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 they can fail at the impact zones even if the core was taken out

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
There was thermite at the base of the core that was detonated at the same time as the oppsite impact?


That is just my speculation. That's all. I was asking it as a question of what others thought.


Do you know if it is possible to know how long it would take for this thermite to "eat" through the core? since I can't tell you that your physics and engineering are incorrect, i go for the more obvious....


I would imagine it would depend on how they did it.


How much thermate?....how long does it take to do the damage that is claimed?


Good questions. I'll have to look into it.


, how does it go unnoticed?


Maintenance in the cores.


, since thermate burns vertically,how does it get harnessed?,


There are a couple patents out there for this type of cutter charge.


and if it's "possible" for dogs to pick up the scent of thermate, how could that go unnoticed by the dogs that actually had a kennel in the basement?


I'm not sure on this either. Thermate consists of barrium nitrate. Being a nitrate, I'd assume they could pick it up. There are other chemicals that can be used though, so maybe, maybe not.


Sorry if i "derailed" just curious if you took into consideration these aspects.


No derailment. This thread is pretty lax, so I don't mind some discussions. I have taken some into consideration. That is why this is a working hypothesis (theory) and nothing more.


Other than that, good job in your hypothisis.


Thanks. And thanks for the imput.




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Just a quick point:


This is WTC2's core still standing from around the 66th floor or so (not sure on the exact height):



(full-size image)


This trigonometric look at the standing structure shows that not all of the core was there:




The two interior boxes in the towers are the core structure, and the core structure with the outermost columns removed (the larger and smaller interior boxes in the towers, respectively).

There is structure missing right where the outermost ring of box columns was supposed to be.


All of those columns were accessible by elevator shafts:




And around the 66th floor or so is about where WTC2 leaned over and then started falling down.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Good observations BsBray. Now, I'm thinking of what would cause the outer box to fail while the inner box stood. Reinforced elevator shafts?



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

The outer and core columns were connected at the top with the hat truss.

The outer columns could hold 50% of the weight (I've heard less but this makes it easier). Now, factor in that about 15% were damaged. I believe there were 207 outer columns. That leaves it with 175 columns holding 50% of the weight.

Let's get a discussion on this. Anyone feel that I am wrong in my assumptions?



Griff,

Looking at this from a purely structural standpoing disregarding any argument for or against CD.

IMO column loading cannot be considered to have occured evenly once damage was done.

The truss would have unloaded some columns and loaded others to a significant degree.

The transfer of load on columns adjacent to the damaged core and outer load bearing wall would have been extreme as "bridging of load occurred.

Intuitively my gut feeling (disregarding initiation events to keep this thread clean of sidetracking) says that a chain failure of columns should have occured once initial damage was done and load transfer overcame the structures ability to cope.

Obviously no one can say with any exactness just what did happen and not have it picked apart due to assumptions that have to be made. This is true of CD theorist's or non-believers when trying to debate or worse saying they have discovered the exact cause of the collapse based on one or two data points.

To me all of the various circumstances need to be considered globally together in order to even begin to surmise the mechanism of collapse, it really bothers me when its done in a simplistic way that bolsters someone's idea, agenda or political belief system. Griffen let me say that's not an indictment of what you have stated in your thread - just needed to say that for certain others consideration.

In summary, if math is to be stated with validity then it needs to reflect severe loading and unloading along with truss transfer on key columns and their resulting failures role on the global strength or ability to carry load of the remaining columns.

For discussion's sake, whether from CD or natural forces if ten column's have failed from overload then it makes sense that much of the load would transfer to other adjacent column's until they also fail, now I certainly understand that others would then be put in tension by the truss but in order for that to happen the forces acting on the core must intrinsically increase because of fulcrum action.

What I state from intuition could bolster either camp in this debate - on the one hand it would lessen the amount of explosive or thermite required to initiate collapse while on the otherhand it could be argued that fire and deflection could have been the straw that broke the camels back.

If and when plans are ever released then it may be possible to work from this point backwards to an initiating series of events that fits what occurred - until then its round and round I'm afraid.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
In summary, if math is to be stated with validity then it needs to reflect severe loading and unloading along with truss transfer on key columns and their resulting failures role on the global strength or ability to carry load of the remaining columns.


Rather than provide a mathematical model of what should have happened, I think Griff's point was that if the entire core failed, then the perimeter would also fail, theoretically at the weakest point in the chain, so to speak. You can agree with that, yes?

