It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:42 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Gorman, all your generalizations are unsupported. You haven't even asked what particular nuclear reaction would be utilized or even for an estimate as to the amount of energy released, and you're already giving us absolutes about what would happen. Have you considered, you don't know what you're talking about? I doubt you have.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by bsbray11]

All nukes have a few basic charicteristics.

A flash, a vacum effect, an EMP, an outward bashing in the form of a wave, and the immidate destruction of the wildlife. All of which did NOT happen on or after 9/11.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:29 PM
What's bizarre to me is the perpetual claim that WTC7 was so viciously slammed by debris and the outward 'force' of the main tower collapse (which I would contest did not carry nearly as much weight as is often exaggerated. How many times am I going to have to hear, I wonder, that the force of the building coming down through it's own damn steel supersuperstructure met the ground with equivalent energy to a nuclear weapon. I mean, do people even realize how retarded that sounds? Where is the 1/2 mile deep crater, in that case? Why wasn't all of downtown NYC flattened? The Halifax Explosion didn't even have a full megaton of energy behind it, and it wiped-out and entire city and was heard from miles away). NIST, in fact, claims in it's own report that WTC7 was hit with the force equivelent to a volcanic explosion.

That's #ing absurd. And these guys are supposedly scientists and experts?

The Goddamn building's WINDOWS were nearly all still in one piece, which means that there definately wasn't any penetration straight through, and the face of the building that the debris splashed against didn't exactly look 'shorn away' as some would have it described. Of course, even if these points are all just a bunch of hot air and hyperbole, that doesn't matter either: much like the first Death Star with it's vulnerable thermal ventilation shaft, WTC7 was doomed from the outset with it's high-risk, unstable, just-barely-bribed-through-regulation, 'cantilever truss' support base, which crumpled like tissue paper under the strain of the heat and gashes in the building's facade.

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:08 PM

my opinion it was a miracle that the towers were still standing after the impacts.

Woah. Your opinion? Gee, I guess that settles the whole debate.

These arguments are my favorite kind, "The WTC buildings were made of a deck of cards, a roll of duct tape, a wish and a prayer."

Not what architects and structural engineers have suggested, but hey - why listen to what they have to say when we have your opinion to go by, right? How much more blissful than the world of knowledge is the world of assumption, hyperbole, mysticism and guessing.

Comparing this building in China to the WTC is useless.

I hear someone got shot in the head the other day - and he didn't die!

Which by the logic of this thread means that shooting people in the head doesn't kill them

And these two statements encapsulate beautifully why there is still any argument at all. For this instance, the scientific method and analytical thinking just doesn't apply, for whatever reason. Past precedents can be cheerily ignored, whether involving aircraft colliding with buildings, fires consuming buildings, buildings being intentionally demolished... whatever, really. All the variables are not precisely the same, so there can be (and, really, must be) no comparison. Why look at the two scenarios and ask questions (which would require real effort) when we can just dismiss them as dissimilar entities (which requires none).

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
All nukes have a few basic charicteristics.

...which can be characterized by units and numbers.

I want to see them for the device in question.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:40 AM
Fear of failure, or the failure itself does not seem to be a problem somehow.
People must have a low esteem of themselves or expect disaster for
themselves at every turn.

Avoiding conflict like JFK seems to be an art and deadly to the artist.

Exploding the atmosphere is most effective for the nuke.

Underground contains the heat and melts everything into a cavern.

But will a nuke do what thermate did to the core beams?
Puff, puff, puff all the way down to provide the pancake effect.
Like magic.


posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:22 AM
I have a question that I have not seen addressed yet. And this is more up the engineering alley. Has any one addressed shock load. By that I mean ... Were the floors of the WTC designed to have the equalivalent of the floor above them suddenly dropped on them? If say, for example, floors 90 to 100 of a 110 story building, were weakened to a point of failure, would the 89th floor be able to support the 21 floors and all of their contents above it ,if floors started to give way? If several floors were already weakened and one floor fell ontop of the other floor..with more and more mass as the floors fell, with increasing force, would one floor be able to take such a shock load and stop the fall?Is that is even considered in building design?

[edit on 21-8-2007 by six]

[edit on 21-8-2007 by six]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by six
If several floors were already weakened and one floor fell ontop of the other floor..with more and more mass as the floors fell, with increasing force, would one floor be able to take such a shock load and stop the fall?Is that is even considered in building design?

A very good question.

I don't have the ASCE 7 design codes in front of me at the moment and don't design buildings, so off the top of my head, impact loading would be a factor. I doubt it would include 20 some floors crashing down though since that really doesn't happen in structures. Don't get me wrong. The plane could have damaged it enough. I don't know.


posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 01:41 PM
Is shock load even the proper term? I know it is used for ropes and cables. but not sure if is the right term for what I am trying to describe.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by six
Is shock load even the proper term? I know it is used for ropes and cables. but not sure if is the right term for what I am trying to describe.

There is shock load in piping for waterhammer.

It's hard to say also because they would have used Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method. Nowadays they use Load Factor Resistance Design (LFRD) method.

The LRFD method is more precise when it comes to what types of loads.

Here's a paper on it that I just found. I have to read the paper but skimming through, it looks legit.

You might want to look into factored loads. That's where they incorporate the loads into one factored load. Impact (shock) loading could be factored in here. It's probably governed by earthquake load.


posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 02:37 PM
I think that the only variable, if you will, would be what dead load exsisted on the floors at the time of the collapse. That would be impossible to figure out now. Educated guess maybe...but that could go either way.

