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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
The key to knowing they were not hollow tubes in tubes is to look at the blueprints I have linked in at least a couple of times. Those buildings definitely look internally unfinished when they took those photographs.


I have wondered the same myself. There definitely wasn't any partitions of the office space, gypsum walls seperating the core from the office space, no elevator shaft walls, etc. Complete skeleton and that's all. Probably taken before people started to "move in" and before the interior was completely built.




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
How would some plane hit the welds, when the welds are at the base and top of all connections. Were the welds the target? And exactly which welds would those be? Because there were so many bolted welds in both towers.

I have no idea why there is such concentration on bolted joint welds. What is the relevant purpose of including it as part of any reason for buildings imploding? Implosions will break welds and bolts, particularly molecularly disintegrating DEW implosion.

All joints in two towers were bolted and welded against stress of that much tonnage, plus, interior and exterior stress against two twin towers. The joints were welded in addition to oversized bolting on every union. That is what the building specs called for in the twin towers.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I assume you're referring to the sunset shot showing the skeleton of the towers with the core.

That had to have been taken after construction topped out but before the exterior cladding/windows had been applied high enough on the facades to block the open views through the floors.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Those are not photos we normally present to "prove" anything. I highly suspect the opposition uses them to "prove" the buidlings were "naturally weak and just fell down from 767s and jet fuel".



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I have no idea why there is such concentration on bolted joint welds. What is the relevant purpose of including it as part of any reason for buildings imploding?


Well, Richard Ginzu came in with his welds theory re: the core columns and the thread went off in that direction, questioning for pages their integrity, only to circle back at the end to the presumption, after much sound and fury, that the welds were to spec, which translates to: they were as strong as the columns themselves.

However, looking at the core columns in the debris, you see they were mostly sheared at the welds; there are some deformed, a few massively. Also, the cores were built in 3-story sections, though the spires were apparently the inner square-section box columns, indicating the outer longitudinal core columns were somehow sheared off in contradiction to this.

Nonetheless, GSPS's spectrographic analysis of the dust shows that major building components and furnishings were turned to particulate.

No one has given any reasonable explanation as to why the towers continued to fall without the requisite building mass falling upon the remaining portions, though this was the point of the thread.

That's about where we are right now, hope it makes some sense.

In all honesty, you had to be there.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by Griff
 


I assume you're referring to the sunset shot showing the skeleton of the towers with the core.

That had to have been taken after construction topped out but before the exterior cladding/windows had been applied high enough on the facades to block the open views through the floors.


Perhaps, which also means the interior was not finished. That can be damaging when rain and snow are constantly blowing into the unfinished interior. One of the first items they put into buildings only completed on the outside are windows, to protect the inside against the elements, particularly steel elements when brought into direct contact with concrete. The concrete has to be dried and stay dry. In cold weather, they bring in portable heaters. Then they finish the interior.

The following is not directed toward anyone in particular, and not directed at you. I have to wonder how many people ever actually studied the inside of the twin towers by words or any other means? Haven't people ever been in buildings, including high rises before? Have they never watched them being constructed from start to finish during work in progress? Please do not exactly compare residential if those buildings do not have floor trusses - steel or otherwise. Residential is a good place to observe construction of buildings to get a rough idea of how it is done.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Thank you for the synopsis. Sounds accurate from what I did briefly observe on some pages. Sounds like Richard has been deliberately doing nothing but tangent to drag people off topic.

I had gotten to the point I resented Richard's derogatory impression of all construction trade artisians through professionals. There are always unqualified and/or disreputable people in any the industry. My experience is they are few and far between compared to the qualified. I have had the experiences of seeing seasoned people look at something and know it is not right. It could be the color. It could the consistency. It could be anything. And when tested, they were right simply by viewing it. It is called experience gained working with physical matter.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

Well, Richard Ginzu came in with his welds theory re: the core columns and the thread went off in that direction, questioning for pages their integrity, only to circle back at the end to the presumption, after much sound and fury, that the welds were to spec, which translates to: they were as strong as the columns themselves.

No one has given any reasonable explanation as to why the towers continued to fall without the requisite building mass falling upon the remaining portions, though this was the point of the thread.

