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.
Originally posted by OrionStars
Meaning that the most the plane could have traveled, after tearing out an outside wall of steel and concrete
plus, tearing out the internal steel and concrete internal walls
Now either any plane, with heavily lost velocity and momentum, had to either fold like an accordion, slowly enough for the back half of the plane to move forward, and end up entirely in the building. Or, approximately 79', or some footage thereof, of commercial jetliner was going to be extending on the outside of the impact hole, if not folding at all or folding at some footage between 0 and 79‘.
The center cores were specifically designed to take the impact of the 707, which was the largest commercial jetliner of its day. There is little difference between 707 and 767 to quibble over minor details of comparison. In other words, no plane compromised the center core beams, due to designing and constructing it to take a 707 impact.. It was planned that way directly due to the history of the EBS and no other reason at the time.
When academics have never spent a great deal time at working in the field areas of their degrees, they become dependent on the books and articles of those who do, in order to teach what other people experienced long term in a field of employment.
Originally posted by neformore
Just steel. There was no concrete in the outer walls of the WTC.
There was no concrete between the outer walls and the core. The walls were made of plasterboard.
The planes that struck the towers were a 218,000lb mass, moving in unison as a single body. until the point that they lost their structural integrity at which point the individual objects would still be moving forward at considerable speed until such time as they lost inertia or were bought to rest.
The outer walls were load bearing, and clearly compromised. The structure started to move around its own axis - that is to say that the places where the integiry of the structure were compromised suddenly had no support, this would have caused rapid failure at other joints, welds, bolts etc. Considering that there was actually very little resistance between the steel outer wall and the central core, its entirely possible that large parts of the plane passing through the structure could have damaged them sufficiently to expose the steel cores.
Kind of patronising that really - what you are trying to do is negate the argument put forward by academics because they've not worked in the industry. I'm a civil engineer with structural qualifications. How about you?
Originally posted by OrionStars
The following says there was.
911review.org...
“The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity.
There was no concrete between the outer walls and the core. The walls were made of plasterboard.
Please see the website above with your repeated no concrete contention.
Exactly what did they attach the plasterboard to in order to make secure walls? What about doors? To what did they frame in and attach them? How did they divide the office space with plasterboard attached to nothing?
When a moving object meets a stationary object, and has to slice through materials such as concrete and steel
the moving object is going to lose a great deal of velocity and momentum on impact, and even more being forced to slice through anything. That is a law of physics given.
Could you qualify further what you mean by this: “The structure started to move around its own axis - …” Exactly where on the building are you placing a hypothesized axis?
You know for a fact the outer wall load bearing walls were obviously compromised? How do you know that for a fact?
With the exception of the south tower lean, I haven’t seen one picture or video obviously indicating load bearing compromise on any of the walls. No sagging , no nothing, apart from the obvious severe compromise of the upper floors of the south tower.
How so? That is what happens in the academic world. If people have little to no field experience in their fields, they are dependant on information from those experts who do. Acquiring knowledgeable expertise is not simply teaching or reading what anyone else relates. Knowledge expertise results from applying, testing, and experiencing what one has studied in books related by others.
Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted by OrionStars
The following says there was.
911review.org...
“The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity.
Which does not refer to the outer walls at all, it refers to the core. And in my post I said
There was no concrete between the outer walls and the core. The walls were made of plasterboard.
Please read what I've written properly.
Dear me. Do you really not know what drywall construction is and how its done? Really? Have you no experience of construction at all and if not, why are you even trying to argue this stuff? Maybe I should have said "sheetrock" - here.
No concrete in the outer walls, remember
Sure is (hey we agree here!). However the intertia being carried here was huge, and the most dense thing the plane could have hit when it penetrated the outer wall was the core
Could you qualify further what you mean by this: “The structure started to move around its own axis - …” Exactly where on the building are you placing a hypothesized axis?
Because a bloody great big 767 jet punched a hole in them and its clear to see from video's of the event.
Hold on, you just asked me how I knew the towers were compromised and here you are telling me they were. Whats with that?
