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.

 

Why Should the WTC Towers Suffer Complete Collapse?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Did I say that steel was ejected only in isolated cases? Nope.


Read:


Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
So some peeled and fell close, like in your first post, and in some isolated cases, some was hit and propelled. Some farther than others.


Sum the total momentums or forces or whatever you would like, and just compare the amount of mass going sideways to the amount of mass going down, on average, per floor. It doesn't matter how you want to slice it or dice it.




posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Sum the total momentums or forces or whatever you would like, and just compare the amount of mass going sideways to the amount of mass going down, on average, per floor. It doesn't matter how you want to slice it or dice it.


Jesus, talk about playing semantics......

Slice or dice what? What doesn't matter? Can you explain yourself? Or are you JAQing?

Do you have a point? Are you trying to say that there isn't enough mass to drive a gravity collapse? Are you saying explosives were used to propel the exterior columns?

What?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I posted some photos above. You can't do the same?

The core columns were solidly welded to each other. You don't think deformation would occur in the surrounding steel before the ultimate strength would be reached in the welding?


What's in it for me to post photos?
You've argued in 2 posts that you're sure that the core columns were solidly welded, which is wrong. And you've demonstrated that you're also convinced that the columns would have shown deformation and bending before the welds broke.

If I find them, would you be willing to admit that you don't know enough of the facts and need to do more research on the matter?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


Just find them.

Here. I found 4 that might be relevant for you:


Link to Image

Link to Image

Link to Image

Link to Image

Here's the whole page of pictures:

Clean Up Pics

Another Mark Roberts photo page of pics

Wow - I named that "photo page of pics". Talk about redundant.

*edited to add the photos and links
*and a second time for grammar

[edit on 19-1-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 19-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620

Just find them.



I was thinking of a photo on his site that has a VERY clear photo of a BIG box column. It was welded to next column on 2 sides only, and clearly shows that the weld only penetrated 1/3 or so of the way into steel that looked to be about 2 inches thick. It broke off cleanly at the welds and without bending either column.

So I'll ask the same question of you.

If I find them, would you be willing to admit that you don't know enough of the facts and need to do more research on the matter?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Can you explain yourself?


This is the problem with you JREF'er types. This is all you could have asked, but to be able to muster it up you had to spew six ounces of garbage first.



Do you have a point? Are you trying to say that there isn't enough mass to drive a gravity collapse? Are you saying explosives were used to propel the exterior columns?

What?


What makes you think of those things? Because they're totally obvious? No. All I'm saying is that you really only have 20% of the PE Greening and others seem to think you do, without considering other overlooked realities of the behaviors of the collapses.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


I'll keep looking. The site wtc7lies.googlepages.com right?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   

And you've demonstrated that you're also convinced that the columns would have shown deformation and bending before the welds broke.


My point was there would be deformations before ripping, and the ripping would not look like the clean slices seen in most core columns laying around Ground Zero.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

My point was there would be deformations before ripping, and the ripping would not look like the clean slices seen in most core columns laying around Ground Zero.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by bsbray11]


You're assuming that you are correct when you say that the welds were full length, strength, etc. You are not correct in ALL cases. Obviously, there will be SOME cases where the columns would have deformed etc, as you say before the welds broke. So maybe I should have qualified my first response to Sublime and said that SOME broke cleanly at the welds. If i could get more coffee, I might take another stab at looking for that photo. If for no other reason for you to question what you've been told.


It will be an eye opener for you, IMHO.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620

I'll keep looking. The site wtc7lies.googlepages.com right?


To be honest, I'm not sure anymore. It was several months ago and I'm ASS/U/M(E)ING that was were I found it.

That's what I meant when I said it would be a pain to find it.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


No rush. I'll keep looking.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Here's a good view an uncut core column section that may show evidence of the welds mentioned earlier.



I don't think I've seen any majorly bent or distorted core column pics.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
re: the second tower allegedly hit by the plane, did or does anyone
know or have an opinion as to what that long black streak was that
went by the building right after the plane hit ???????
was it a possible beam type weapon that missed it's intended target??



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Here's a good view an uncut core column section that may show evidence of the welds mentioned earlier.



I don't think I've seen any majorly bent or distorted core column pics.


That looks VERY similar to what I was looking for. One can plainly see that the welds were on the long axis only, and penetrated about 1/3 through.

The one I was thinking of had a guy sitting in front, eating his lunch/on break. The columns were still in the pile, so to speak, not stacked like these. And the welded ends were in the light and the welds were even easier to see how they had broken and the depth of the welds.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

Originally posted by bsbray11
My point was there would be deformations before ripping, and the ripping would not look like the clean slices seen in most core columns laying around Ground Zero.

