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.

 

Fairbanks Video stabilized with horizontal charges.

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I have answered your question 1000000 times.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Research would help you a bit.



[edit on 20-8-2007 by 11 11]




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I love how you conveniently step over the large parts of my posts that prove your incompetence.



First off your rambling makes no sense.


Hence my point about you not understanding basic physics.




Yes of course it was still attached, that pretty much proves your 'pancake collapse' wrong right there.


My 'pancake collapse'? When have I ever asserted any 'pancake collapse' theory to be true? Given my agreement with the established findings, that would be rather stupid of me. You don't half pull facts out of your ass





Once the top section started to tilt and rotate there was nothing that should have caused the building under it to start to collapse faster then the top was tilting. The floors under the top section were undamaged, there is nothing that would have cause the bottom to fall, without an external energy acting on it


The external energy here being the momentum of the top section, immense failure of structural integrity, and gravity.




i.e. explosives of some kind. It wasn't the top crushing the rest of the building, which is what you believe, no? The top section, as you pointed out, was still attached, so it didn't 'drop' on the lower undamaged floor. Which it couldn't do anyway because it was falling to one side and not sitting true.


The floors below the top section were the floors that had a great big plane explode inside of them, you call that undamaged? The top section did not fall straight off because the parts of the structure that were still attached provided torque and the tilt was hardly defined enough to allow the top section to fall clear of the rest of the building. Here is a fairly close up video of the top section and the area around the damage that initiated the collapse:



As you can clearly see the tilt does not begin untill after the collapse sequence has initiated, and does actually continue to some extent through out the collapse.




Whatever way you look at this, without the help of explosives of some kind, it defied physics.


Given that I have met my responsibility, how about you doing the same and providing some scientifically sound evidence?

(continued)...



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by himselfe
reply to post by Griff
 


If the intention is for the collapse to be initiated from the point of impact what benefit would planting explosives in the basement have?


You just need to take out the core anywhere below impact and they would have initiated collapse in the impact zones. With the transfer truss still attached, any loss of structural strength in the core would have redistributed the load onto the exterior, which (with plane damage) wouldn't be able to resist the load. Remember that load in a column runs it's entire length. And we all know that chains break at the weakest link. The impact zones.

Plus, why not get the added load of an entire core column missing? If they just severed the core at say the first mechanical floor, you still have the intact core columns beneath them. If you sever the core at the base, there's nothing holding it up.

I know people are going to say that there were core columns still standing. My contention is that they didn't need to sever all the columns.


I know this may have gotten buried in all the replies but I'm curious as to your reaction to what I said. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Whatever way you look at this, without the help of explosives of some kind, it defied physics.
And don't bring up the fires, we already know they were not hot enough to cause the steel to fail.




7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?


In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

Citation

Prove them wrong.




You still haven't explained how the tilt turned into a vertical fall.


It didn't turn into a vertical fall, as is evident in the video I posted above, the tilt begins after the collapse sequence initiates.




You still haven't explained how the top started to tilt in the first place, and the opposite direction of the damage btw.


I don't remember anybody asking me to, however the answer would depend on the exact loading of the top section and which parts of the support structure gave way the easiest. As for the direction, once again the video clearly shows damage in the 'direction' the section tilts.




You still haven't explained the lack of resistance from undamaged floors.


What 'lack of resistance'?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

The reason you don't see explosions is because the CORE of the WTC's is where the explosives are. The exterior walls of WTC can NOT support the weight of the WTC's, the CORE is what supports the weight.


WRONG, sorry not the way it works. Please research your statements before presenting them as fact. A simple read of the Wiki of WTC or any of the architectural web sites would show you that.


Structural design

The World Trade Center included many structural engineering innovations in skyscraper design and construction. The towers were designed as framed tube structures. There was a frame of closely-spaced columns tied together by deep spandrel beams along the exterior perimeter. The interior had several columns, all concentrated in the core. Engineer Felix Samuely used a similar concept in his "Mullion wall" buildings in the early 1950s as did Eero Saarinen in his US Embassy, London (1955-60); but these projects were low to medium rise and may not have been influences.