Read through the link you put up. Good read...has been awhile since I have had any of the engineering class I took before deciding to play with fire for a living. Math look easy enough....just have to have a idea on what load was there.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by six]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:15 PM

Originally posted by six
Is shock load even the proper term?

No, it's called impact loading, and it's very under-studied for steel structures. There was one paper done in 1984 by a couple of scientists by the names of Calladine and English. That's the only specific reference I know for the topic. NIST never considered it, FEMA never considered it, no one has, really. It's under-studied, and no one wanted to try to replicate their theories, because that's automatic bust and they knew it.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

How did I know you would have already looked into this? That's pretty much what I would have thought. Impact loading or siezmic loading. Thanks.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:03 PM
The top floors of the WTC towers were supported all the way until
the explosions took out the core beams.

At which point you see the flow of ash from the floor compression.

However the sequential thermating of the core needed to take place.

The outer shell beams just shed away.

Yes there was a pancaking, easy with no core beam support.

Its not magic, its explosions.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by ThomasT
Why no mention on this thread the work of the physicist who detected physical thermite residues

So why would a physicist be an expert at detecting explosive compound residue??? Is he a physicist and an explosives expert?? what a combo huh?

I think the problem here is people have flawed understanding of what happened at the WTC.

There was NO nuke, no controlled demolition and more importantly NO evidence of it.

If there was a nuke, there would have been massive radioactive contamination, countless dead from radiation poisoning, EMP damage, etc. for miles around ground zero, that could not have been covered up. Remember all that dust and debris you saw in your videos??? all of it would be radioactive. Remember all that dust covering EVERYTHING on the ground? It would all be contaminated.
If you think it's still possible, you can go down to your local army supply store and buy a geiger counter and take it to ground zero and test for radiation yourselves. As the radioactive compounds used in nukes have a half life of thousands of years, the area would still be irradiated. DUH!!!!!!

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:26 PM
reply to post by jfj123

Well first off why can't a physics prof check for thermite residue? It doesn't take an explosives expert to do a simple test. If you had the tools and equipment you could do it yourself, it's not rocket science.

So as someone who has an expert knowledge of the WTC, and physics, please explain if there were no explosives how did the structure not encounter resistance as it's members were crashing down upon it's self.
How did a gravity collapse cause steel from the facade to be ejected laterally up to 600 ft? I'll just leave it at those two for now.

As far as nukes, I don't fully except this theory but, you need to educate yourself...

Scientists displaying the warhead (left) and packing container for the Medium Atomic Demolition Munition (MADM), a low-yield (1- to 15-kiloton) nuclear land mine designed to be deployed behind enemy lines and destroy tunnels, bridges, dams, and disrupt enemy troop movements. The entire unit (including warhead) weighed less than 400 pounds and was deployed from 1965 to 1986.

More small nukes/Source

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:48 PM
I don't need to educate myself about something I'm educated about.

ALL nukes create radiation. There are NO exceptions. That is part of a nuclear reaction. All nukes create EMP's. There are NO exceptions. So if these bits of evidence are not found at the site, NO NUKES. It is BLACK and WHITE.

Regarding controlled demolition. This has been debunked to death. Ever seen a controlled demolition on a small tower building? It takes weeks of planning and implementation prior to the demo. On a large building like the WTC, it would take a large, very conspicuous team, with large amounts of equipment, alot of man hours, and alot of wire. Oh and lets not forget that the timing for the explosion with the plane impact on the building would have to be perfect down the the millisecond. So they would need to know the exact position, angle and speed of the plane at the exact moment of impact so their cover wouldn't be blown. Can't happen people.

Look, I believe the current administration is the most dishonest and corrupt in the history of america, however there was no "false flag" operation, or whatever handy made up catch phrase, people want to call it.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Thats funny because i dont recall any plane hitting building 7.

Thats funny because I recall that debris from North Tower were hitting building 7, which is why it caught on fire in the first place. Unless you just found out now.

Not only did the debris start a fire in WTC 7, but there were parts in the lower section of WTC7 which crumbled due to the huge debris from the towers collapsing on WTC7....

People are going to keep on making claims for years to come....which is why I don't post as much in this sort of thread.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:49 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
ALL nukes create radiation. There are NO exceptions. That is part of a nuclear reaction. All nukes create EMP's.

And these all have units to associate with them. Electromagnetic flux density is measured in Teslas. Other radiation can be measured in Grays. Given a bomb only big enough to take out a section of core, what amounts of radiation would you expect? How long would it take for them to be absorbed into the environment?

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
ALL nukes create radiation. There are NO exceptions.

They have been working on reducing radiation release since at least 1969, so don't be so sure buddy...

Nuclear device characteristics and the factors affecting radionuclide production and distribution are described along with some recent nuclear experiments conducted by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of providing technical data on cratering mechanisms and special emplacement techniques which could minimize the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere.


posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:42 AM
Yes, I am sure radiation would be one result from a nuclear reaction. It's part of the reaction. You can clean it up, but you can't remove it. Thats the way it is. Even if the amount of fissionable material was small, the radioactive dust would contaminate the area of years and cause radiation poisoning in many, many ground zero workers. Even it was the equivalent of a dirty bomb, it would be devastating to the area.

Also, don't forget about the EMP that would fry electronics in the area, permanently leaving physical proof of a nuclear explosion.

If you think "they" have been working to completely eliminate radiation from a nuclear explosion, keep in mind that it didn't help them at
3 mile island
bikini atoll
nevada nuclear tests

Studies are still being done on exposure and possible ecological consequences from 3 mile island, bikini atoll, nevada nuclear tests, etc.

<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in