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 ULTIMA1
Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Because the design was vastly different.
One design will fail where another will not.
No, not really they were steel buildings jsut like the WTC buidlings.
No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire and structural damage before or after the WTC buildings.
Originally posted by plasmacutter
And if you realy think about it?? realy think now!!
Who here hasnt gotin smatter or more aware since 9/11
its changed us all to a degree
i love what 9/11 has done to my intelect
but i wish it didnt take all that has died since 9/11 to get that simple job of Waking the Hell up
PS NEVER FORGET 9/11 no matter what
[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]
Originally posted by jfj123I'm sorry I missed these posts. Could you refer back to them for me? Thanks.
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
Originally posted by jfj123
You're saying it's valid because they were both steel buildings.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Buildings NOT of the configuration or the exact damage of the TWIN TOWERS.
But what about buidlings that had longer lasting fires and more damage and still did not collapse?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Pilgrum
I agree with those reports and we've all seen that the buildings did survive the initial impacts and managed to stay up long enough for the majority of occupants to escape them. But they only lasted about an hour or so.
But report state the buildings withstood the planes impacts, and not just from the intial impact, that they should have kept standing.
www.tms.org...
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.
Originally posted by jfj123
It doesn't say one or the other but BOTH the impact and the fires led to the collapses.
Originally posted by jfj123
What is the news source of this report?
Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by jfj123
i doubt your sincerity in this issue.
you are requiring solid evidence BEFORE an "independent" investigation starts,
to answer the most pressing questions, that has the majority of americans believing this was an inside job.
we as americans have a duty to question our government and it's practices of secrecy and vagueness.
to have the most poignant questions, not answered to the full satisfaction of the majority of americans, and to spend the time and effort involved in this approach, furthers a distrust in the government.
][therefore...that IS your proof.
it is not up to us, as average americans to prove incompetance or corruption.
we pay our representative government officials quite well, to speak and act for us.
they must fear us and not the other way around.
they are the ones that need to be called into question for their lack of a detailed, indepth, and NON-POLITICAl explanation to questions that are asked , not the american people that are trying to make sense of the inconsistantcies of the late and underfunded 9/11 commission.
50 million dollars were spent on the shuttle disaster investigation, and it was up and running in less then 60 days. the 9/11 commission took 445 days to convene and spent 23 million dollars. shuttle lose of life? 7...9/11 loss of life? 3000. are you achieving some clarity in this matter?
apparently you accept the moral charecter of the wealthy and powerful without question,
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Buildings NOT of the configuration or the exact damage of the TWIN TOWERS.
I still want to know want you ment by this statement.
"And doesn't blowing out the supports mean your essentially damaging the structure???? "
What or who blew out the supports ?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by plasmacutter
u all should read from top to bottom
You need to read the following from a firefighter site and maybe learn something.
www.pleasanthillsfire.org...
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to post by WraothAscendant
Now now u have to give that steel for buildings is basicly the same just placement and thinkness very,
But that dosent matter ealy
his point i think is
the melting point of steel is static it dose not change
so his other buildings do make a good point
1 inch plate is 1 inch plate and 2 inch plate is 2 inch plate we all agree on that.
so he dose have a point
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Sure both included fire and structural damage.
But the facts are facts, the simple facts are the WTC buildings have been the only steel buildings to ever collapse from fire and structural damage.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by space cadet
When an airplane of this size hits a building the size of one of the twin towers, it enters the building, the fuel from the plane is ignited as it rushes down stairs and elevator shafts to the bottom floor desimating everything in its path, Why is that so hard to understand or believe?
Several reasons why this is hard to believe.
1. The plane that hit the second tower went in at an angle through the side of the buidling not causing as much damage.
2. Reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.
3. Reports state the majority of the fuel was burned off OUTSIDE the buildings. What was left burned off quickly.
Originally posted by jfj123
Let me finish your sentence... structural damage from plane impacts.
Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by plasmacutter
And I feel it incumbant on me that I point out the simple fact that using other buildings as an example to say that another building of a different design and nature of damage will react the same way is ignorant.
As I pointed out above.
[edit on 23-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]
Originally posted by plasmacutter
building codes for steel structurals follow a srict protocall
Originally posted by jfj123
How do you know this and what is the cutoff point for damage that would or wouldn't cause the collapse?
No they don't. You keep taking them out of context. Read the NIST final report to get the official cause, don't use news reports.
Please post this info.
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.
The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by plasmacutter
when his buildings should have also collapsed u agree ??
or did thermo dynamics skip that day(9/11)
Funny how no one will talk about the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours in the North tower and casued no damage to the steel.
But we are supposed to believe that a fire on 9/11 that burned less then an hour was enough to cause a complete collapse.
[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]
The massive structural damage caused by the plane impacts. That damage is what space cadet is probably referring to. Look at the Purdue University animation and maybe that will help.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by space cadet
The buildings collasped due to the amount of damage sustained by the impact of the planes and the explosions that occurred upon impact.
What damage casued by the planes?
I have shown reports that the buildings withstood the planes impacts.
Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to post by space cadet
u do realize it was a lattice structure right?
and that the hole made by the plane may have cause damage but if it was going to be from the plane impact it would have fall shortly there after
read some past post please we went over this
that hole was like punching a hole in a screen
dose your screen colapse?
No u just now have a screen with a hole in it
the building enginere of the WTC center already stated they could have taken multible hits
steel latice structures are redundant (they sread the load very very efficently
Originally posted by plasmacutter
Do people even realize at the hieght the buildings where
the amount of wind shere force that was up there
they where 200 feet wide on all side
Imagine the wind load on it everday of the week
JUST WOW