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.

 

PBS Show About Building Collapses

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Did anyone happen to catch the pbs show called "Building on Ground Zero"? I was unable to find a link to the video but just found a summary of the episode. It was very interesting, got into the Murrah building and of course the twin towers. I would encourage all to watch the episode and i would like to see peoples comments about it. It gets into detain of the floor trusses and how they lpayed a major role in the collapse (if you buy it). I watched it with an open mind but would like to watch it again.

It goes into the fire-proofing, how it needs better bond strength, how it is only fire rated for 2 hours, and bunches of other good info. It tells of evacuation plans and how flawed they were.

I need help getting a link with the video for all to watch. If anyone can help me find the video i would appreciate it.

It is a great video to why the Murrah building collapsed too. And the design that lead to a collapse three seconds after the bomb went off.

I will do more searching to try to find a video of the show i am referring to unless someone else beats me to it!




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
www.mininova.org...

This is the link to a torrent of it..

I haven't watched it but here it is...

Since the public pays for this channel its not technically pirating..

Anyway i will watch and get back to you.



[edit on 9/18/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I have not seen it yet, but still i will say the towers fell straight down, in illogical order!! Remember the 2nd building hit was felled first. On top of that, we have tape of explosions, and countdowns over the radios of police by multiple witnesses.

"The last shall be first, the first shall be last" The bible., out of context of course



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermind77
 


It sort of gives some reason why the whole top half of the first tower started to fall as one piece. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. Just watch it with an open mind.

You'll have to admit the firers were pretty strong. MSNBC has been airing 911 as it happened a few times the past week. Watching that again i realized how intense those fires were. To be above the impact zone must have been hell.

The fires didn't have to melt steel just heat it up to lose it structurial integerity.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmocow
reply to post by mastermind77
 


You'll have to admit the firers were pretty strong. MSNBC has been airing 911 as it happened a few times the past week. Watching that again i realized how intense those fires were. To be above the impact zone must have been hell.

The fires didn't have to melt steel just heat it up to lose it structurial integerity.


Pretty strong is a laymen way of convincing the public, they ignore reality, for instance in science the NIST report had to move the 4inch sag to 40inches to get there model to work. And that was using top mark tempatures that were not sustained over time.

A rock flying pretty fast will go through a steel wall, thats why I know that a pitcher can throw rocks through steel. Same thing.

There is a picture of a victim standing in the crash zone before the collapse. Fires did not burn her, yet they melted steel. Not buying it.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just saying that those fires were intense to say the least. Just wondering what people think of some of the points in this video. It talks alot about the load impact and how it (supposedly) led to the collapse along with the extreme heat weakening not melting steel. I did mention the sagging of floors but did not mention that it needed to be a 40 inch sag to produce a failure in their model.

I also am eager to hear what others opinions on the recommendations given by NIST, full evacuations, fire proofing, the stair walls had to be fire proof but you could punch a hole through them with a hammer or something pretty easily. They say had been sturdier they possible could have saved some of the stair wells hence saving lives. It talks about the first WTC bombing and how it took over 6 hours to totally evacuate (3 times longer than the fire proof rating on the steel beams). And how some handicapped people probably lost their lives due to the handicapped being evacuated last to not slow down people's exits. And widening the stair wells was another good point. The width was 44 or 54 inches and when firemen with bulky gear came up it caused clogged evac areas.

Overall just alot of good points on building safety, collapses, recommendations, etc. Plus just looking for educated responses to the video.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmocow
It talks alot about the load impact and how it (supposedly) led to the collapse along with the extreme heat weakening not melting steel.


You mean impact loading. When you don't even know what you're talking about, how do you know they do?


They make ovens out of steel. An oven won't even glow red when you burn it for hours. The temperatures are the same and the gross energy output per area is probably even greater for even a wood stove, if you want to be realistic. You have to heat steel beyond glowing a dull red if you want it to lose even half of its yield strength, and the design strength and yield strength are two different numbers entirely. You can expect a skyscraper with record-breaking height to be many times redundant, and that's exactly what the engineers that built them said, when they built them.

Don't give me an impact load and try to apply it to a static load rating and say that therefore anything goes, either. It doesn't work that way. The dynamic load may be larger than the static loads, but the forces holding the materials together (the chemical bonds, since the entire structure is welded and bolted solid, remember) are orders of magnitude larger. The dynamic forces can only try to cause failures in specific places (at the bolts somewhere, for example), but that just leads back to somebody having to explain how exactly this all managed to happen on its own in the first place, and where the critical failures occurred and when.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Just curisous if this is also the PBS show that said it was a pancake collapse? What I don't understand is how the story of how it collapsed has changed so many times even in the "official story". The official story peddlers can't even stick with the same theory too long because it get's debunked. Just think about it logically..........110 story building is PULVERIZED! Plane strike or not, how the heck does it just turn into dust? Let's say the plane strike, raging infernos and weakened trusses cause it to START to collapse, without the pancake theory, then wouldn't the top part just fall over onto the street? So how then did it turn to dust? Also, I know it was just a movie, but remember Towering Inferno? It didn't collapse.......that was never a plausible idea, even in hollywood!



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse


Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
NIST now says no pancake took place.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 19-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NIST now says no pancake took place.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 19-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]


That's what I was saying in my other post, even the "official story" changes so much about the collapse. Absent a pancake collapse, those upper floors could not have brought down the bottom floors, and a pancake collapse could not have happened at free fall speed and also pulverized the whole building into dust.

So here's my question, if the plane, the raging infernos and weakened trusses caused the start of the collapse, then why didn't the upper floors just topple over into the street? Because we know pancake didn't happen. I can't believe logically minded people actually think that 30 gutted out floors (raging fire remember) actually pulverized the rest of the building!



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I guess noone has seen the episode i was talking about yet. Do i believe the gov't's official story... no. Did i watch the video and find it interesting...yes.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7
 


Did the whole building get pulverized or just the concrete? From what i remember is a huge debris field, 16 acres or so (thats what the pbs show said)

And i also think that noone actually believes that fires alone caused the collapse. There were multiple factors no matter if they were squibs, planes impact, fires, building core damaged, etc.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by Cosmocow]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmocow
planes impact, fires, building core damaged,


Why else would the core be damaged if not by the impacts or fires?

This isn't one of those one-liner posts, either.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Large buildings are never even brought down from artillery or bombings, and we're supposed to believe that a planes brought down these massive structure
. Im lovin it.




top topics



 
0

log in

join