What Someone else posted.
what they quoted
and what they said about it
Originally posted by OrionStars
The following says there was.
911review.org...
“The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
Originally posted by neformore
OK.
So, I think we can conclude there was no concrete in the outer walls of the WTC.
How was the drywall fixed? Off Running frames bolted into the ceiling and floor. That's a standard construction technique.
Now I would suggest anyone who thinks that a Boeing 767 travelling at 466mph couldn't have punched a hole into the WTC to have a very good look at that video. Maybe replay it a couple of times, then look at it again.
When people refer to lightweight WTC construction its hard to get a picture of it in mind - that video puts it all into context. You can see how slender the outer columns were, and that they were hollow. The video is one of the only things I've ever seen on the WTC that gives you a sense of actual scale, because it shows the construction workers handling the sections.
Its not a "smoking gun" by a long shot, but maybe it will ease some of the ignorance about the structure.
Exactly what did they attach the plasterboard to in order to make secure walls? What about doors? To what did they frame in and attach them? How did they divide the office space with plasterboard attached to nothing?
Originally posted by OrionStars
If people think the exterior was nothing but hollow thin steel tubing, it wasn't, because the weight never would have been supported, particularly over time and with use. Either concrete columns and steel beams go into commercial buildings. Or they are built the same way as the WTC, particularly the twin towers.
If people more fully understand the structure and considerations going into planning and constructing the WTC, it might possibly give them new food for thoughts if they decide to ponder on 9/11/2001.
Originally posted by neformore
Takes a deep breath.....
There was NO concrete in the WTC outer walls. None. Nil. Nada. Zip. Nothing, Nowt. I've told you. Aim's told you, Anoks told you, Fred's tried as well... Whats so hard to understand about that?
The towers' perimeter walls comprised dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers. In addition to supporting gravity loads, the perimeter walls stiffened the Towers against lateral loads, particularly those due to winds. The fact that these structures were on the exterior of the Towers made them particularly efficient at carrying lateral loads. Richard Roth, speaking on behlf of the architectural firm that designed the Towers, described each of the perimeter walls as essentially "a steel beam 209' deep." 1 Regardless, it is clear that the core structures were designed to support several times the weight of each tower by themselves.
As the diagram and photograph illustrate, the perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts.
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
The typical framework for doors, walls, office space in general is either 2" x 4" pine or 2" x 4" aluminum/steel studs typically spaced either 16" or 24" apart and secured to the floor and typically metal framework at the ceiling level then either gypsum drywall or prefab panels are attached to finish the walls. The walls won't be weight bearing. This type of framework can be easily damaged and would create almost no resistance for a 767 hitting it.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Funny, not one mention of concrete anywhere. The perimeter walls were ONLY steel, without any concrete reinforcement.
"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. www.greatbuildings.com...
Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.
www.skyscraper.org...
The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.www.skyscraper.org...
Originally posted by FredT
Its pretty clear based on the evidence and actuall construction pictures etc, that the WTC pretty much only had concrete in the floors.
Some people seem to be hell bent on redoing physics here.[/quote]
Physics? Or do you mean describing the materials actually used in the manufacturing of the exterior walls? I just posted again what materials were used in the exterior/perimeter walls and why.
Since physics were brought up, don't people believe they need to know what was used in the manufacturing of each object impacting, in order to know how to correctly assess how much energy was used on which job alleged planes were doing at impact?
Physics pertaining to kinetic energy - Impacting is a job requiring a great deal of energy. Velocity and momentum being another job requiring a great deal of energy. Slicing through (pushing through resistance) also requires a great deal of energy provided by weight, mass, velocity, and momentum. Energy can not stay at peak performance trying to expend energy on two or more jobs at the same time. Resistance automatically retards velocity and momentum, regardless of weight and mass. Trying to do more than one job at a time, is going to cut energy expended on both.
Can people do more than one job at peak energy on more than one job? People have always expended their energy based on the laws of physics. So does every other physical item existing on earth.