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.

 

WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

page: 18
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   


Obvious Controlled Demoltions and a professional one at that.

Look how close wtc7's rubble pile is to the other building, mostly, look how 50 stories turns to 2.



Do those massive core beams look explosively severed?



No one wants to asnwer...lol.... figures........






[edit on 22-4-2008 by IvanZana]




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Obvious Controlled Demoltions and a professional one at that.

Do those massive core beams look explosively severed?

No, they do not. They are missing explosive blast effects, and there were no sounds of CD happening as WTC7 fell, or before it fell. The fact the building was on fire, and not fought, doomed the structure. Fires not fought destroy buildings. Read up about fires.

That is how a building looks when it burns all day, and has a unique foundation. But that is based on engineering and science, not hearsay and thermite made up fantasy. Backed with no evidence, your photos prove no CD, no explosives, no blast effect were present. You need some evidence of CD, instead of proof there was not, and the knowledge of what you are looking for. Knowledge on firefighting and CD will keep you from presenting counter evidence to your statements. Good post, lots of time, albeit, to present evidence counter to your claims. Nice work.

www.alibris.com... This is a start to understand firefighting stuff.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 



...and there were no sounds of CD happening as WTC7 fell


There were indeed sounds of large explosions at WTC7. That evidence has already been provided in this thread.

There is also the testimony of a very important witness, who experienced explosions in WTC7 early in the morning, before the other towers had collpased.



That is how a building looks when it burns all day, and has a unique foundation.


That doesn't look like any other steel structure, in the history of steel structures, that has burned all day.

What is so "unique" about the foundation anyway?

Besides the fact that being "unique" is a typical fall-back argument meant to imply that no one knows what they are talking about unless they understand this "unique" design that somehow defies scientific principles in their demise.




[edit on 4/22/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Ok, so what do we have here?

We have believers, that it was a demolition, and unbelievers.

There are plenty of facts to support a demolition.

So the real question is, what is holding them people back, from seeing the things the way the believers see them?

To say it another way, what is the key to unlocking their mind? [ Should this be yet another thread? ]


I can list the things that are obvious to me;

1. Just the way the building went down. It went straight down, like it was on a huge aircraft carrier sized elevator, going at express speed to the basement.

2. The obvious use of squibs, by the small blasts at each floor timed out caught on video

2. The time it took to collapse was freefall time.

3. The videos of the witnesses.

4. The video with the countdown

5. The "pull" the building comment

6. The hundreds of military and professionals who are screaming for the truth as well, even in the face of extreme pressure!




What part of that is really in question?

I can understand folks not wanting to believe the obvious here, out of genuine fear for their well being and for their country, but in light of what I can see, I immediately knew, there was no way the firemen ran in and set demolitions in an hour or what ever, I knew it takes weeks,

the other more weird option is, the building had the demolitions already in place during construction, but that doesn't make sense to have explosives just sitting like that, they are sure to deteriorate or even become unstable,

so it is not really a good option, which leaves it plain to me, it had to of been done in the months prior to the event by persons with cleared access to any floor for long periods of time..

And yet, the disbelief, which is their right, continues in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps, if those folks did believe, they might not be able to sleep! And I'm not advocating voluntary sleep deprivation to sensitive folks that just don't know how to handle this despicable and monsterous attack on humanity! To them, all I can say is to pray for the inner stregth to deal with this.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by toasted
Ok, so what do we have here?

We have believers, that it was a demolition, and unbelievers.

There are plenty of facts to support a demolition.



Wont stop the futile attempts from the debunkers to overule logic and suspend physics for 911.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Nice pics of Building 7 Ivan!

Do you have similar pics of the Twin Towers after they were hit?

The South Tower wasn't even a clean hit.

And 90% of the North Tower was holding up the other 10% ... yet it collapsed EXACTLY like the South Tower!




How the hell does structural failure cause a building to collapse in 8-12 seconds versus 30-45 seconds?

What brought down the Twin Towers?

Was it the two flimsy ass planes that are 90% aluminum? Look at the pentagon crash for christ's sake! The only sturdy part of a plane are the engines.

Did 100 TONS OF ALUMINUM really bring down 200,000 TONS OF STEEL???

TWICE in the same day?

Or maybe it was the fires that only lasted for 56 and 100 minutes that completely pulverized two steel sky scrapers into a very fine dust at near free fall speed?

And most importantly - Here's something no debunker can answer - Why the hell weren't the 47 massive steel core columns sticking 1000 feet up into the air after the floors pancaked all the way down?

Why were they little stubs?

BECAUSE EXPLOSIVES WERE F*CKING USED!

It's also interesting to note that a request to bring down the twin towers via controlled demolition before 9/11 was DENIED by the port authority becasue of asbestos concerns.

Instead of paying a fortune to take them down, they knew it would be much cheaper to bring them down during a terrorist attack while collecting the insurance money.

Same damn thing with Building 7!

Top European Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko agrees too!

