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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
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]


Well, then you're reading waaaaay too much into my statement.

They swayed because they were designed to. The intact building performed as designed. It wasn't necessary to do 100% coverage and 100% depth welds to meet the design criteria.

The rest of your post is strawman and assertions based on untruthful statements and assumptions.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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!


I'm sure these kinds of statements make you real popular around other CTs.

Of course it ignores the fact that even though NIST didn't do the collapse energy calculations, others have, and they perfectly predict the collapse times. Here's a hint - if the collapsing towers would have ejected 50% of their mass during the collapse, the collapse times would have increased by 4 seconds. Only at around 85% do the collapses arrest around the 30th floor. These papers are available on the web. Find them and THEN do your critical thinking, and quit relying on frauds like Jones, Woods, and Hoffman, etc...



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

Well, then you're reading waaaaay too much into my statement.

They swayed because they were designed to. The intact building performed as designed. It wasn't necessary to do 100% coverage and 100% depth welds to meet the design criteria.

The rest of your post is strawman and assertions based on untruthful statements and assumptions.


Welcome to ATS by the way. I see in the 3 days since you've joined you've basically posted on this thread to the exclusion of only one other current 9/11 thread. In a way I'm flattered.

You confidently make some very strong and accusatory assertions about me, specifically that I am lying, without the slightest back-up.

Now, maybe you'd like to read the T&C of this site and particularly this board before continuing in this manner.

After doing that, why don't you post something other than personal attacks to back up your assertions?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Do you have anything to back up what YOU are saying? Or is it all just assertions and come from the angle of incredulity?

Like saying the cores were braced, etc while ignoring the fact that they would have been torn off the columns by other, falling columns, thereby rendering the core columns UNBRACED. And then the weak point becomes the WELDS, just like I've been saying.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
Anyone have any input on this? I've gathered Bsbray doesn't believe it. Griff?


In pratice, any connection should be stronger than the material it connects. This would include welds.

[edit on 1/22/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Sublime620
Anyone have any input on this? I've gathered Bsbray doesn't believe it. Griff?


In pratice, any connection should be stronger than the material it connects. This would include welds.

[edit on 1/22/2008 by Griff]


Here's the photo that Pilgrum linked:

911research.wtc7.net...

What's your opinion about this? Is the connection the weak point, or is the material?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Like saying the cores were braced, etc while ignoring the fact that they would have been torn off the columns by other, falling columns, thereby rendering the core columns UNBRACED.


That's a hell of a fact. Can your support it with all the evidence that must make it a fact?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


That makes sense. I'm just trying to get a feel for things - I have no background or expertise on any of these topics.

I appreciate this discussion. Easily the most productive argument going on in this part of the forum right now.

Thanks Griff, Bsbray, and Richard.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Here's the photo that Pilgrum linked:

911research.wtc7.net...

What's your opinion about this? Is the connection the weak point, or is the material?


Well, one of my contentions is that the towers were built let's just say cheaply.

If the welds were the weak points, why hasn't there been more mention of it as the welds would not be within spec.?


It's easy to get lazy when you think about the welding process and to forget how amazing it can be: You hold in your hand a torch that has the potential to be as hot as the sun, that gives you the ability to melt and join metals, and that produces a weldment that is actually stronger than its components.


The Strength of Welds

www.weldingmag.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Well, one of my contentions is that the towers were built let's just say cheaply.

If the welds were the weak points, why hasn't there been more mention of it as the welds would not be within spec.?



Cheaply? It's been said that a GOOD engineer can do with a dollar what a mediocre engineer can do with 2. I think that the guys designing the towers were good. Wouldn't you?

What makes you say that the welds weren't up to spec? The fact that they aren't full length and to full depth doesn't mean they weren't up to spec. Or do you have evidence that says otherwise?

Also, you didn't answer the previous question - would you say that the weld or the column was the weakest link when that beam is subjected to a lateral load?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Like saying the cores were braced, etc while ignoring the fact that they would have been torn off the columns by other, falling columns, thereby rendering the core columns UNBRACED.


That's a hell of a fact. Can your support it with all the evidence that must make it a fact?


this is something you can do yourself, and not rely on my evidence.

Get a youtube video of the end of the collapses. Notice the core columns? For the most part, MOST of the support beams are gone. Then you can notice the core columns swaying some, then collapsing when the welds break.

Here's a still:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

[edit on 22-1-2008 by Richard Gizinu]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Cheaply? It's been said that a GOOD engineer can do with a dollar what a mediocre engineer can do with 2. I think that the guys designing the towers were good. Wouldn't you?


Yes, good engineering, poor construction. Unless you believe engineers actually do the constructing? It is why engineers have to do periodic inspections. Because contractors love to cut corners. The problem is that they don't know sometimes that a corner cut here might actually make your building fail there.