If you watch a collapse video of WTC1, you'll see the antenna drop, then the roof line, and also the perimeter columns that have nothing below them (columns below them were knocked out by impact) start falling straight down while their neighbors do not. The antenna was supported by the core structure, so it sinking into the building signifies that the core is also sinking at this point. The perimeter columns falling down with it simultaneously suggests that the hat truss was still intact by this point and transferring massive loads down the perimeter. At least this is what I'm seeing.

What may or may not have happened with any given load redistributions upon asymmetrically damaged columns seems irrelevant to me, because the failures you're actually seeing in videos seem only to be of the uppermost part of the core structure initially, all together and symmetrically. The odds of you lining up that to happen with simple thermodynamics (heat transfer) and whatever initial damage there was, is slim to none. I would say it's basically impossible. A mechanical "chain reaction" with even a very small lag of maybe 1 or 2 seconds from one side of the core to the other, would offset the symmetry considerably and it would be very easy to see.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The perimeter columns falling down with it simultaneously suggests that the hat truss was still intact by this point and transferring massive loads down the perimeter.


Oh yes I agree with core first on that tower, I just may not go along with you as to the cause.

And yes the trusses role in all of this is a very key issue.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
And yes the trusses role in all of this is a very key issue.


Without the truss, neither my theory nor NIST's theory would even be plausable IMO.

Phoenix. I definately see what you are saying about the load transfer. But, as BsBray put it, I'm just showing a piece of the puzzle that gets shut out by a few. That being that if it was a CD, the mechanism had to be in the impact zones for the towers to initiate collapse in the impact zone. I just want people to know that it is possible for it to be a CD without having to place anything near the impact zones. Just simple physics states that if the facade is going to fail at any point, it will fail at its weakest part. That would be the impacted columns. My math was very rudementary and not to be taken with anymore credit than just an example.

Thanks everyone for the replies. Let's keep this discussion going.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I've been having the same discussion with Captain Obvious about the transfer of the loads. My feeling is that the surrounding outer columns would take the brunt of the load transfer due to the spandrels and the nature of load transfer. This would actually put more stress on those members, which would IMO make it easier for the columns to fail in the impact zones. Thus actually reinforcing that if the core is taken out, then the facade would fail at the impact zones.

Even die hard debunkers have to admit that the core had to be taken out in some way. They just think that fire did it.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
First of all... i am a skeptic!
If some facts I provide lead to the debunking of a theory...then oh well.

Griff, IMO, there is no way the core was taken out from the basement levels. There is not any evidence to prove it was. I don't want to de-rail the thread into the fireballs, but that is clearly what the explosions are.

If we want to move to unconventional methods, I have yet to hear a hypothisis from anyone that can tell me how much thermate was used to take out the core and or how itr was harnessed.

Just my .02



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
CO,

Let me ask. Do you think that what we saw would have been possible without the core being taken out? Even if fire was the culprit?

Or do you feel that the core and outer columns failed instantaneously together to allow the collapse?

No offense but the first scenerio seems more plausable to me.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Griff, IMO, there is no way the core was taken out from the basement levels. There is not any evidence to prove it was. I don't want to de-rail the thread into the fireballs, but that is clearly what the explosions are.


So, you agree that there were explosions in the basement? Could those explosions be one of the leading factors the core lost it's strength? This is what I'm getting at. No matter which theory you believe, the core had to fail first IMO. All the evidence points to this. Whether it was fire or CD is irrelevant to my point in this thread though. I just get annoyed hearing that it definately couldn't be a CD because of collapse initiation in the impact zone. I just want people to know that even if the core was taken out in some other way (not in the impact zones) that the outside will still fail at the impact zones. That's all. This thread has nothing to do with CD and the ways and means. Just the physics. I will not gripe about speculation though. But, please, don't ask me to come up with exact numbers for thermate etc. Which, if you do not know, is a "debunker" tactic. I'm not saying anything about you. Just that that tactic is well known.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

www.public-action.com...


12 Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why?


[edit on 7/13/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Thus actually reinforcing that if the core is taken out, then the facade would fail at the impact zones.

Even die hard debunkers have to admit that the core had to be taken out in some way. They just think that fire did it.


I don't believe fire "did it" I just happen to believe fire played a role. Griff using your idea (core collapse causing wall collapse at impact zone) then why not the same for the core as the truss used it as fulcrum point.