The perimeter columns supported virtually all lateral loads, such as wind loads, Text Red.


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Torlough]

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Torlough]

Just wondering what are your thoughts on the fact AQ tried it before with a truck bomb.

Also of all you people claiming controlled demolition and that somehow black ops snuck in the WTC with all these explosives and planted them without being seen I would like to know-

1. Have you ever actually visited the WTC when it was standing?
2. Do you have any knowledge of the traffic flow in the dailey usage of the WTC. (ie you ever commute through)
3. Witness first hand the planes hitiing the buildings and the amount of distruction that happened.

I have, The planes hit with such force that after teh hit there were papers from the WTC in brooklyn, before the collapse. And when the towers collapsed you didn't hear any "secondary explosins" just the building collapsing. Notice the lack of audio in the clip, interesting.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Torlough]

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Torlough]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 





You just need to take out the core anywhere below impact and they would have initiated collapse in the impact zones. With the transfer truss still attached, any loss of structural strength in the core would have redistributed the load onto the exterior, which (with plane damage) wouldn't be able to resist the load. Remember that load in a column runs it's entire length. And we all know that chains break at the weakest link. The impact zones.


There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that any parts of the support structure anywhere on the lower levels was 'taken out' prior to the collapse. Had critical structure been damaged on lower levels prior to the collapse such damage would have been evident and those levels would have failed long before the collapsing section reached them. Try hanging a weight from a chain attached to the ceiling with a weak link near the bottom where the weight is, then take out one of the links higher up and tell me from which point the chain falls.




Plus, why not get the added load of an entire core column missing?


Where do you propose the column went?




If they just severed the core at say the first mechanical floor, you still have the intact core columns beneath them.


NIST have already concluded through science that the energy involved with the momentum of the collapsing section was far greater than the section below could support, there was no need to take out lower floors to ensure that they would collapse.




If you sever the core at the base, there's nothing holding it up.


Exactly! The building isn't a magical anti-gravity device, if you took out the support structure at the base, the building would fail at the base.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
OK, so I watched the video several times and each time came to the same conclusion.
There is no visible explosion. The blowout is from the collapse. I think alot of people simply don't know what they're looking at. You can tell by the way the debris blows out that it's from higher floors collapsing on lower floors resulting in catastrophic structural failure.

Now I'm not saying there isn't some kind of conspiracy, what I am saying is No visible explosion in the video.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that any parts of the support structure anywhere on the lower levels was 'taken out' prior to the collapse.


You are not listening to what I am saying or I am not saying it clearly.

A bomb went off in the basement, that I am pretty sure of from known evidence. My hypothesis is that this bomb was used to weaken the core structure.


Had critical structure been damaged on lower levels prior to the collapse such damage would have been evident and those levels would have failed long before the collapsing section reached them.


Bolded by me. You're getting the point. I said to weaken, not to damage critical support.



Where do you propose the column went?


I didn't mean it dissapeared. Depending on how many columns could be taken out without failure, they would add to the weight that is not being held up by the remaining structure.




NIST have already concluded through science that the energy involved with the momentum of the collapsing section was far greater than the section below could support, there was no need to take out lower floors to ensure that they would collapse.


Could you point to NIST's science then please. I'm hard pressed to find it.




Exactly! The building isn't a magical anti-gravity device, if you took out the support structure at the base, the building would fail at the base.


You are taking me the wrong way. Either that or I'm confusing some things.

My theory is that the bomb at the basement went off while the plane impacted the top. Then, later either another basement bomb or three smaller bombs in the mechanical floors (my favorite so far) finished the job of taking out the inner core structure. This would shift the loads to the outer columns and they would fail at the impact zones. Ask any engineer you find to dispute this. Taking out the core structure from anywhere below the impact zones would cause failure at the impact zones. You can't dispute it. It's engineering logic.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


You are not listening to what I am saying or I am not saying it clearly.