You're assuming that you are correct when you say that the welds were full length, strength, etc.


Even if they weren't, there STILL should not be so clean of slices on the ends of so many core column sections just laying around in heaps of debris at Ground Zero. Steel being ripped apart just does not strike me as an event that leaves a smooth surface behind. Deal with it.


Obviously, there will be SOME cases where the columns would have deformed etc, as you say before the welds broke.


I would expect this for nearly all cases, unless something truly unusual happened to a column or two by some freak chance, that happened to somehow slice them smoothly. But I can't even imagine what would do that.



So maybe I should have qualified my first response to Sublime and said that SOME broke cleanly at the welds.


It wouldn't make any difference. It's still just your opinion, and will be taken as such.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Even if they weren't, there STILL should not be so clean of slices on the ends of so many core column sections just laying around in heaps of debris at Ground Zero. Steel being ripped apart just does not strike me as an event that leaves a smooth surface behind. Deal with it.


Look at the weld area.

That small area doesn't look smooth to me. So you're right.

You're just not able to suspend your incredulity and distrust of "the man" for long enough to understand what you're looking at.

The areas with the "smooth surface" weren't welded. So you need to just admit you need to do more research and be honest about what happened. Deal with it.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
So this is a new theory that I haven't heard before. The welds holding the columns together were minimal.

Anyone have any input on this? I've gathered Bsbray doesn't believe it. Griff?

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
So this is a new theory that I haven't heard before. The welds holding the columns together were minimal.

Anyone have any input on this? I've gathered Bsbray doesn't believe it. Griff?



Where did you get the impression that they are "minimal"?

They are strong welds. It's just that,like I said prior, they are only welded on 2 sides and to a depth of about 1/3 the depth of the steel, and as a result are the weakest link in that section of the column to resisting lateral loads.

So why were they welded on 2 sides? Because a GOOD engineer, like those in charge of designing the towers, can do with a dollar what a mediocre engineer can do with two. I'm sure this is a source of pride for the structural engineers here.

Welding is expensive. If welding on 2 sides only meets the design specs, there is no need to weld to full depth and on all sides. It would only increase cost.

You DO agree that they're welded on 2 sides and to a 1/3 depth, don't you? Check Pilgrum's link.....



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

Originally posted by gottago

Would you please post the sources of your description about how the core was constructed?

Also, your contention that the cores were only intended to bear gravity loads is misleading, as the entire building was designed to sway in response to wind loads.


The core columns were designed to take around 50% of the gravity loads.

The exterior columns were designed to handle the other 50% of the gravity loads and all the lateral loads. That doesn't mean that the building as a whole, wouldn't sway. The exterior columns handled these loads.

The floors connected the 2, and as a unit, performed as designed. But an unsupported core column has almost no ability to stand on its own when subjected to impacts .


You've presented a gross simplification, but if I follow your thinking correctly the 50/50 scenario you're talking about is your reasoning for the intiating of the collapse, as your last sentence attests.

However, I am not concerned here with the initiation of collapse, but why the collapse continued: what drove the collapse. The accepted theory is that the upper building mass crushed the tower below it.

My contention, backed by simply looking at the photographic and video evidence, is that there was not enough upper building mass falling upon the lower floors to destroy the towers down to the sub-lobbies.

Somehow this basic idea has become a discussion about the welding of the core column sections. If you look at a construction photo of the core, you will see it was a thoroughly braced structure, a web--the photos above posted by pilgrim and sublime show two large bracing plates for the horizontal beams on one side of the core sections. The vertical core column sections ends were staggered to reinforce their strength--all 47 did not have their welds at the same elevation point. The implications of bringing up the welds also implies enough horizontal forces acting in unison to create enough displacement to destroy the structure, when these forces during the collapse are entirely random.

The percentage of the falling structure that actually impacted the remaining core in the gravity-driven collapse scenario is simply missing, and I do not see how one can identify enough mass to justify the destruction of the lower portions of the towers.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
However, I am not concerned here with the initiation of collapse, but why the collapse continued: what drove the collapse. The accepted theory is that the upper building mass crushed the tower below it.


See this is a major problem. The de-bunkers believe the notion, fed to them by you know who, that once the collapses initiated global collapse was inevitable. The reason NIST did that was so they didn't have to try to explain something they couldn't; the global collapse of 3 buildings that goes against all known laws of physics.

But of course the de-bunkers don't even question this obvious attempt to cover the fact that they can't explain the collapses past the initiation, and stay within their cover story of a gravity fed collapse caused by asymmetrical damage and sporadic office fires.

Real critical thinkers!




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join