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: 19
14
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
...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.


If he came to that conclusion after reading the NIST report then he either didn't really read it, or he didn't understand it.

The NIST report does not explain how the towers globally collapsed, they only explained the initiation of the collapses, and even then they made some really wild assumptions to fit their preconceived conclusions.

Why didn't they explain the collapses after the initiation? Because they couldn't, so they made up the idea that global collapse was inevitable once initiated. If you know anything about physics and construction you would be questioning the missing information, and how they came up with the claim of inevitable collapse.

There is no precedence for global collapse of steel buildings from a-symmetrical damage and sporadic office fires, that burned for no more than an hour. The process of global collapse could also not be repeated in a lab. So where could the claim of inevitable collapse come from? Nowhere, it was made up to fool those that don't understand, or don't want to understand why global collapse from fires and asymmetrical damage is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

You can't make a claim like that without a precedence to back it up.

It's never happened before, no precedence, and yet it happened to 3 buildings on the same day...
Now that is impossible.

Talk about being blinded by science, or better yet blinded by bullcrap.




posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If he came to that conclusion after reading the NIST report then he either didn't really read it, or he didn't understand it.

The NIST report does not explain how the towers globally collapsed, they only explained the initiation of the collapses, and even then they made some really wild assumptions to fit their preconceived conclusions.

Why didn't they explain the collapses after the initiation? Because they couldn't, so they made up the idea that global collapse was inevitable once initiated. If you know anything about physics and construction you would be questioning the missing information, and how they came up with the claim of inevitable collapse.

There is no precedence for global collapse of steel buildings from a-symmetrical damage and sporadic office fires, that burned for no more than an hour. The process of global collapse could also not be repeated in a lab. So where could the claim of inevitable collapse come from? Nowhere, it was made up to fool those that don't understand, or don't want to understand why global collapse from fires and asymmetrical damage is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

You can't make a claim like that without a precedence to back it up.

It's never happened before, no precedence, and yet it happened to 3 buildings on the same day...
Now that is impossible.

Talk about being blinded by science, or better yet blinded by bullcrap.


Nice rant.

But your post is so full of errors and fallacies, I'll just refrain from even bothering with a rebuttal.

Thank you for playing.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Nice post shutting down the delusional and leaving them speechless, once again.


Star for you.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."


Source

Why didnt NIST test for these compounds, when people on the ground were adament that explosives were going off in and around the buildings?

If these compounds were not tested on the steel for the WTC Towers were they tested on the steel for WTC7?

You dont need to be a scientist to look at WTC7 and ponder whether it did or didnt collapse due to a controlled demolition. Its quite evident that it did collapse by means of explosives, especially if you take a look at what offices were were residing in the building. DoD, Secret Services, CIA, Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt, Securities & Exchange Commission, IRS Regional Council - all Government organizations.

One of the tenants was Mayor Giuliani's and his office of Emergency Mngt. They resided on the 23rd floor and received $15 million worth of renovations, including independent and secure air, water supplies, bullet & bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200mph winds. The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.

How curious that on the day of the 9/11 attacks that Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event


Peace

CR


[edit on 29-4-2008 by Conspiracy Realist]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by ANOK
 


Nice post shutting down the delusional and leaving them speechless, once again.


Star for you.


No, I could list the errors/fallacies in his post if I wanted to.

But what's the point?

I prefer to debate with a guy like Griff. He brings good points to the discussion table and raises legitimate questions - like shoddy worksmanship, were the welds engineered correctly, etc.

I saw none of that in ANOK's post.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Reply to Seymour Butz and Gottago.

I have found something of interest. My thinking of the welds being stronger may not always be the case. I can admit when I'm mistaken.


Partial Penetration Weld

A partial (half) penetration butt weld connecting two of the
largest heavy jumbo steel sections available has been tested.
The final capacity of the splice exceeded by more than 25%
the predicted capacity based on the effective dimensions of
Fig. 25. Ductility definitions used.
the smaller member joined. The smooth transition between
the smaller and larger sections at the splice created an
enlarged weld surface which may be in part responsible for
the increased strength. Nonetheless, simple design
calculations are deficient in predicting the state of stress of
the critical section. The implications of this for other weld
configurations must be carefully assessed.
The splice failed in a very brittle manner when tested
under pure bending.
Numerous factors, as outlined earlier,
contributed to produce the observed brittle behavior. The
effect of axial loads on this splice has been analytically
simulated in Ref. 7.
It is not known at this stage if all partial penetration butt
welds will behave similarly irrespective of the welded
specimen thickness or the degree of penetration. This test and
previous research on Group 4 and 5 steel sections (as well as
simple fracture theory) implies that the risk of brittle failure
is increased with large steel thicknesses.

This observed brittle behavior creates a risk of particular
interest in seismic regions where it is recognized that
codecalculated forces may be largely exceeded by actual
earthquake-induced actions. These considerations have been
further discussed by the authors elsewhere.7 Nevertheless,
designers should be aware of the potential adverse behavior
of this detail and use it in circumstances only where it will
not be a structural weak link.


www.eng.buffalo.edu...

That's actually a very informative read.

I'll go cook up my crow now.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
No, I could list the errors/fallacies in his post if I wanted to.

But what's the point?


Well why are you here wasting time saying you can rebut my post but not bothering to do so? There is not that much to type surely?

Welds do not normaly just break nice and cleanly. Even a bad weld will not just break nice and cleanly.

I have a feeling you don't know squat about welding...


Welding is the most common way of permanently joining metal parts. In this process, heat is applied to metal pieces, melting and fusing them to form a permanent bond. Because of its strength, welding is used in shipbuilding, automobile manufacturing and repair, aerospace applications, and thousands of other manufacturing activities. Welding also is used to join beams when constructing buildings, bridges, and other structures and to join pipes in pipelines, power plants, and refineries.