A bomb went off in the basement, that I am pretty sure of from known evidence. My hypothesis is that this bomb was used to weaken the core structure.




My theory is that the bomb at the basement went off while the plane impacted the top. Then, later either another basement bomb or three smaller bombs in the mechanical floors (my favorite so far) finished the job of taking out the inner core structure. This would shift the loads to the outer columns and they would fail at the impact zones. Ask any engineer you find to dispute this. Taking out the core structure from anywhere below the impact zones would cause failure at the impact zones. You can't dispute it. It's engineering logic.


If the inner core were the first to go, then why does videos counter that theory by showing the parts of the core still standing while the outer areas are long gone? The core should have gone down immediately during the collapse.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
If the lower sections were weakened and the upper sections were not, it would not have collapsed the way it did. There could not have been an explosive at the base based on the video.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
If the inner core were the first to go, then why does videos counter that theory by showing the parts of the core still standing while the outer areas are long gone? The core should have gone down immediately during the collapse.


WTC 2's core suppossedly stood for a few seconds right? It's been analysed and the outer columns of the core were not visible standing. Just the inner gypsum walls.

WTC 1's spire has been analysed and found to be the outer perimeter columns.

The areas of core that did survive collapse were the areas of the core that didn't need to be taken out. I already addressed that previously. Maybe you missed it?

Like I've said, this is only a theory but taking out the core at the base would initiate collapse at the impact zone. Every engineer knows this.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If the lower sections were weakened and the upper sections were not, it would not have collapsed the way it did. There could not have been an explosive at the base based on the video.


Tell me what would happen if the core was taken down at the bottom then. Should the intact outer columns start to fail at the base? Or would they fail where they have been damaged?

BTW, who is saying the upper sections were not damaged? We all saw the plane fly into the building. That's alot of damage my friend.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I think people are getting confused on how loads work on columns. They are not seperated floor by floor. The load is carried by the column throughout it's length. Just that the loads become more intense at the base and they transfer their loads to the foundation. It doesn't matter to the perimeter columns if the core columns lost their strength at the base or directly below impact zone. The transfer truss would shift the loads from the core to the perimiter along it's entire length, thus forcing the exterior to collapse at the damaged portion (the impact zones).

[edit on 8/20/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 





You are not listening to what I am saying or I am not saying it clearly.


Neither, you just aren't citing what you say with any scientific evidence.




A bomb went off in the basement, that I am pretty sure of from known evidence. My hypothesis is that this bomb was used to weaken the core structure.


Hypothesis being the keyword there. The biggest point your hypothesis is missing is that there was no point. It didn't need to happen and there is no evidence to prove that it did, so thinking it did without evidence and the science to back it up serves no purpose other than feeding your lust for conspiracy.




I didn't mean it dissapeared. Depending on how many columns could be taken out without failure, they would add to the weight that is not being held up by the remaining structure.


Yeah and guess which part of the building has to bear that load the most.




Could you point to NIST's science then please. I'm hard pressed to find it.


Everything published by NIST can be found here.




Ask any engineer you find to dispute this.


If I wanted a second opinion I'd ask my sister who's an architect. I don't need to ask a second opinion because I base my judgements on reality and evidence.




Taking out the core structure from anywhere below the impact zones would cause failure at the impact zones.


It would also cause failure wherever you took out the core structure.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
Neither, you just aren't citing what you say with any scientific evidence.


Well, since I am a structural engineer, I am citing my own thoughts. Thank you.




It didn't need to happen and there is no evidence to prove that it did, so thinking it did without evidence and the science to back it up serves no purpose other than feeding your lust for conspiracy.


No evidence that there was a bomb in the basement? Ok. I'll give you that. My lust for conspiracy? Obviously you need to read some of my posts.




Yeah and guess which part of the building has to bear that load the most.


Exactly. The exterior, which would collapse at the impact (damaged) zones.




Everything published by NIST can be found here.


Since you are new, the NIST did experimental and computer simulations. Both disagree with their conclusions. How is that scientific?




If I wanted a second opinion I'd ask my sister who's an architect.


