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.

 

WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

page: 21
0
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The building was structurally damaged by the collapse of the towers. There was a visible "kink" in the side of the building hours before it collapsed. If burned for SEVEN hours. very few buildings have burned that long and survived.

If the structural failure started in a core area, then yes, the collapse would have been just as it was.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES!!!!!

Explosives powerful enough to cut the steel make noise. a lot of noise. As I posted earlier, I have witnesses intentional implosions. You not only hear the explosives, you feel them in your chest. Even as far away as the video cameras that depicted the collapse of 7, they would have heard the explosions. they would be on the tape. but they did not. Why, BECAUSE TRHERE WERE NONE.

No matter how hard you try to twist what you think "should have happened" to fit your theory, you can not escape the fact that there is one piece of evidence lacking, The sound of the explosives.

Hushaboom anyone?


Ok, now I finally have time, and I have caught up on the thread so now I will engage in combat with you Howie.


Ok, I think you've made some pretty strong arguments throughout this thread. However, there have been some key points that I don't think you've disputed or touched on that Billybob and the others brought up. (If you have, and I missed it, I'm sorry.)

First, on page 13 of this thread, billybob listed a few links that are stunning with what they show. Let me repost the links.


Originally posted by billybob
eyewitnesses report explosions. LOTS of witnesses. including firemen. (click me)

wow, a gag order to stop firemen's opinions from being published. that's weird! i thought they were the heroes of the day?

where's the fire? (click me)

god loves science. so do i.
i don't know if those links are already on this thread, but they're great links.


Now, here's something you said:



WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES!!!!!

Explosives powerful enough to cut the steel make noise. a lot of noise. As I posted earlier, I have witnesses intentional implosions. You not only hear the explosives, you feel them in your chest. Even as far away as the video cameras that depicted the collapse of 7, they would have heard the explosions. they would be on the tape. but they did not. Why, BECAUSE TRHERE WERE NONE.


However, clearly in the links billybob provided, there was a lot of documented testimonies of people talking about explosions. So people WERE hearing explosions, therefore, you can't make the claim that the demolition argument is faulty because there was no sound of explosions.

You also said this:


Wow, things exploding in a fire. bet thats never happened before!


Normally, you argument here would be common sense and good. BUT you must have ignored the testimony of the FIREFIGHTERS saying EXPLICITELY that they thought there were BOMBS set up in the building. Now, SINCE they were firefighters and had been in MANY fires before, WOULD they make a statement like that unless they had cause to believe that these explosions weren't the common kind normally in fires. Remember, they would probably know the difference, right? You also must have ignored the testimony on those links of a man evacuating from his floor, and when he reached the lobby, and on his way out the door, some explosive force sent him to the floor. Now this was obviously not the building collapsing, because that had YET to happen. And he got up and made it a safe distance before it collapsed. Now remember, there should be NO explosions in the lobby if it was JUST all about the plane that hit way up on the top section.

Also, I think we need to revisit the photo that billybob posted, which is also from one of those links. When he posts that up, you retort by ignoring the fact that a woman is standing there, and instead talk about how many beams are broken.





I count at least 33 perimeter columns SEVERED and a half dozen more that appear to be damaged. In addition it appears that at least three of the floor slabs are partially collapsed. and that is just by looking at the photograph. I'm quite sure that there is also significant damage to other structural members that we can not see in the photo.

That is quite a lot of damage. Are you willing to risk your structural engineer's license and state that it was impossible for this building to colapse?

[edit on 20-7-2004 by HowardRoark]


Do you think that billybob posted that picture to illustrate how many BEAMS were severed? That's not the important implication of the picture. Forget about the beams. Yes, they are severed and there was a lot of damage. Let's just say you're right about all of what you say in the post I just quoted of you directly above to make it easy. NOW, focusing on the woman, HOW do you EXPLAIN her PRESENCE there while there is an INFERNO that is WARPING STEEL a SHORT DISTANCE BEHIND HER? HOW do you EXPLAIN that? The warping and melting and fatiguing of the supports by the extreme heat and fire of this inferno is THE paramount reason given and explained to us as to why the collapse started. So PLEASE don't ignore it again and give me your opinion as to how she is there amidst this enormous heat.

Also, Antimyth came up with a very intriguing point that you never responded to as well. Here it is:



Oh and I have another question for all you 'debunkers'.
Why do demolition crews spend all the time and money rigging buildings to fall in their footprint, when evidently all you really need to do is poor some kerosene in there and you get the same effect as people with degrees and years of experience?

