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.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 81
13
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 




And even of they weren't, they didn't all fail at once to bring these buildings down in under 10 seconds.


Correct!
They failed sequentially.




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by waypastvne

Note the lightweight truss seat connections.


Where did you get this idea?

NIST?


The truss seat connections were adequate for the way the towers were designed. And even of they weren't, they didn't all fail at once to bring these buildings down in under 10 seconds. The main load was borne by the core. Those buildings could have stood without the outside walls and the floors. If anything, even if all the trusses failed, the core would have stood on its own.

That's how they can engineer buildings like this:

Worlds First Rotating Skyscraper In Dubai

www.youtube.com...
edit on 9-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


The truss seats failed one after another. The core could not stand alone it had no diagonal bracing. The exterior of the building provided the diagonal bracing.
edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


No it wasn't. The main load bearing structure was the outer wall. The core was there to keep the steel from deforming. The WTC was unique in its construction because all the other skyscrapers were built where the core was the main load bearing structure.


In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor. On the inside of the structure the floor sections consist of trusses spanning from the core to the outer wall.

Source



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
The truss seats failed one after another. The core could not stand alone it had no diagonal bracing. The exterior of the building provided the diagonal bracing.
edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


The core was FULL of diagonal bracing. The outer walls had NO diagonal bracing.




This is why the architect could confidently say that he designed it to withstand a 707 hit. Another architect from the firm said it could actually withstand multiple hits. I have these links in my files and will post them when I have more time.

If you recall, when the north tower collapsed, the core was left standing momentarily, before it was also vaporized by.... whatever toasted those cars.
edit on 9-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You're giving me a fire chief's assessment?



You'll have to do better than that.

I think the architect knew better.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

The core was FULL of diagonal bracing. The outer walls had NO diagonal bracing.



The crane supports had diagonal bracing, They were independent of the core structure they were used to raise up the crane as building progressed. And just like Elvis they left the building.

The diagonal bracing was provided by the spandrel plates in the outer wall.
edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Chief Dunn wrote the book "THE COLLAPSE OF BURNING BUILDINGS" which is a standard in the fire service
for assessing when/how a building can collapse

Should read it ........



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Chief Dunn wrote the book "THE COLLAPSE OF BURNING BUILDINGS" which is a standard in the fire service
for assessing when/how a building can collapse

Should read it ........


Yeah, I'm sure. The only problem is there are two different standards for the collapse of burning buildings. Those on 9/11/01, and those on every other day in the history of the world.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


I had five minutes to post that before I went to work. There were multiple sources.


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%.
Steel, no matter what temper, no matter what bracing is used, ends up with an overall flexation that exceeds design parameters for deformations and failures occur. These were fact I learned from a documentary in 1990 about the construction of the north tower. Yamsaki's decision making process was outlined and rejected core designs identified

Source


The World Trade Centers existed because of their architecture and the supporting engineering. Unlike other skyscrapers, the exterior walls of the World Trade Centers were load bearing. [See for a brief discussion]. The whole building was a vertical truss, and the interior was column free. Without this design, it is unlikely that the WTC could have been built on that site. The architecture enabled the existence of the building.

Source

Along with every documentary I have ever watched that has specified that they were load bearing.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


What "standard" is that....

The one used by Firefighters or the one from conspiracy loons

Chief Joseph Callan recognized that North (WTC 1) was becoming unstable and ordered his men out

Because of communication problems many did not hear him


Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."


Firefighters are taught early on how to recognize signs of collapse



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


What "standard" is that....

The one used by Firefighters or the one from conspiracy loons

Chief Joseph Callan recognized that North (WTC 1) was becoming unstable and ordered his men out

Because of communication problems many did not hear him


Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."


Firefighters are taught early on how to recognize signs of collapse

I don't believe there was any "movement" of the building. I always get a suspicious feeling when somebody has to use the word "obvious" to let us know there was "movement". Its a load of codswallop. Building 7 was imploded, they knew it was wired, and he's every bit complicit as Giuliani who clearly had foreknowledge of the main tower collapses. NO ONE could have known that any of these three towers were going to collapse unless they had inside knowledge, for the simple reason that it had never happened in the history of steel buildings before.

"Truthers" may not be able to "prove" these things, but its only because the whole game is rigged by those with all the power. That includes fire chiefs and police chiefs. I'll post a few thousand examples of corruption at the highest levels when a have a spare week or two.
edit on 10-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


The discussion reaches a new low (if it's possible to get any lower) when a Fire Chief is accused of being in one an imaginary conspiracy in which 343 of his men perished. I wouldn't have believed I'd every see this happen, but here it is in print on a conspiracy Web Site and all with admittedly no evidence of such a despicable accusation. The "truth" has finally reached a new low...
edit on 10-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


The discussion reaches a new low (if it's possible to get any lower) when a Fire Chief is accused of being in one an imaginary conspiracy in which 343 of his men perished. I wouldn't have believed I'd every see this happen, but here it is in print on a conspiracy Web Site and all with admittedly no evidence of such a despicable accusation. The "truth" has finally reached a new low...
edit on 10-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)


Oh golly gee look who's taking the moral high ground.

"They made that decision to pull, and we watched the building come down."

Slam dunk.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



but its only because the whole game is rigged by those with all the power. That includes fire chiefs and police chiefs


So the fire chiefs were "in" on the conspiracy ....?

No evidence - just paranoia

They watched as 343 of their men died ?

You are aware that the chif of department Peter Ganci died at the scene, almost 2 dozen other chiefs from
Battalion chief to Deputy Chief died there too

So were they part of the conspiracy ......?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


"Slam dunk" is a term which applies to basketball. We are not playing basketball in case you didn't know. That's the only "slam dunk" you've ever see. In this case your delusions of a conspiracy that building 7 was not noted to be in imminent danger of collapsing by firefighters is nothing but pure concocted poppycock. Their knowledge of an imminent collapse is well documented and is the very reason no one was killed when it did collapse. Go ahead invent more concocted BS to support your perverted views of reality. In the meantime, I have better things to do that to argue with idiots...



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by open mind
It's a good question however the simple answer is:
when it's going 600 mph


ok again....the airliner cannot travel 600 miles an hour at 7 hundred feet elevation...it would tear the plane apart because of the density of the air at the altitude...no theory...just boeing specifications



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


The diagonal bracing that you see in the image is attached to the supports for the construction cranes, not to the building. It was long gone on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

The diagonal bracing was provided by the spandrel plates in the outer wall.
edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


That's essentially correct, but wrong on a technicality. Both diagonal braces and the spandrel plates served the same function: resisting lateral loads. but the spandrel plates resist lateral loads by a moment resisting connection to the columns.

Ugh... I don't have time to explain this fully, as the process is actually quite complex



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 



This is a fallacy, and is totally incorrect:


ok again....the airliner cannot travel 600 miles an hour at 7 hundred feet elevation...it would tear the plane apart because of the density of the air at the altitude...no theory...just boeing specifications



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
ok again....the airliner cannot travel 600 miles an hour at 7 hundred feet elevation...it would tear the plane apart because of the density of the air at the altitude...no theory...just boeing specifications


So what is the maximum speed an aircraft can crash at ?
edit on 10-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join