The truss helped support weight of floors directly above impact zone, loaded the core (fulcrum) and put tension on undamaged side of building.

The added load from truss to damaged core on impact floors would be the obvious weak point in the core. core collapse this area would drop antenna as seen and leave standing core as seen in earlier post this thread.

That being the case then why assume, theorize or speculate a much more complicated scenario of core failure at a previously undamaged area?

I'll go back and refresh myself with the available video's to see if I can get your idea better formed in my mind.

Phoenix



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
The truss helped support weight of floors directly above impact zone, loaded the core (fulcrum) and put tension on undamaged side of building.


NIST says the hat truss was for bringing the core and perimeter structure together at the tops of the towers, and to make it possible for redistributing loads across the two structures. As far as I know they did not play a significant role as load-bearing in themselves, but if you have information that shows this then I would be interested in seeing it. Just by their positions in the towers, I know they couldn't have been holding much more than their dead loads.



The added load from truss to damaged core on impact floors...


...should not have exceeded the safety factor, given that the buildings were built even remotely up to code. Very little actual structure was taken out with the impacts, and this is detailed in chapters 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2 of the FEMA report and by NIST in computer modeling they did of the maximum damage the core could sustain from the impacts (they even changed aircraft impact angles to maximize damage). Everything comes out to less than 15% of the support columns being compromised just on the impacted floors.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
The truss helped support weight of floors directly above impact zone, loaded the core (fulcrum) and put tension on undamaged side of building.


I believe you are talking about the floor trusses? Floor trusses, beams, cross-beams, girgers etc., only take the load of the floor they hold up. They don't take any load from floors above nor below. That is the columns job.


The added load from truss to damaged core on impact floors would be the obvious weak point in the core. core collapse this area would drop antenna as seen and leave standing core as seen in earlier post this thread.


I agree that could happen. But, how does 47 huge core columns just fail at the same time to allow any kind of drop?


That being the case then why assume, theorize or speculate a much more complicated scenario of core failure at a previously undamaged area?


Because I feel that even if the core failed at the impact points, that it wouldn't have failed all the way to the ground (eventually). Once everything sheared off, the core IMO could have stood on it's own.


I'll go back and refresh myself with the available video's to see if I can get your idea better formed in my mind.


Watch the collapse of tower 1 closely. You can actually see the damaged columns fall with the core before any undamaged columns buckle.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
first off, griff, EXCELLENT post.

@griff and gottago: i want to thank you both, so often you see people quoting others and not representing what they had said accuratly and you both did so fairly with me, its appreciated.

pootie: ill say i know at least as much about demo as most of the members of ats and im pretty srue ive got more actual life experience in it than most here, but im going to back you up on what you said. it IS possible to drop a building top down. its a pain in the rear but it can be done. i just PERSONALLY have the OPINION that it cant be done covertly with conventional explosives. so next time someone gets on the "oh it cant be done top down no way" feel free to send them my way, but until something new comes to light ill stand by my assertation that it couldnt be done covertly. (of course i mean with conventional HE)

@griff having said all that i just wanted to take an opportunity to comment on a couple of points you raised.

much like one discussion we had about thermobarics and fuel air bombs. due to the way they work and what makes them effective...i really dont see an FAB, planted or by chance (fuel running down the core to the basement then blowing) able to take out the core at the basement. the size of theh blast you would need from an FAB would have likely damaged the "bathtub" the building sat in and could have done enough asymetrical damage to tip the building from the base. for an FAB to take out just the core it would have had to be massive. i mean MASSIVE and i just dont think the evidence supports it. also, since they do tend to burn off rapidly, i dont see it being hot enough long enough to melt the core columns.

the only FAB present that day, imho, was when the jet fuel aeresolized at the impact sites and detonated. and as i said to you i dont think that was enough to damage the core as a whole, but if it did any damage it would be in the form of pushing outward on the permieter and up/down on the floor directly above and below. did that do any structural damage? we would have had to be able to examine the connections right away and no one did.

lastly (yes its a word...today) keep in mind that a "bunker buster" bomb is NOTHING more than a standard gravity bomb with a hardened nose to penetrate the earth/concrete, and a time delay fuse so that it doesnt blow on impact.

so, unless someone wants to suggest that a stealth dropped one aimed at the base of the building....yeah you see where im going.

my question is this...take out the core at the basement, shifts the weight to the perimeter and fails where its damaged. core is compromised, would the weight above the impact sites be enough to collapse the rest of the building without additional help?

if it could, without other cutter charges or HE, you may have a theory that i would feel was worth looking into.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
my question is this...take out the core at the basement, shifts the weight to the perimeter and fails where its damaged. core is compromised, would the weight above the impact sites be enough to collapse the rest of the building without additional help?


