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 Tops of the WTC? What happened to them?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think someone a while back said those cars were moved there temp in the cleanup.




posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
An interesting question about the debris is: Where are the floor pans that held the concrete? They were huge solid sheets of metal and in total there is 200 acres of them. Ive never seen a picture of one.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
The picutres of cars, are of cars that were at/around the trade center that day and where moved during the clean-up process.

1. If cars on the FDR caught on fire why didn't any of the buildings between ground zero and the FDR get affected?
2. What about the people bewteen ground zero and FDR, outside and in the buildings?
3. Why am I still alive when I was only 600 ft away, outside, when the frist tower collapsed?



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pdoherty76
An interesting question about the debris is: Where are the floor pans that held the concrete? They were huge solid sheets of metal and in total there is 200 acres of them. Ive never seen a picture of one.


Thats because it was pulverized along with the tons and tons of concrete which were turned into fine dust by explosives of some sort


BeZerK



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pdoherty76
...Where are the floor pans that held the concrete?...


That is an interesting question, good point. Didn't even think about the floor pans before. You're right, where are they?

Could that be what was melted in the basement? Melt out the floor pans and what would happen? The concrete would drop. Still doesn't explain the pulverization of it though? And they would have still needed something to take out the central structure and outer mesh/facade.
Almost seems like the concrete itself exploded, taking out the columns with it and pushing the facade outwards? How that could be achieved I have no idea.

The metal deck/floor pans were pretty heavy duty corrugated steel. The concrete was 10cm thick.




posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Almost seems like the concrete itself exploded, taking out the columns with it and pushing the facade outwards?


Which is probably what would happen if something explosive was laid before the concrete during construction, like Christophera used to always say.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Which is probably what would happen if something explosive was laid before the concrete during construction, like Christophera used to always say.


Yes it would, but I didn't think that was possible because of shelf life? It does fit what we see happening though doesn't it?



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Heres an interesting shot,notice the "squibs"below the collapse wave.Hmmmmm.....



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Heres a shot of the same tower seconds before.Why didn't the top keep tilting and topple over?



[edit on 5-7-2007 by crowpruitt]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Did someone mention "space weapons"?


For most of the last 2 years since the last extended maximum power transmission on 9/11 2001, HAARP has only been on the air for several hours each month for regular monthly transmitter maintenance.

From:www.brojon.org...

I don't know if this has been posted here on ATS before, I assume it has, but I haven't seen it here. Has it been disproved that HAARP transmitted in High Power mode on 9/11 for any other reason than warning the sub fleet about 9/11? Why would they NEED to use HAARP to contact them? Why would they need to know instantly, when there was no way they could intervene. A hangover from the cold war? Hmmmph.

We know that HAARP can transmit huge amounts of energy to the ionosphere, can it also transmit that energy, along magnetic field lines, down to the Earth's surface?

If so, then maybe the planes were flown into the buildings, and then one at a time, the buildings had huge amounts of energy pumped into them until they collapse from the damaged portion, but by this time none of the materials in the two towers had more strength than toast. No resistance, which is what we see in the fall timings. It could also explain the molten metal in the basements.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes it would, but I didn't think that was possible because of shelf life? It does fit what we see happening though doesn't it?


It depends on the kind of explosive. I don't think any conventional high explosives were used in large amounts, because they're too easy to hear. Maybe one went off every now and then before the collapses for whatever reason, but the actual collapses don't have these sounds popping out at all.

Here's a diagram Christophera put together:




I would just as soon ignore the suggestion of C4 being used in the floors. C4, btw, does have a shelf life, but from what I understand this shelf-life is greatly extended by sealing it off from the air. For any other given compound it would be hard to say. I don't think thermite has a shelf-life, for example.

If any compound was used in the floor, imo it would have to have a relatively low detonation velocity (maybe around 10,000 fps or so, instead of around 28,000 fps for RDX or C4), and might make use of some other form of energy, like heat (some thermate devices spray jets of molten iron at high velocity, as an example only, to cut metal more easily than with the pressure alone). But I don't think any high explosive or any form of aluminum/iron oxide thermite was used on a large scale. If any compound was in the floors, it would have to have been stable against a fair amount of heat/temperature and drilling, etc.,. too. But it could probably be done chemically. Even C4 has plasticizers added to allow it to be thrown directly into fire or etc. without detonating.

Some kind of stable, low-velocity explosive in the floors does fit the evidence, imo. Basically everything but the steel columns in the buildings were completely destroyed. No furniture, office equipment of any kind, even 1000 people are completely missing, and of course the vast majority of concrete was blown into dust, and you can hardly find a truss or floor pan at Ground Zero in any photographs. Also you wouldn't have to bring explosives into the building post-construction, obviously.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
^Hmmmmmm thanx bsbray that's given me something to think about.

So, if that is the case then was 9-11 planned before the towers were even built?
How would it have been done without anyone knowing?
It's a hard one for me to come to terms with, but I'm not saying its not possible.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Well, David Rockefeller (banker, CFR member and grandson of JD Rockefeller, who sold out to the Rothschilds) commissioned the towers, and the plan for the WTC complex was pushed by Nelson Rockefeller, David's brother and the governor of New York at the time.

Minoru Yamasaki (remember the connections to the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladens here) created the original plans for the building, which were then taken by the Port Authority of NY/NJ (which was given authority over the WTC complex site, taking it out of the hands of both New York and New Jersey) and tinkered with for a couple of months.