Also, the damage to Building 7 was NOTHING compared to the damage done to Building 3!!!



MIT Engineer Says WTC Demolished

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Markshark4

And most importantly - Here's something no debunker can answer - Why the hell weren't the 47 massive steel core columns sticking 1000 feet up into the air after the floors pancaked all the way down?



Because they broke off, mainly at the welds, when the building fell on them.

And they weren't all that massive higher up. Lighter loads, lighter columns.

And actually, if you look at some videos, some of the core columns can be seen still standing for several seconds after the exterior columns were on the ground. They definitely weren't in pristine shape, to be sure, and had most of their horizontal bracing removed.

Or would you expect 400 ft unbraced columns to stand on their own with all that junk hitting their base? You can see them waving around in the videos. They buckled.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Do you have any pictures of WTC columns broken at the welds? I haven't seen one yet, only ones cut in the middle.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Do you have any pictures of WTC columns broken at the welds? I haven't seen one yet, only ones cut in the middle.


Here's a classic example of broken welds, also shows just how deep the welds were in relation to the steel thickness. I don't think it's it's a coincidence that the sections came down in approx 30' lengths as that's exactly how the core was was originally assembled.




posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


One point about welds. Welds are suppossed to be stronger than the materials they connect.

So, why did they fail at the welds? Shody weldmanship? Perhaps.

Another question would come up then. Did the construction play a part in the buildings demise?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


One point about welds. Welds are suppossed to be stronger than the materials they connect.



the welding rod is usually made from materials that are stronger than the welded material.

The strength of the "weld" depends on the specifications on how the material is to be welded. Clearly, in this case the "welds" aren't stronger than the columns, but were spec'ed out to meet the anticpated needs.

Plus, if you look at the photo (thx Pilgrum) only 1 side needs to break, then the other side acts as a hinge.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The strength of the "weld" depends on the specifications on how the material is to be welded. Clearly, in this case the "welds" aren't stronger than the columns, but were spec'ed out to meet the anticpated needs.


While true, I need to point out a few things.

When designing, the strength of the steel is used as the design parameter. If the weld is spec'd to be less strength than the steel, wouldn't that throw off the anticipated and designed for strength of the column?

Going by this, one can assume that a weld would be spec'd to meet or exceed the strength of the steel. Or else they would have designed the structure using the lesser strength of the weld instead of the strength of the columns.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
More on welds:


BUTT JOINTS

The double-V butt joint (fig. 3-23, view C) is an excellent joint for all load conditions. Its primary use is on metals thicker than 3/4 inch but can be used on thinner plate where strength is critical. Compared to the single-V joint, preparation time is greater, but you use less filler metal because of the narrower included angle. Because of the heat produced by welding, you should alternate weld deposits, welding first on one side and then on the other side. This practice produces a more symmetrical weld and minimizes warpage.


64.78.42.182...


Butt welds
The design strength of a full penetration butt weld may be taken as equal to the design strength of the weaker of the parts joined, provided that the weld satisfies the recommendations outlined in the introduction to this article, and that an electrode of minimum specified tensile strength at least equal to that of the parent metal is used. The throat size of a single sided, or of each side of a doubled sided partial penetration butt weld, should be taken as the minimum depth of penetration of that side of the weld, and not less than √ 2 t of the thinner part joined. For further guidance, refer to BS5950:1 cl. 6.9.


www.bssa.org.uk...

I have yet to find anywhere that a weld would be designed to be the weaker part of the member. Welds are suppossed to be stronger than the materials they weld.

If someone can find an example when a weld would be designed to have less strength than the material, please let me know.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
While true, I need to point out a few things.

When designing, the strength of the steel is used as the design parameter. If the weld is spec'd to be less strength than the steel, wouldn't that throw off the anticipated and designed for strength of the column?

Going by this, one can assume that a weld would be spec'd to meet or exceed the strength of the steel. Or else they would have designed the structure using the lesser strength of the weld instead of the strength of the columns.


The way I understand it, the ability of the core columns to withstand lateral loads would indeed be affected by the welds. But the core columns weren't designed to resist any lateral loads at all, only compression loads. The steel specs of the cores were determined by engineering demands - thicker and higher kpa ratings for more vert loads, etc. Under normal circumstances, I honestly don't see how the welds, as seen, could weaken the structure. The only thing it would affect would be in the collapse event, which is something that the engineers wouldn't design a building for, LOL.

As an example, if you had a billboard without any guy wires, the posts would have to withstand any lateral loads imposed on it by winds, and so would need to be engineered as such. If there is anything as an engineered billboard that is, but you get the point I hope. In this case, if the posts were in multiple pieces, and the welds weren't as strong as the base material, it would be a problem.

Conversely, a billboard that had the posts to handle the compression loads ONLY, but relied on guy wires to handle ALL the wind/lateral loads, The posts would never be expected to handle the sort of bending loads that would test the weld strength. I believe the towers were designed like this scenario. But in this case, the guy wires were absent, and the weakness of the welds were exposed and became the weak link.