What makes you say that the welds weren't up to spec? The fact that they aren't full length and to full depth doesn't mean they weren't up to spec. Or do you have evidence that says otherwise?


Not sure if they were to spec or not. Since I have no available spec to compare to, it is impossible to know.


Also, you didn't answer the previous question - would you say that the weld or the column was the weakest link when that beam is subjected to a lateral load?


In this case, it is obviously the weld. Which is why I said the welds might be shoddy construction practice. Who knows without the specs?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Do you, Griff or Bsbray, if given the fact that the welds were less than over-engineered, give any credence to this claim? Would it help to explain the disappearance of the core columns?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Yes, good engineering, poor construction. Unless you believe engineers actually do the constructing? It is why engineers have to do periodic inspections. Because contractors love to cut corners. The problem is that they don't know sometimes that a corner cut here might actually make your building fail there.

Not sure if they were to spec or not. Since I have no available spec to compare to, it is impossible to know.

In this case, it is obviously the weld. Which is why I said the welds might be shoddy construction practice. Who knows without the specs?


Engineers wouldn't be on sit inspecting welds either. Maybe a general look around and to answer any questions, but don't expect anyone to believe for a minute that any engineer is gonna get his hands dirty.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Engineers wouldn't be on sit inspecting welds either.


Really? I inspect things I specify. I would hope other engineers do the same.


Maybe a general look around and to answer any questions, but don't expect anyone to believe for a minute that any engineer is gonna get his hands dirty.


I take offense to this. I get my hands dirty plenty often.

Quality Assurance:


For products, quality assurance is a part and consistent pair of quality management offering supposedly fact-based external confidence to customers and other stakeholders that a product meets needs, expectations, and other requirements. QA claims to assure the existence and effectiveness of procedures that attempt to make sure - in advance - that the expected levels of quality will be reached.

QA covers all activities from design, development, production, installation, servicing to documentation. It introduced the sayings "fit for purpose" and "do it right the first time". It includes the regulation of the quality of raw materials, assemblies, products and components; services related to production; and management, production, and inspection processes.


en.wikipedia.org...

Quality Control:


In engineering and manufacturing, quality control and quality engineering are involved in developing systems to ensure products or services are designed and produced to meet or exceed customer requirements. These systems are often developed in conjunction with other business and engineering disciplines using a cross-functional approach.


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 1/22/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
[
Really? I inspect things I specify. I would hope other engineers do the same.

[


I doubt you're looking over the welder's shoulders.

Inspectors do the inspecting. Engineers are paid too well to have them on site every day inspecting welds and such.

Sorry, just isn't believeable.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 



When did I say on-site every day? I think you are reading too much into this.

As a rule, and as a designer, I inspect my jobsites about once every week. And I get down and dirty and pull things apart and make sure things are being installed correctly.

Here's a picture of scaffolding I had to ride in NYC to do inspections. Notice Central Park in the back ground. Is that "dirty" enough for you?

BTW. That's 32 stories. I'd hate to have to have been the one inspecting the towers. Yikes.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
I'm sure these kinds of statements make you real popular around other CTs.


This isn't a popularity contest, I'm not here to make friends.



Of course it ignores the fact that even though NIST didn't do the collapse energy calculations, others have, and they perfectly predict the collapse times. Here's a hint - if the collapsing towers would have ejected 50% of their mass during the collapse, the collapse times would have increased by 4 seconds. Only at around 85% do the collapses arrest around the 30th floor. These papers are available on the web. Find them and THEN do your critical thinking, and quit relying on frauds like Jones, Woods, and Hoffman, etc...


Sry but I do my thinking for myself, where have I ever quoted ANY of the people you mention? I talk about simple physics, that you can easily check for yourself. But of course after telling me to not listen to other people you are doing exactly that and obviously not understanding where you are being lied to. I have yet to see anything that fully explains the collapses without either fudging the figures or ignoring laws of physics to make their hypothesis fit the official story. Anything that does question the official story is ignored by you.

Please explain, in your own words, how the buildings overcame the massive resistance they should have encountered during their collapses. I want to here it from YOU, because I'm not convinced any of you de-bunkers know what it is you're supporting.

Can you do what many de-bunkers have failed to do when asked the same question?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


I do believe you need to honor the fact that you are talking to someone who is qualified to make an argument. If the man says he inspects the building process, then take it as a point and move on.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


I do believe you need to honor the fact that you are talking to someone who is qualified to make an argument. If the man says he inspects the building process, then take it as a point and move on.


I totally believe him when he says he does SOME inspection.

But he's not THE inspector that signs off on the job. It would be a conflict of interest to have THE engineer sign off on a job, dontcha think?

And besides, the more he confirms that he believes that engineers were there making sure the job is done correctly, the stronger MY case is that the welds were done to spec.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join