The final structural documents are still locked up, and there's hardly any information at all on construction given the magnitude of the project and the importance of it in reconstructing the designs today. For example, try to find a construction image showing all the asserted core columns for any given floor, and you won't be able to do it. Most construction photos that exist today were taken from the air or from the ground, and photos from within the core at all are hard to find. Oral histories from the construction workers supposedly existed at one point but they're apparently no longer available. A PBS documentary from around 1990 on the construction of the towers is also supposedly missing now.


They still show programs on the History Channel though, on the WTC's design, saying that the core was essentially a tube filled with elevator guide rails. I used to think this ranked in stupidity with the BBC asserting this:



But now I think there may be some truth to both of those sources, in that the cores were actually four concrete walls with large steel box columns lining the perimeter, and then the many elevator supports were inside of this (possibly supporting more than just the elevators), linked to the box columns through the concrete wall via I-beams on some floors, especially lower down.

There are multiple other sources, some pre-9/11, that claim the towers had reinforced concrete cores, like this:




From an MSNBC source, interviewing WTC engineer Les Robertson:


Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.



And here are more sources talking about concrete cores in the buildings:


The building‘s design was standard in the 1960s when construction began. At the heart of the structure was a steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building’s outer wall. All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which they could operate – although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete. Newer skyscrapers are constructed using cheaper methods. This building was magnificent, say experts, in the face of utterly unpredictable disaster.


membres.lycos.fr... (originally from BBC reporter Sheila Barter)



For some of the fire officers, that confidence might have been based on a misconception about how the towers were built: The FDNY chief of safety says in his oral history that he thought the towers were made of block construction, with a solid concrete core


www.scoop.co.nz...



Each of the WTC towers had a double-strength structure consisting of a concrete core supported by a steel structure around the outside.


www.didyouknow.org...



Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966 Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.

Dr. Domel received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1988 and a Law Degree from Loyola University in 1992. He is a licensed Structural Engineer and Attorney at Law in the .State of Illinois and a Professional Engineer in twelve states, including the State of New York. Dr. Domel is authorized by the Department of Labor (OSHA) as a 10 and 30 hour construction safety trainer.


www.ncsea.com...


Then there's this picture of WTC2's core briefly standing as it collapsed:




The WTC1 "spire" also appears to be an external wall of the core structure:




Either way, the now-commonly-accepted structures of the buildings didn't really exist in print until FEMA published them in 2002, apparently.

A federal agency also said recently that the fire in WTC1 in the 1970's required trusses to be replaced, while news articles from the time mentioned no structural repairs being required, so it's hard to tell what's true and what's false regarding matters of history in this Orwellian age.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Interesting stuff bsbray thanx. I'll have to look into this. I do remember a discussion here awhile back about the core having concrete, and there were lots of pictures of rebar in the rubble.

The plot sickens...



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   
about the corregated 'pans' that held the floor concrete.
they were pieced together, most likely 30" wide panels X 16' long, perhaps
spot welded at the overlap repeated every 12"...the pans weren't monolthic 1/4" steel pans as people seem to imagine.

my guess is that most every floor was actually a lightweight floor material
sometimes known as Gyp-crete, with only a thin guage 4" wire mesh reinforcement (as the floor trusses & metal pans formed the rigidity needed to support the floor load).
Only the required sectional floors (probably every 15 levels) were required to be aggregate concrete reinforced with heavy, 1" re-bar


in past offerings here at ATS, it was disclosed that the interior core
was essentially sheathed with 2 layers of 5/8" sheetrock,
also that the erect steel columns were protected with fire retardent foam, from a sprayed on application...

how?? does that jibe with the assertation that (100%?) of the center core steel was encased in aggregate concrete,
much as a bank vault is constructed - is the impression i'm led to believe
with the oft repeated 'concrete center core'



an interesting side issue, there were perhaps 2 movies from the 60s or later, which had scens shot that showed construction in progress of a WTC Tower...i think i recall Charles Bronson as a Star, but there were about 3 different sequences within the movie showing the construction components
in real time ...and it seems above the 50th storey & up
I didn't take note of the floors, but the staggered perimeter walls were
apparent, my guess is that a research into this historical evidence would
reveal some interesting items which might be eluding us right now...


thanks,
for being patient with my scattered presentations



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
the pans weren't monolthic 1/4" steel pans as people seem to imagine.


I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean we shouldn't be seeing any at Ground Zero? Could a "pancake collapse" vaporize almost a whole 110 stories of them? And where are the stacks of at least the lower-most floors that supposedly fell at the base? I don't see a damned one.



how?? does that jibe with the assertation that (100%?) of the center core steel was encased in aggregate concrete,
much as a bank vault is constructed - is the impression i'm led to believe
with the oft repeated 'concrete center core'


I think you're thinking alone the lines of the BBC diagram.

The idea I presented above is not that the core columns were encased in concrete, but that a concrete wall existed around the outside of the core structure, and just outside of this wall were box columns. Inside of that wall were the columns relating to the many elevators, including large freight elevators.


I didn't take note of the floors, but the staggered perimeter walls were
apparent, my guess is that a research into this historical evidence would
reveal some interesting items which might be eluding us right now...


Haven't seen the movie, but I've seen a documentary released by the Port Authority on the construction of the towers, and it doesn't show anything that could confirm or deny what's suggested above. Especially considering this was the PA, you'd think they'd give at least a little attention to the construction of the core structures of their own buildings. From the sounds of it, your movie doesn't provide much, either.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join