That's about where we are right now, hope it makes some sense.

In all honesty, you had to be there.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by gottago]


To be clear, I never came in with any theory. Someone asked about why there were so many straight columns with clean breaks in them. I responded that it's because they broke at the welds. And THEN we spent days going over that statement.

And, you've got the conclusion all wrong. The welds were as strong as they needed to be, per specs. And we concluded that there is a very high probability, to the exclusion of poor worksmanship/inspections, that the wotk was done "right". But they weren't as strong, in those cases asked about, as the core columns.

The buildings continued to fall because the trusses were held on by 5/8" bolts, and were easily broken when all that mass fell onto the floors. The core columns held for a few seconds more, in one case 30-40 stories worth, after the floors stripped off. But the stripping off of the floors removed some the bracing for the cores. And as you mentioned some of the horizontal (longitudinal) braces were stripped off also. So the 300'+ columns were unsupported and swaying around. Then the welds broke, resuting in the columns that were asked about where I came in.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I have had the experiences of seeing seasoned people look at something and know it is not right. It could be the color. It could the consistency. It could be anything. And when tested, they were right simply by viewing it. It is called experience gained working with physical matter.


I used to test concrete when I worked for a QA/QC company. One of the tests is called "air entrapment/entrainment". You have to put the concrete in a canister in lifts, rod it, add water, etc. Then you push a valve and the air entrapment is read from a dial. I was so used to seeing concrete that I could take my scoup and brush it on the surface of the concrete and I could tell you what the air entrapment was without testing it. Usually got within a percentage of the right number. The clue was to watch how many bubbles surfaced when brushing the scoop.

Just an anecdote.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I believe you. I have seen people who can do that type of observation. I can look at something, and know it is within 1/4" or even dead on center without a ruler. It is practice and experience, and, in some cases, just an innate talent requiring practice to perfect. Most any qualified person, innate or not, can gain that type of talent with enough experience.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Yes it's quite common actually. Whenever I sketch finish work and moldings, when going back to hardline them, I take the trace and measure from it and invariably I've plotted out the profile points using common fractions-- 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 3/16ths of an inch. It's impossible to achieve this sort of feel working in metric, and that is what makes US/Imperial so valuable in design--its inherent hierarchy and natural logic. Hope we never convert.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu


To be clear, I never came in with any theory...And, you've got the conclusion all wrong.


Objections duly read into the record...anyway it was a commercial break...


The buildings continued to fall because the trusses were held on by 5/8" bolts, and were easily broken when all that mass fell onto the floors. The core columns held for a few seconds more, in one case 30-40 stories worth, after the floors stripped off. But the stripping off of the floors removed some the bracing for the cores. And as you mentioned some of the horizontal (longitudinal) braces were stripped off also. So the 300'+ columns were unsupported and swaying around. Then the welds broke, resuting in the columns that were asked about where I came in.


For argument's sake, putting aside the ejecting upper masses and all the funny business with vertical ejecta and exotic metals in the particulate, this scenario needs to confront that the cores were built in 3-story units, fully braced as such and with identical weld points elevationally, but we see the collapse never stalling or slowing as we reach the lowest, strongest structure.

However, we nonetheless end up with the +300' spires, which (ref my post last page) were convincingly posited to be the remnants of the core's square-section box columns along the outer edge of its short face. But you also see that the strongest and strongest-braced parts of the core--the outer longitudinal-section columns--the core of the core--were stripped off. Now if the floors with their 5/8" bolts were so easily stripped off the core, they were not going to peel away the core's strongest structure but leave the relatively weak spire on the short side. Likewise for falling structure.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 



So you're okay that at the end of the collapses, you would expect to find computer components, wiring, copper pipes, etc. being pulverized to the point that the USGS can scoop them up as particulate from sites across lower Manhattan and do spectroscopic analysis of them?


Hmmmm copper is used in class D fire extinguishers. Which is used for metal fires but its possible they were there.

Silicon which is used to make circuit boards which can easily be crushed into dust yep I believe it. As well it is used for shall we see (stuff that was most likely in the Towers) LCDs, semiconductors,

Construction: Silicon dioxide or silica in the form of sand and clay is an important ingredient of concrete and brick and is also used to produce Portland cement.