This is were I'm not sure about. This is total speculation on my part, but I don't think it would be. Plus, things have a natural angle at which they will fall/stack. Like sand, imagine pouring sand and the natural angle at which it will stack into a cone shape. Sand is usually around 28 degrees. Now, all that debris, I think, would have fallen in a natural cone of sorts. Not falling to the foundations explosively. Again, all just my speculation and opinion.


if it could, without other cutter charges or HE, you may have a theory that i would feel was worth looking into.


Thank you. It's a working theory and could definately change when/and if shown wrong.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
first off, griff, EXCELLENT post.

@griff and gottago: i want to thank you both, so often you see people quoting others and not representing what they had said accuratly and you both did so fairly with me, its appreciated.

much like one discussion we had about thermobarics and fuel air bombs. due to the way they work and what makes them effective...i really dont see an FAB, planted or by chance (fuel running down the core to the basement then blowing) able to take out the core at the basement. the size of theh blast you would need from an FAB would have likely damaged the "bathtub" the building sat in and could have done enough asymetrical damage to tip the building from the base. for an FAB to take out just the core it would have had to be massive. i mean MASSIVE and i just dont think the evidence supports it. also, since they do tend to burn off rapidly, i dont see it being hot enough long enough to melt the core columns.

the only FAB present that day, imho, was when the jet fuel aeresolized at the impact sites and detonated...

my question is this...take out the core at the basement, shifts the weight to the perimeter and fails where its damaged. core is compromised, would the weight above the impact sites be enough to collapse the rest of the building without additional help?


thanks very much Damocles for your preface, and yes Griff's really thought out something very important here about the mechanics of the collapse, IMO.

I agree with the quote above, but let's look at it from the other side of the coin. There obviously was a massive, precise hit on the cores of some nature, otherwise they'd have stood, not dropped like burnt-out matchsticks just after collapse...and molten steel, etc. I say precise, because as you note the bathtub held. We had the rumble/seismic event, the white smoke at the bases just before collapse. Something serious went off down there.

And the collapse-initiation mechanism of Griff's pulls it all together. I don't know any other way to describe it but compelling--it fits the evidence seen at the tops of the towers like a glove.

But really just no way it could create the speed-of-gravity cascade wave--there was a lot of help there. You'd have had the tops of the buildings topple--they wouldn't have exploded--and eventually the 70-odd-story stumps might have toppled too, in slow-motion agony as the undercut core settled unevenly and pulled on the structure off equilibrium. But frankly that could have occurred hours, even days later--or never, as the perimeter columns/skin may have been able to withstand the stresses. So then you had to blow it out rapidly--from the impact-point downward--to achieve what was seen.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
To bump this thread.

I just came accross this.


5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower collapse:

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)


www.rinf.com...

Looks like I'm not the only one who believes the core failing would initiate collapse at the impact zones.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
is it plausible that there was a bomb on the plane that could have withstood the initial impact and exploded at a later time?..(as phone calls from flight 93 and radio calls made by the same, had said they had a bomb on board)


and for possible explosions in the basement as reported by janitors?

what about a 1310 lb (600 kg) bomb, made of urea pellets, nitroglycerin, sulfuric acid, aluminum azide, magnesium azide, and bottled hydrogen??

that was the bomb from the 93 WTC bombing. leaving a 30 meter hole in 4 levels of the basement....it is reported that had it been a couple feet in one direction it would have toppled the tower....

as griff has recently pointed out to me...somebody suspicious arrested for a fake id had a maintenence pass to the the wtc on sep 5/6..and had no proven reason to be there....there is a report by a firefighter of someone in a wtc maintenence uniform being arrested....



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
is it plausible that there was a bomb on the plane that could have withstood the initial impact and exploded at a later time?..(as phone calls from flight 93 and radio calls made by the same, had said they had a bomb on board)


Hopefully Damocles can help you with that question.



what about a 1310 lb (600 kg) bomb, made of urea pellets, nitroglycerin, sulfuric acid, aluminum azide, magnesium azide, and bottled hydrogen??


You got me thinking. Would these traces still be on the remaining columns? If they did do an analysis on the steel, would they have found these from 93'?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join