So, an architect will know more than a structural engineer when it comes to building design and loads? Or would she know more when it comes to designing toilet seats?


I don't need to ask a second opinion because I base my judgements on reality and evidence.


I base mine on my experience. Both in college and the real world.




It would also cause failure wherever you took out the core structure.


Please explain. Using known engineering principals. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
The top section did not fall straight off because the parts of the structure that were still attached provided torque and the tilt was hardly defined enough to allow the top section to fall clear of the rest of the building.


True. Instead it disintegrated explosively barely a second after collapse began. Twenty-odd floors, dropping in a coherent mass--for it was still a coherent structure--simply exploded in mid-air. Big grey flower-bloom of destruction with structural members flying outward, some for hundreds of yards.

How is this to be accounted for?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I have answered your question 1000000 times.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Research would help you a bit.



[edit on 20-8-2007 by 11 11]


It would have waved out. All explosons wave, not gun shot. If they were in the core, a wave would have come out. Sorry, I don't believe you.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
It would have waved out. All explosons wave, not gun shot. If they were in the core, a wave would have come out. Sorry, I don't believe you.


How would pressurized air act diferently?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 





Well, since I am a structural engineer, I am citing my own thoughts. Thank you.


Perhaps since you are a structural engineer (and hopefully a competent one) you would care to back up what you state by showing us laymen, using scientific proof and data, how you arrive at such conclusions? Given your expertise hopefully you can describe in unambiguous terms the process which you claim transfers the stress of gravity and mass from the bottom of the building (which has to bear 110 stories of weight) to the upper sections. Granted beams and columns are used and designed to distribute loads, however like any scientific process, this distribution is not perfect, also the load must be transferred somewhere. While my understanding of structural design is basic, I always thought the desire with columns and vertical beams was to transfer the upper load downwards?



A column in architecture and structural engineering is a vertical structural element that transmits, through compression, the weight of the structure above to other structural elements below.


What benefit would there be to designing systems that transfer loads upwards?

The outer frame of the two towers was not designed to bear the full gravitational load of the tower, if you were to remove the load bearing capacity of the central support system that load would be transferred to the outer frame. The outer frame on the lower part of the building could not transfer the load away and would collapse from the stress. Transferring the load upwards does nothing to reduce the effects of mass and gravity.



No evidence that there was a bomb in the basement? Ok. I'll give you that. My lust for conspiracy? Obviously you need to read some of my posts.


Well from what I've been reading you have been trying to assert that there was a conspiracy to place bombs in the basement, is that not right? Since as yet there is no element of truth in the theory, what else could be the point?




Exactly. The exterior, which would collapse at the impact (damaged) zones.


I was talking about the lower parts that are attached to the ground holding the building up.




Since you are new, the NIST did experimental and computer simulations. Both disagree with their conclusions. How is that scientific?


Care to cite?




So, an architect will know more than a structural engineer when it comes to building design and loads? Or would she know more when it comes to designing toilet seats?


As you should know, an architect relies on the information from structural engineers, builders, and other contractors when designing a building (which is as you should know the job of an architect). An architect does not know more than structural engineers about loads, however it is part of an architects job to understand how loads are distributed and how to design a building to efficiently deal with the loads it must support. I never claimed my sister knows more or less about buildings than structural engineers, I was simply stating that if I wanted to re-affirm my understanding of the elements involved in relation the structural design I would ask my sister since she would know about it. Don't know where toilet seats come into it.




I base mine on my experience. Both in college and the real world.


I'm sure as a structural engineer you understand the importance of the scientific process and proving your work or theory.




Please explain. Using known engineering principals. Thanks.


I'm not the structural engineer. Are you claiming that the point of greatest stress would not fail when loaded beyond it's capacity?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 





True. Instead it disintegrated explosively barely a second after collapse began. Twenty-odd floors, dropping in a coherent mass--for it was still a coherent structure--simply exploded in mid-air. Big grey flower-bloom of destruction with structural members flying outward, some for hundreds of yards.


Disintegrated explosively? Hardly:




new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join