistaken molten steel for something else. Not saying you earth2.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
This is what I see, not one piece of steel looks melted here. The steel is the rusty looking things. Now look at the stuff that isnt rusty. Molten aluminum has glued all this stuff together or fused whatevr.
Aluminum melts around 1200 degrees about half as much as steel.

Show me steel that has melted.





posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Since you didn't bother reading the whole thread, the old man is Bart Voorsenger the architect that was employed by the Port Authority to collect steel samples for the 9/11 museum. Since he was there to collect steel samples and is an architect, I'd take his story over some internet "debunker" claiming this is just him (and others) mistaken molten steel for something else. Not saying you earth2.


Listen Albert Einstein could have looked at it and why would you believe him if he didnt show proof? Do you understand what 100% proof is, its not an old mans claim. You need lab work done to get the real truth and were is that?




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join