I cant believe the demolition companies have been fooling us all these years, telling us its a science, telling us that one small mistake can cause a building to fall where they dont want it.....
THOSE LIERS! All they really need is kerosene to bring a building STRAIGHT DOWN....It worked three times on 911.
Its a wonder there are any demolition companies in buisiness still.


Please respond to that. If it were so simple to take down steel buildings in SO neat of a pretty pile, why do demolitioners spend SO much time and money dealing with the explosions? HMMMM? Just dump some gas in the place and start in fire and let the rest take care of itself. Why is that not the standard? What's your reply?

And if you want visual PROOF of explosives going off in 1 and 2, let me direct you to the following link:

www.plaguepuppy.net...


Now watch the third one down, and notice that as it falls, in the middle of the building, there is clearly an explosion that puffs out smoke and debris from a floor before the collapse even gets CLOSE to it. Then watch the tenth one down for an even BETTER shot. Watch how, on the right side of the building, you see TWO poofs of smoke blast out on one floor, and then another several floors below that. BOTH go off WELL BEFORE the collapse reaches them! Dispute that please!!!




[edit on 18-8-2004 by SimpleTruth]

[edit on 18-8-2004 by SimpleTruth]

[edit on 18-8-2004 by SimpleTruth]

[edit on 18-8-2004 by SimpleTruth]

[edit on 18-8-2004 by SimpleTruth]




posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Wow, no responses at all for awhile now. Maybe my last post contained too much strong evidence for some inconsistencies with the official story? Or maybe everyone just gave up with this thread



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Come on, doesn't anyone have anything to say? Howard, why haven't you responded? Give me a reasonable explanation as to how all the events that are mentioned in my above post happened, and how that all fits with the official theory. How come there haven't been any others of you that defend the official story to respond either? Look, I would LOVE to believe the official story instead of any more sinister version, so it's in my best interest to find information that explains all these anomalies. I'm not defending anything here with eagerness or joy. Tell me there's nothing to be concerned about (in terms of gov involvement). The only reason that I have this position is because that's what analyzing the whole situation from all the angles shows to be true. And I'm not always right, so I could be wrong here. But please just refute this evidence from my last post.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I'd love to go over this with you (as I have in other threads) but I am rather busy at work this weekend, so it will have to wait.

HR



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Yeah, I've got something to say. Let's take them bit by bit:

From your first link: www.whatreallyhappened.com...

the out of context quote


Suddenly the hallway began to shudder as a terrible deafening roar swept over them. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street.


But if you click through the foundational link: www.bowhunter.com...

in context the premise trying to be made goes away completely:



The team moved ahead. Scant minutes passed. Suddenly the hallway began to shudder as a terrible deafening roar swept over them. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street. That's when Sarge shouted, "Run! Run to the left!"

Seconds later the team's entire world began to crumble. It was precisely 9:59 a.m. The Trade Center's South Tower had just collapsed.


The fireball was the South Tower collapsing. No conspiracy here.

From your link:



As he left the building, [Ronald DiFrancesco] saw a fireball rolling toward him. He put his arms in front of his face. He woke up three days later at St. Vincent's hospital. His arms were burned. Some bones were broken. His lungs were singed. But he was alive -- the last person out of the south tower.


Though going on to the original link: www.usatoday.com...

may have some value, your link says it all...again, the collapse of the South Tower. No conspiracy here.

From your link:



David Handschuh: "Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet, and I wound up about a block away".


From the original source: fotophile.com...



He photographed the second plane as it crashed through the south tower, then felt the rumble of the collapsing building.

"Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet, and I wound up about a block away," he told PDNonline.


Again, the collapse of the South Tower. No conspiracy here.

From your link:



"Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse"


A 110 story building had just catastrophically failed and collapse...I'm sure it did sound and seem like a "major explosion" upon the catastrophic failure and collapse.

No conspiracy here.

From your link:



* Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
* Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
* Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.
* [...]
* Dispatcher: Battalion 5, be advised we're trying to contact Battalion 3 at this moment to report north tower just collapsed.


Here's the original link: www.wnbc.com...

but again, yours suffices, the North Tower had just collapse. Once again, a 110 story building catastrophically failing and collapsing would most definitely sound like "another explosion". No conspiracy here.

From your link:


Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled.


Already covered above, several times now...no conspiracy here.

From your link:


I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion.


Ibid. No conspiracy here.

From your link:


I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1


Point stated...no conspiracy here.