Source

Welds are as strong as the steel itself because it is the steel itself. You are barking up the wrong tree mate. Bad welds do not account for 3 buildings globally collapsing.

There were thousands of welds and fastener holding the columns together and you really think all those welds were bad? If so how did the tower survive the fires and bombs it has endured in the past?
Also I guess it was only 1, 2 and 7 that had bad welds, what about buildings 5 and 6?

What caused the welds to fail? If it was bad welds then what initiated the failure? What caused the top section to become separated for it to fall. Again look at building 2 and the top section. It was tilting and was under angular momentum, so it could not have caused anything bellow it to fail other than the pivot point of the tilt. If the pivot point failed the top would have continued to fall off the in the path of least resistance. Bad welds, office fires, nor plane impacts had any effect on the top section of WTC 2, how could they?

Your excuse for not addressing my points is pretty lame mate. If you don't want to debate with me then put me on ignore. I'm not going to walk around this forum on tip toes worried I'll upset someone with my posts. Either do what you can claim or don't reply at all. Pretty simple eh?

But I really would like to see your rebuttal, regardless of what you think I am very open minded, and if your rebuttal makes sense and proves I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

[edit on 29/4/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
oops hit wrong button...

[edit on 29/4/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Wow, I cant believe that its official that all the evidence points to World trade Center 7 being brought down with controlled demoltions aswell as wtc 1, 2.

The craziest smoking gun i encoutered was that Flight 93 DIDN'T CRASH in shanksville on 9/11.
Wow. This year I think there is going to be some disclosure.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Reply to Seymour Butz and Gottago.

I'll go cook up my crow now.


Why?

Your very good questions about whether or not there was sloppy worksmanship and/or proper engineering haven't been answered.

We'll need the specs to determine this.

Have you ever considered writing up a white paper about these issues?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
This year I think there is going to be some disclosure.


Yeah well, the truth movement has been saying this for years.

It'll never come to pass.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.

I am sorry, but I don't see broken welds in that photo. There is nothing classic about how either of those are broken. In fact, you can see the bottom two are still bolted and welded together. The top piece doesn't look like it was ever welded where it's severed, is that what you are talking about?

[edit on 30-4-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Have you ever considered writing up a white paper about these issues?


A lot more research on my part is in order first. I've been busy these last couple of years. Hopefully, it will even out soon. Maybe I should spend less trime on here?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


I'm looking at the very ends of those 2 identical columns where the remains of the weld can be clearly seen penetrating unevenly into the joint to an average depth of about 1/3 of the column thickness. The welds have fractured with no deformation of the columns.

I can't imply that the welding was shoddy or that it didn't meet or exceed the design specs for strength. It's just an indication of where the weakest points were in the columns, not that they were weak and they did break under extraordinary stress.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.

I also don't think it's a coincidence, it's pretty convenient to only have to put cutting charges on every third floor and have it good length for easy loading into a semi-dump trailer to be hauled away(which are approx. 45 ft)



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


I also note that there appears to be no sign of heating, blasting or melting at those ends and the surface rusting seems very uniform even right into the broken ends. The column sections were delivered during construction on similar trucks to the ones that carted them away during the cleanup.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm looking at the very ends of those 2 identical columns where the remains of the weld can be clearly seen penetrating unevenly into the joint to an average depth of about 1/3 of the column thickness. The welds have fractured with no deformation of the columns.


To futher your point. The weld can be seen as the "lip" that's holding dust. You can trace it to the end and see the grove weld.


I can't imply that the welding was shoddy or that it didn't meet or exceed the design specs for strength. It's just an indication of where the weakest points were in the columns, not that they were weak and they did break under extraordinary stress.


I can agree to this. It just makes me wonder if the welds were taken into account in Skillings' analysis of a jet crashing into the building.

But then that adds the question again of "what caused such a lateral force to begin with?".



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff,

thanks for digging that up, that's exactly what I was getting at: welds can actually be stronger than the steel members they're joining, but be weaker under certain stresses. It is simply inherent in the nature of the materials--the join on those box columns will never be as strong as the column itself. You need a complete weld like what's used to make welded rail for railroad tracks to approach complete integrity. Impossible on that scale.

What also surprises me about the design of the box columns and the core is that the welds/sections were all laid out at the same elevation, and were not staggered. This would have increased the integrity of the core but obviously complicated construction. What you have in effect are 3-story core units stacked like a bunch of milk crates, to use a vivid but grossly oversimplified word picture. I don't know if there was any reinforcement designed into these areas.

That said, to my mind collapse doesn't jive with these points for several reasons. First, the upper core welds are going to be relatively stronger because they would have more penetration since the columns were thinner, and you see no resistance to collapse at the mechanical floors either. Also, you see no arrest in the flow of collapse at any point--it's continuous and explosive.

Also, the spires show that in many cases the welds did hold vertically, but these 3-story core blocks were partially destroyed. You have just one end of the core structure standing, which to me is very strange. How'd those milk crates get dismembered, but the (relatively) weaker end-on-end welds nonetheless held together?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I am sorry guys, I am just not seeing the welds. Is there perhaps a higher resolution version of the image, perhaps the distortion is playing tricks on my eyes.
Also wondering, since I am not an architect, why would there be a stub column like that between two longer columns? Wouldn't two full-length columns just be bolt right together?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Um correct me if i'm wrong, but is there not pictures of the support beams all sheared off at a 45 degree angle?
And the fire being hot enough to weaken steel has been debunked thoroughly. Construction grade steel has a melting point of a couple thousand degrees. Jet fuel doesn't burn any where near that hot and certainly not hot enough to weaken steel. Not to mention that the building designers said themselves that the buildings were designed to withstand more than one hit by a jetliner.......



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join