I hope my thoughts make sense. Hopefully a structural engineer could clarify things better.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The way I understand it, the ability of the core columns to withstand lateral loads would indeed be affected by the welds. But the core columns weren't designed to resist any lateral loads at all, only compression loads.


This is where your understanding fails. Beam-columns are designed for bending moment. Bending moment is equivalent to lateral loads.


Conversely, a billboard that had the posts to handle the compression loads ONLY, but relied on guy wires to handle ALL the wind/lateral loads, The posts would never be expected to handle the sort of bending loads that would test the weld strength. I believe the towers were designed like this scenario.


Well, since design strength is governed by bending moments, there is never a case where columns are designed to only carry compressive loads.


Hopefully a structural engineer could clarify things better.


Well, I have tried. Maybe you'll take my word for it, maybe not. I'd advise learning it for yourself.


A simple procedure is developed for the selection of pultruded structural shapes to be used as beam-columns in structural design. The design equations are then validated by comparison with experimental data gathered during beam-column testing of wide-flange and I-beam pultruded structural shapes. The design procedure accounts for axial load eccentricity and bending action induced by lateral loads and end-moments. The design equations are set in the context of load and resistance factor design, considering both strength and serviceability. This paper addresses the methodology to determine the resistance factors, which should be used with properly selected load-factors accounting for the variability and uncertainty of the loads. The design equations use section-properties, such as the bending stiffness (EI), which must be measured and supplied by industry. It is found that the section-properties used in the design of beams and columns are sufficient for the design of beam-columns. Therefore, the cost and time involved in testing structural shapes are minimized. This paper also addresses the means by which section-properties can be generated effectively and inexpensively.


scitation.aip.org...

[edit on 4/29/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

This is where your understanding fails. Beam-columns are designed for bending moment. Bending moment is equivalent to lateral loads.

Well, I have tried. Maybe you'll take my word for it, maybe not. I'd advise learning it for yourself.



a- yes, but the bending moment was also resisted by the horizontal flooring present in the cores. Wouldn't this decrease the bending moment, and thereby make the specs for the welds to be "less"? Now think about what happened when all that steel fell - it would tear away those horizontal braces, and then leave the columns unsupported. Then as more steel impacted the unsupported columns, and one would assume chaotically when you look at the videos, the weld's weakness is exposed when the columns are impacted off-center, imparting a new lateral load that is able to overwhelm the weld's strength.

b- if you have trouble understanding, I'd advise talking to a structural engineer. That's why I suggested it.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Further reading on Beam-Column design.


Since most beam-columns do not exist as isolated members but as an integral part of a frame, the design of beam-columns in frames must take into consideration the effect of the interaction among adjacent framing members.


books.google.com... PA40,M1



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
a- yes, but the bending moment was also resisted by the horizontal flooring present in the cores. Wouldn't this decrease the bending moment, and thereby make the specs for the welds to be "less"? Now think about what happened when all that steel fell - it would tear away those horizontal braces, and then leave the columns unsupported. Then as more steel impacted the unsupported columns, and one would assume chaotically when you look at the videos, the weld's weakness is exposed when the columns are impacted off-center, imparting a new lateral load that is able to overwhelm the weld's strength.


I can understand what you are saying, but remember that the welds are designed to be stronger than the steel. This includes lateral loads. Because the strength of the steel is designed for lateral loads, the welds would also be able to hold them.


b- if you have trouble understanding, I'd advise talking to a structural engineer. That's why I suggested it.


I AM a structural engineer. I know what I'm talking about. Maybe you should talk to one who disagrees with me?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I don't think there is any inconsistency in believing both that the welds were to spec.--i.e., as strong or stronger than the columns--and that the failures occurred at the welds. In fact, the failures had to occur there.

The columns are homogeneous and the welds cannot match the strength inherent in that continuous structure. It's like gluing together a broken chair arm: even though the glue is stronger than the wood that split apart, it will be the point of future fractures, because the joint will never have the structural integrity of a single piece of wood.

You see bending and splitting of the core box columns--outrageous deformations in some cases--but they always break apart at the welds. This is not surprising, but inevitable. Inherent in the nature of materials.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I can understand what you are saying, but remember that the welds are designed to be stronger than the steel. This includes lateral loads. Because the strength of the steel is designed for lateral loads, the welds would also be able to hold them.

I AM a structural engineer. I know what I'm talking about. Maybe you should talk to one who disagrees with me?


a-you don't know that this is the case, since the design specs aren't available. Welds can sometimes be stronger than the steel. Again, it depends on the expected design loads. YOU engineers are smart like that. You recognize what is needed for a particular situation, and realize that over-engineering costs money. That's what you get paid for. To do the job and keep costs down. Kudos for that.

b- my brother is a structural engineer. He works for a big firm that has indeed designed large buildings, with him as a part of the design team for 3 of them. He's looked at Greening and Bazant's papers, and the NIST, and agrees with what they say. He's also read Gage's paper and laughed.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join