This.

Glass: Silica from sand is a principal component of glass. Glass can be made into a great variety of shapes and with many different physical properties. Silica is used as a base material to make window glass, containers, insulators, and many other useful objects.

This.

Abrasives: Silicon carbide is one of the most important abrasives.





Both photos posted are well into the collapse, a bit less than halfway. But I'm trying to understand the relevance of your argument: how is hitting the ground going to turn the aforementioned metals and building components into fine particulate? You could take that copper pipe or wire and drop it from the height of the WTC towers repeatedly, until the end of time, and you will not turn it to particulate.


Either way. Not exactly the same dust that was analyzed.
The collapse wasn't over.
And you forgot to add into equation was with tons of heavy highly abbraisive concrete in motion.



Yes, you are correct about that. Silver, copper or yttrium, however, are not.


2 of which is not on your nice little chart. But for the sake of argument here we go:

yttrium is common in rare-earth minerals and two of its compounds are used to make the red color phosphors in cathode ray tube displays, such as those used for televisions


So no tvs were there?

Now for silver.

For example, printed circuits are made using silver paints and computer keyboards use silver electrical contacts. Some high-end audio hardware (DACs, preamplifiers, etc.) are fully silver-wired, which is believed to cause the least loss of quality in the signal. Silver cadmium oxide is used in high voltage contacts because it can withstand arcing.

Or.

Mirrors which need superior reflectivity for visible light are made with silver as the reflecting material in a process called silvering, though common mirrors are backed with aluminium. Using a process called sputtering, silver (and sometimes gold) can be applied to glass at various thicknesses, allowing different amounts of light to penetrate. This is most often seen in architectural glass and tinted windows on vehicles.


Or no medical kits?

Silver is widely used in topical gels and impregnated into bandages because of its wide-spectrum antimicrobial activity.




It occurs to me the thrust of your argument doubts the buildings even fell down at all. Demolition Charge or otherwise.



Oh and a side note, PLEASE drop the confrontational ad hominium BS.
I am not attacking you.
I am questioning your theory if you can't handle that then you really got to ask yourself why.
After all if I wanted to call you stupid I would just do it.
Waste of time to beat around the bush.


If that's what you want to believe, hey, go ahead.



****all info I used is readily found on wikipedia.com****




[edit on 25-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

(Much discussion of various elements appearing in various furnishings that were likely in the towers before they fell)

It occurs to me the thrust of your argument doubts the buildings even fell down at all. Demolition Charge or otherwise.


Did you actually follow the link to the USGS study and read it and examine the full chart? You could post in the above manner about each element on that list and find the likely source of why it was found as a particulate in the dust, but that is not the point I was making.

Though I admire your diligence in responding about the elements I gave as examples in my prior post, it was a lot of superfluous work on your part. I am not disputing that the elements on that table have easily identifiable sources; they do. USGS even offers a summary of their main sources.

The point is that the various furnishings and building components were stated by the USGS to have turned to particulate fine enough to be found in the dust samples. That will not happen simply because they were inside a collapsing building, no matter how big it is. The mechanical processes of the collapse will not turn them into particulate fine enough to waft across Manhattan. That is the point.

The USGS has already done the job you attempted, but it certainly is not going to tell you what to conclude from its findings.


Oh and a side note, PLEASE drop the confrontational ad hominium BS.
I am not attacking you.
I am questioning your theory if you can't handle that then you really got to ask yourself why.
After all if I wanted to call you stupid I would just do it.
Waste of time to beat around the bush.


Here is the first line of your first post on this thread:


Here are the fallacies you are spewing itemized.


Well, don't expect a bouquet of flowers with an attitude like that. You get what you pay for.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 



The mechanical processes of the collapse will not turn them into particulate fine enough to waft across Manhattan. That is the point.


Like I said in that post.
Add into the picture of tons (read VERY heavy) of highly abrasive concrete in motion along with the rest.
Based on the logic you are using do you realise the amount of explosives that would have to be set up to make all the dust?
Seeing as to how you contend that there is no way it could have happend in the collapse.

Oh and the alot of the stuff I listed, easily pulverized.