From your link:

this link: www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Again, describing the catastrophic failure and the collapse.

And the voila: www.whatreallyhappened.com...

the same damned thing on the second tower...no conspiracy on either instance.

This one bears witness to ALL of the above: www.cnn.com...

Aaron Brown trying to explain an "explosion" and that he cannot see Tower 2 behind the smoke...there's a good reasonf or that...the explosion was the sound of the building collapsing...the building is not there. No conspiracy here.

And then this one...from your link: www.poynter.org...

Has one voice of reason in the cacophony of blathering idiots...a man that corrects Peter Jennings when he's going brain-dead and unprofessional speculating on air that a "demolition explosion" must have been at the base of the tower in order to destroy it.


“The top part was totally involved…the weight at the top collapsed the building…there was no explosion at the bottom.”


It's very simple. Why can't you go off and find out how much weight was above the damage zone. Just find out how much, say 30 of these floors weighed. Then drop that weight 10 foot...just one single floor collapsing completely with the weight of the 30 floors above it, and come back to me with the energy dissipated from that drop...and the decibels it would have emitted.

Pah! Some people are too lazy to come to sanity.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Simpletruth versus Howard in the WTC7 finals! I'm getting another beer and a good seat. This ought to be good!

Work? Howard, get your priorities in order!



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Just to follow up:

43,200 square feet per floor.

www.greatbuildings.com...

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure."

"The gigantic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below travelled down the columns like a shockwave faster than the entire structure fell. The clouds of debris coming from the tower, several storeys below the huge falling mass, probably result from the sudden and almost explosive failure of each floor, caused by the "shockwave".

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   
you should be listening to george noorie/coast to coast right now.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
hey valhall -

what's your take on the WTC 7 collapse?



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Thanks for the response. And sorry for my long delayed response. Been really really busy, especially since moving into college again and starting classes in addition to other things. Anyways, thanks again.

However, some of those quotes you just disputed weren't even the ones I was referring to. Here's one:



Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.


Now that is testimony that specifically states actual bombs were thought to be in the building, instead of people just hearing explosions as you have said to explain all the accounts. Two different things. And again, I'm sure seasoned fire-fighters wouldn't mention bombs if it were anything that exploded from the actual fire.

Now, here's one you DID dispute, but I still think you're wrong on how you analyzed it. Here it is again:


quote:
The team moved ahead. Scant minutes passed. Suddenly the hallway began to shudder as a terrible deafening roar swept over them. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street. That's when Sarge shouted, "Run! Run to the left!"

Seconds later the team's entire world began to crumble. It was precisely 9:59 a.m. The Trade Center's South Tower had just collapsed.


The fireball was the South Tower collapsing. No conspiracy here.


This is pretty straightforward. Just notice the sequence described here. I'll break it down:
1. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street. That's when Sarge shouted, "Run! Run to the left!"
'next'
2. Seconds (



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 02:57 AM
link   
.
That's a very good point Simple Truth. In Valhal's own post the fireball explodes into the street, THEN the building begins to collapse. That can only be rationally explaned that something incidiary exploded FIRST and possible precipitated [caused] the collapse of the building.
.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Well, no replies. I guess the official story fails to explain the photo among a few of the other things I and others have brought up. Or if it can explain it, Howard, who seems to know the official explanation inside and out, should chime in. Then we can all feel better. Because I know that photo is bothering me. And the people speaking of bombs and pre-collapse explosions are bothering me.

Howard, could you help to explain it? Thanks



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
IT"S ALIVE... IT"s ALIVE...


argghhhhhh why won't you die, just die !!!!!!!!!




posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
IT"S ALIVE... IT"s ALIVE...


argghhhhhh why won't you die, just die !!!!!!!!!



Why don't you kill it then, by helping to explain the issue of the photo and some of the testimonies?



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
see there were these two airplanes that crashed into the world trade center.... minutes apart..

one building fell, then the second...

building 7 was damaged during this, eventually it fell down too,

no bombs, or anything like that.


wow, that was pretty easy wasn't it... just to think, 21 pages wasted on what was accomplished in a paragraph...



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
IT"S ALIVE... IT"s ALIVE...


argghhhhhh why won't you die, just die !!!!!!!!!



My sentiments exactly.

So, ST, are you trying to suck me back into this thread? I stopped replying to this because it was taking too much time, but since you asked. . .

To start with the Cacchioli version of events has not been substantiated by anyone else, and since firemen do not work alone, nor do they leave their buddys, I suspect that the lack of collaboration say a lot about Cacchioli’s credibility.

