It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# NY's Finest Tour Guide Pokes Major Holes in the CD Theory

page: 10
17
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by gb540
All I know is the WTC theories and claims have gotten out of hand, and the book needs to be reopened. There needs to be a comprehensive, hard-nosed, and respected establishment of fact.

I would hope that ALL on both sides can agree to this. If not, there is an agenda IMO.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
In regards to thermate (mite) whatever, from my understanding about thermate is that it burns down. Gravity wise. How would thermate be placed on verticle columns to produce the cut that would be desired?

Look at my post about linear cutting thermite charges and the U.S. patent for such. If it wasn't possible, there would be no patent. Period.

Also, I'm tending to think that the floor beams were severed with thermite instead of the columns. Floor beams are horizontal and thermite WOULD cut through them vertically.

This would induce the columns to buckle. Easier than floors sagging and pulling them in would IMO.

Look up Euler and buckling.

where F=pi(squared)EI/(Kl)(squared)

F = maximum or critical force (vertical load on column),
E = modulus of elasticity,
I = area moment of inertia,
l = unsupported length of column,
K = column effective length factor, whose value depends on the conditions of end support of the column, as follows.
For both ends pinned (hinged, free to rotate), K = 1.0.
For both ends fixed, K = 0.50.
For one end fixed and the other end pinned, K = 0.70.
For one end fixed and the other end free to move laterally, K = 2.0.

There's that moment of inertia again, BTW.

Notice that as the length becomes more unbraced, the lower the force needed to buckle it.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:23 PM
*** NOT *** BREAKING NEWS:

The mass of documents and analysis was compiled over the last year by a kind of dream team of engineering experts as the two litigants weighed in on the question of how much Mr. Silverstein should be compensated for the loss of the towers. Mr. Silverstein says he is owed about \$7 billion; the insurance companies say half that.

query.nytimes.com...

Opps, misread the date on this, sorry.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by GreenFloyd]

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:35 PM

Hardly breaking News dude.....

By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: October 29, 2002

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:59 PM
Blueprints

Blueprints

WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:01 PM

Originally posted by GreenFloyd

WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower

Anybody here understand the difference between architectural documents and structural documents?

The idea that these were "leaked" doesn't sound right to me anyway. Anybody could've put them out there for all we know. No one's willing to claim responsibility for them, and there's no way to authenticate them.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by bsbray11]

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:27 PM

**sighs** this is from March.

Thanks though

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:28 PM

Anybody here understand the difference between architectural documents and structural documents?

I do not know the difference. Please elaborate.

The idea that these were "leaked" doesn't sound right to me anyway. Anybody could've put them out there for all we know. No one's willing to claim responsibility for them, and there's no way to authenticate them.

I agree, doesn't sound right... especially when we could check the originals. Except...

The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
infowars.net...

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:56 PM

Originally posted by GreenFloyd

WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower

Just as an FYI. Those are Architectural drawings not Structural. There is a big difference.

While the architecturals do give some information, the structural drawings are needed for an analysis.

But, thanks for trying to help anyway.

Edit: Jumped the gun a little. Structural drawings will have the steel schedule, bolt connections, weld connections etc. While the Architectural gives the layout for the most part. They need to be used in congunction with each other to do an analysis.

BTW, bsbray, yes, I know the difference between architectural and structural drawings.

[edit on 11/19/2007 by Griff]

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:00 PM
okay..... but what about building 7

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by manbearpig
okay..... but what about building 7

Or WTC 2 for that matter. Although being very similar, they were NOT identical twins. Especially when I've read that half of either 1 or 2 had asbestos as fireproofing but they changed to this suppossed flimsy spray-on fire-proofing for the rest of that tower and the whole of the other tower.

One just needs to look at the height and the antennae on WTC 1 to see that they weren't completely identical.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:21 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Griff.

So "blueprints" is a more generic term which includes both the structural and architectural drawings?

Clearly I'm just learning all this. Yet, I did notice on these drawings I posted, several corridors linking all the footings and elevator pits. So access to the core would be entirely possible, even at the lowest level.

Is that correct?

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by GreenFloyd
Thanks for the clarification, Griff.

No problem. Happy to help.

So "blueprints" is a more generic term which includes both the structural and architectural drawings?

Yes and no. Blueprints also include mechanical drawings, plumbing drawings, and electrical drawings.

Clearly I'm just learning all this.

Nothing wrong in that. At least you're learning. Unlike a few in here I will not mention.

Yet, I did notice on these drawings I posted, several corridors linking all the footings and elevator pits. So access to the core would be entirely possible, even at the lowest level.

Is that correct?

Probably. The drawings are hard to read. At least the copy that I have.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by GreenFloyd
So "blueprints" is a more generic term which includes both the structural and architectural drawings?

A blueprint can be anything. It refers to a type of paper, coloured blue from the chemicals used, that drawings are reproduced on. It's a method not used as much anymore so the term 'blueprint' has become more of a generic term for any engineering/architectural drawings regardless of the plotting method used.

Blueprint

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:25 PM

Thank you ANOK, that fills in the gaps nicely.

Looking at the drawings here I'm not sure if I am looking down or from the side, or are both views present?

And, excuse my ignorance, what is "ELEV?" It reads "sub-level 5 - ELEV 242' - 0" " Is that the lowest point in the structure?

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:38 PM

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:10 PM

Wow! I did not know anything about this Patent regarding linear cutting thermite charges. Thanks for posting that.

That changes a lot of things for sure.

tnks for posting that.

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 06:35 AM
Griff...

Is your opinion striclty thermate or a mixture of both thermate and conventional explosives?

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 07:42 AM

I have no set-in-stone theory. I'm just trying to look at it in all directions possible.

If it was a covert operation, I would go for a combination of things to make it look like it was the plane damage and fire. Which would include thermite/mate to cut the beams (horizontal supports) for the columns in the core. Thus forcing the core columns to buckle. Then, when things started to fall and would mask the sound, explosives. But, that's just my opinion so far.

All this could be set up farther down from the impact zones so I don't want to hear "what about the planes and fire ruining the explosives/thermite". Not saying you CO.

As far as no blasting caps found etc. I was watching "Future Weapons" not long ago. They were showing mortars that had like 8 bombs attached. These bombs had sensors on them that would find targets. When a target was found, the bombs would explode with molten copper and burn anything around. If the bombs didn't find a target, they specifically said that the bomb would detonate in the air above.

Why did I tell you this? Because they specifically said that no material is left to be collected by the enemy. That means mortar shells, sensors, copper, bomb encasings etc. So, the fact they didn't find things doesn't automatically negate it in my mind. Especially after watching that show.

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
In a gravity fed collapse there shouldn't be anything flying out of anywhere when it weighs in the tons.

I'm curious....should/could something be "flying out" if it weighed less? How much?

top topics

17