Well, don't expect a bouquet of flowers with an attitude like that. You get what you pay for.


They are fallacies (as I have been working on showing you) and you are spewing them. Not an attack on you.
Descriptive terms my friend. How you chose to take them is beyond my control.


[edit on 25-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 25-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Like I said in that post.
Add into the picture of tons (read VERY heavy) of highly abrasive concrete in motion along with the rest.


Problem you have now though is all that highly abrasive concrete, and 'all the rest' (steel columns), would create friction, which creates resistance, which causes objects colliding into each other to slow down...


Friction is the resistive force acting between bodies that tends to oppose and damp out motion. Friction is usually distinguished as being either static friction (the frictional force opposing placing a body at rest into motion) and kinetic friction (the frictional force tending to slow a body in motion). In general, static friction is greater than kinetic friction.

The force due to kinetic friction is generally proportional to the applied force, so "a coefficient of kinetic fiction" is defined as the ratio of frictional force to the normal force on the body.

The study of friction is called tribology.


Source

All 3 buildings fell with no sign of slowing down, in fact the towers accelerated as they fell. NIST failed to address this problem. How do you account for it?



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
The biggest argument against a conspiracy is the number of people involved, in various branches of the military and intelligence communities needed to carry it out. It would have to have been in the hundreds and even if was on a need to know basis or just one small piece per person, after 7 years the odds are someone would have leaked something by now... the longer it goes without one, the greater the odds that it was indeed carried out by Muhammad Atta and his cohorts.

If there is a conspiracy regarding 9/11 its either to hide the incompetence of the government or to milk milk it for all it was worth.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
[more it would be just the opposite.. the more wieght that accumalated as it fell the faster it would fall.. my 7 yr old told me that..



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I can produce metals powdered like that at home in my workshop with a nifty machine I made - it's called a ball mill. How it works is via metal weights mixed with the material to be crushed/powdered and the cylinder containing the mix is rotated to create impacts between the weights. So could metals like copper, silver etc and anything softer than multi-ton pieces of steel be crushed to dust - I know it can happen and perhaps the only question to be asked is how much was powdered considering the short time frame of the collapse.

Leaving out WTC7 because it was an entirely different building type hence an entirely different collapse mechanism:
I've watched those collapses (WTC1&2) many times and just like the first time I saw them there didn't appear to be anything 'wrong-looking' about the way they fell like visible explosions, evidence of explosive blasts, the terminal speed the collapse reached etc. I'm getting the feeling that they did simply fail in a catastrophic manner after being mortally damaged by a force they were never designed to handle and there's no conspiracy in that.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
The mechanical processes of the collapse will not turn them into particulate fine enough to waft across Manhattan. That is the point.

Like I said in that post.
Add into the picture of tons (read VERY heavy) of highly abrasive concrete in motion along with the rest.
Based on the logic you are using do you realise the amount of explosives that would have to be set up to make all the dust?
Seeing as to how you contend that there is no way it could have happend in the collapse.

Oh and the alot of the stuff I listed, easily pulverized.


And as I said earlier, you could drop those metals that the USGS cited--pipes and wiring, etc.--from the height of the WTC, and as Griff remarked, batter the hell out of them as well until the end of time and they won't turn to particulate. If you do not understand this basic concept about the integrity of materials then there is no further point discussing the matter.

And yes indeed, I do realize the implications of that logic. And let's pause a moment and reflect upon logic--it is a wonderful tool to bring understanding. You seem to have had a glimmer of it when you started to hypothesize: "do you realise the amount of explosives that would have to be set up to make all the dust?"

I sincerely hope that you know full well a copper pipe isn't going to turn to dust by random mechanical means in 10-15 seconds. You are now starting to comprehend the kinds of energies required to turn it into fine particulate.




Well, don't expect a bouquet of flowers with an attitude like that. You get what you pay for.


They are fallacies (as I have been working on showing you) and you are spewing them. Not an attack on you.
Descriptive terms my friend. How you chose to take them is beyond my control.


Those four sentences would keep Derrida busy deconstructing them for a good month. Suffice it to say not one of them is correct, in whole or in part, and they are a train wreck of non sequiturs.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join