He says “we,” but are there any others who will back up what he says?

Without further collaboration, I think it is safe to stamp a great big red question mark on any testimony from this source.


Next let’s think for a minute of the time it took for the buildings to collapse and what happened during that time.

Remember that the building was essentially a large hollow tube filled with different floor levels. As the top part of that building started downward, the bulk of the mass stayed within the perimeter columns. These columns and exterior walls then sheered off when their interior supports (the floor slabs) were knocked out by the descending mass. What this did was create a giant piston. The air inside the building was forced downward and outward at the ground level. There were eye witness reports from survivors of burning jet fuel n the elevator shafts. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how the collapsing mass of the building could create a “fireball” on the lower floors prior to the bulk of the material hitting the ground.

Now, let’s look at the time sequence of the collapse. Once the collapse started, the mass of the upper building was essentially in a free fall downward. Even at this speed, it too 8 to 10 seconds for the mass to hit the ground after the collapse started. This is plenty of time to account for the witnesses who heard the sounds of the collapse starting before they realized what was happening.

Remember, most of these people were not looking up at the building, they had their heads down and they were trying to get the hell out of there as fast as they could. So, it is rather difficult for you to be able to say “they heard a noise, but the collapse had not started yet.” You simply can not do that. No where in any of that testimony can you make that jump.

Finally lets talk about the so called picture of a woman. First of all, I am not 100% convinced that that grainy shape is even a person. Even if it is, what difference does it make. Look closely at that picture. Count how many perimeter columns were severed by the impact. Count how many floor slabs were visibly, severely damaged by the impact. Imagine what kind of damage was present that is not visible. Look at other pictures of the collapse. Fire was raging in other areas of the building even if it had burned out in that location. Are you a licensed structural engineer? Can you prove that the damaged visible in that photograph was insufficient to bring down the building? No you can not. Does it matter that the fire had burned out at that particular location? No it does not, because the deformation, movement and stresses on the various structural components was constantly changing. Wind loading, the effects of fire on other parts of the structure, creep and stress failure, were ongoing.

There is no evidence of any explosives. Get over it.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I have read most of this entire thread and I like a lot about it as well as dislike a lot; I am always surprised how people who appear intelligent will insist on speaking the truth when there is no way for them to absolutely know the truth.
I have watched a lot of documentaries and have looked at and read everything I was able to find online on the subject matter of 9/11 only to realise the painful truth that I don't know.
But it feels that all the things that I haven't been able to figure out are actually in some strange way confirming what all of you guys are saying on here with all your various theories.
May be If I briefly share some of the things that I am completely clueless about it might help this discussion.

1. I don't know why the terrorists are going through such trouble to actually pull off the almost impossible.
2. I don't know why the Bush administration was what apperas to be seriously slacking in taking the threat seriously.
3. I don't know why companies spend so much money on controlled demolition when you could basically put a huge bomb pretty much anywhere in the upper part of the building and wait for it to collapse. From the collapse of the 2 towers and building 7 it shows that whatever you do it will always result in a perfect collapse.
4. I don't know why the team of experts wasn't brought in while the pieces where still in place at Ground zero in order to log and study individual pieces instead of just looking at a pile of the rubble in New Jersey.
5. I don't know why the steel had to be shipped off to China for cheap, while steel prices in this country are constantly increasing mostly due to the foreign competition and import.
6. I don't know why Bush immediately uses the issue to further an agenda which a lot of highranking officials from the CIA besides other government agencies did not agree with.
7. I don't know how that antenna on top of the tower can go down so perfectly straight when the damaged core of the building which in this case supposedly caused the collapse has certainly not been struck equally on all sides by the plane.

I will stop my "I don't know list here" I am sure some of you will find it annoying to read this list of mine as you certainly have the answers to all of the above.
But I am quite certain that none of you can actually answer a single one of those questions beyond the shadow of a doubt; and that it is in fact that uncertainty which unites us all and brings us together collecting pieces of a puzzle.
We should appreciate this fact that unites us and put it above the illusion that any of us know the answers.
I many times feel that some given piece of evidence convinces me either this way or that way but after all as soon as I look at the bigger picture I immediately notice the rotten stench that attaches to it and which I can't ignore and which inspires me to keep looking.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
As was written earlier in this thread:

"NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over."

Hmm, that's not convincing. It's entirely possible to have buckling columns at the base and still allow the building to toppled to the side. Why? Gravity favors the path of least resistance. Remember skyscrapers are engineered to remain STANDING not to fall. Therefore, everything that can stop a collapse will, and the weakest links will go first. If you significant'y weaken one entire section of the building, the structure will have the tendancy (e.g. it will favor) to fall in that direction. This is clearly evident by the way the first WTC tower toppled in the video footage (the entire the top 1/3 leaned over by 30 degrees before destroying the floors below it). This is vivid evidence that a building will not always come down vertically onto itself, but that there are actually a number of ways that it could collapse. And it's impossible from any engineering perspective , to account for every single natural (or unnatural) scenario in the design and testing phases.

If all skyscrapers were expected to collapse perfectly vertically, then there would be no need for controlled demolitions. Just plant a few random bombs and watch it fall inevitibly into a nice pile. I'm sure that anybody can see that this is ludicrous.

--Randall



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Hello, I just wanted to followup that as many people already know, the first tower to collapse was a) minimally damaged from the initial impact and b) had the vast majroity of fuel payload expelled outside of the building.

Unfortunately, I have found no explanation as to why this was the building to collapse first. The integrity of the remaining supserstructure and the lack of fire evident in the video footage, does not seem to suggest that conditions were necessarily imminent for such a short time frame before catastrophic failure. Even eyewitness reports from workers that fled the building from the floor directly ABOVE the point of impact, detailed the degree of damage which was not significant enough to even take out their own floor nor the floors below. In fact, it is quite conceivable, as depicted analyses I've seen, that the core itself was mostly unaffected by the travel of the jetliner into the building.

--Randall



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rkrause
Hello, I just wanted to followup that as many people already know, the first tower to collapse was a) minimally damaged from the initial impact and b) had the vast majroity of fuel payload expelled outside of the building.

Unfortunately, I have found no explanation as to why this was the building to collapse first. The integrity of the remaining supserstructure and the lack of fire evident in the video footage, does not seem to suggest that conditions were necessarily imminent for such a short time frame before catastrophic failure. Even eyewitness reports from workers that fled the building from the floor directly ABOVE the point of impact, detailed the degree of damage which was not significant enough to even take out their own floor nor the floors below. In fact, it is quite conceivable, as depicted analyses I've seen, that the core itself was mostly unaffected by the travel of the jetliner into the building.

--Randall



You know. I had decided that I wasn’t going to waste my time on these threads any more. After all it gets a little tiresome trying to instill an understanding of the basic principles of science and engineering into those who wish to remain willfully ignorant of those principles.

Then someone comes along and posts something as silly as this and I get drawn right back into it.

The impact of the plane into the south tower produced an immediate and partial collapse of the floors in the area of the impact. This also introduced a perceptible tilt in the top of the tower above the impact point.

www.wessex.ac.uk...

Not only does this indicate that severe structural damage was caused by the impact, it also indicates that unanticipated loads were now being put on the undamaged portions of the structure as they now had to not only support the top of the building, but they also had to cope with the lateral forces induces by the tilt.

Furthermore, it is not proven that the majority of the jet fuel was expelled by the blast. In fact most of it probably was not. Only the vaporized portions of the fuel exploded out the windows. At the most you could argue that much of the fuel in the starboard wing tanks was expelled, but that is stretching it a bit. Certainly a lot of the fuel was burned up in the fireball, but 10,000 gallons? No, not even 5,000 gallons. The windows of the building were designed to withstand 140 mph winds. The blast energy had to overcome this. Much of the blast energy was also directed into the core area, where it knocked out the drywall core enclosures and ripped the fireproofing from the beams and columns.

In fact if you think about it, you would realize that the fuel in the port wing must have gone straight into the core area.

There were reports of fuel spilling down the elevator shafts all the way down to the basement.

Finally you fail to realize just how interconnected all of the parts of the structure are. The floors were as integral to the support of the building as the columns. They provided lateral stiffness and prevented the columns from buckling out or in. The impact caused severe local damage which out a number of these floors. Thus not only were the columns in the vicinity of the wiped out portions of the floors without the lateral bracing that they needed, but it is entirely conceivable that when the floor slabs were ripped loose from the exterior columns, or pushed into the interior core, that they distorted and bent the those columns at the connecting points.

It is kind of like putting a heavy stack of books on top of a yardstick. As long as that yardstick is straight with no bends, it can support the load, but if you push the side of the stick to the side and introduce a bend in the load path, the weight will snap the yardstick causing the books to fall.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join