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.

 

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 17
59
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


As I remember, the exterior columns supported the building against wind shear and were an essential part of the structure. Both the core and exterior were dependent on each other for support.
If you watch the collapses closely, you can see the central core standing for some seconds after the exterior walls collapse past it.




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


Isn't thermate an oxygen or sulfur boosted thermite? That would require the inclusion of a metal oxide reducible by Aluminum. Thermite uses black iron oxide.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff,
You ask: "But, then how did the studs break from thermal expansion when steel and concrete expand together?"

Maybe this has to do with the direction of expansion and where the bolts sheared.
The coefficient of expansion for concrete depends on the concrete and varies by a factor of two. www.supercivilcd.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

The CORE could only have fallen, if it was cut from below before the towers started to collapse, and at the same time, charges were timed to break up each floor as the building fell on itself (without resistance to slow it down).



When the core columns descended, they would have compromised/broken the beams that braced them. After it descended a few floors, there would have been 30'-40' of poorly braced/unbraced core columns, which would then be prone to either buckling or breaking at the welds. This would then add to the descending mass, accelerating the fall.

The same would be happening to the upper, descending block, and it would eventually break up.

As you get lower, the core columns are strong enough to resist buckling, and the welds also would be stronger to resist breaking, so they would survive the passing of the descending mass. This is evidenced by the spires seen on the videos. Note the missing floor beams on many of the close up photos.

But the spires were also several hundred feet tall, and as seen in those videos, they are swaying around. And since they were missing the connection to the ext columns - which also helped brace them - they failed eventually also.......



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
So I guess we're all going to ignore the fact that this is a different design, and a superior one at that, to wtc?

The wtc is a box, this is triangles and squared, making structural superiority.



God, it's so retarded.

This is basically like seeing a bunny get shot and die, and wondering why the moose shot the same way doesn't go down.

Is it really not that obvious?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by phushion
 

Some VERY talented Arabs, who were not only building demolition experts and who went from being unable to control a Cessna 172 to ace fighter pilot.

These Arabs are so clever that seven "hijackers" survived their suicide mission!



hey stop making sense.. everyone knows you can go from cessna to F-16-level skills in under 3 months easy..
honestly, people act like any fool can fly a jetliner into a building..takes some skill, ya know?


[edit on 11-2-2009 by dragonseeker]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
that's what i've been saying

argue all you want on the structure. blah...blah blah


FIRE PANEL information?
Information SENT TO Remote Monitoring Company?
SECURITY Systems Remote Info?
Computer Server Systems etc.

can we think of anything else?


This information supplied would lead to many answers people here seek.

For example the information on one of the above could tell if for some reason on a lower floor something happened etc. etc.

Hope it helps





[edit on 11-2-2009 by svenglezz]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
So I guess we're all going to ignore the fact that this is a different design, and a superior one at that, to wtc?

The wtc is a box, this is triangles and squared, making structural superiority.



God, it's so retarded.

This is basically like seeing a bunny get shot and die, and wondering why the moose shot the same way doesn't go down.






Actually that "BOX" stood very well against that Plane coming right into it. So I disagree, the Box did very well, and was very strong.

But this about WTC-7 and how ridiculous the Official Story is concerning the events in question.





[edit on 11-2-2009 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The coefficient of expansion for concrete depends on the concrete and varies by a factor of two. www.supercivilcd.com...


The coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete and steel in a composite deck are the same. They are engineered that way.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I will accede to "designed that way" and will even assume "constructed that way." If the trusses and concrete are expanding against the exterior columns and inner core columns, would that not stress the 5/8 bolts at the joints? Would you claim that they would not break under such stress? If you were to calculate the difference in length due to expansion of a 400 to 500 C temperature rise, how much longer would they get? What would happen after they failed?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


how so? The entire side of the structure was aflame.

The fallacy that most believe is that it was a small 2 floor office fire.

uh, no. it was an all-inclusive fire. The fact that a side of the structure was gone also helped.


And no, the box shape did not do good. The WTC is a joke of a structure and the Chinese build superior structures.

That's why they can build a mega structure in 3-6 years, while we have a hole in the ground for 7, going on 8.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

Yep, here are those "all-inclusive" out-of-control, raging inferno WTC 7 fires:



Here's WTC 5, which really did have raging, out-of-control fires:



But amazingly enough, WTC 5 is still standing the next day:



Here's the Banker's Trust building, which was half the distance that WTC 7 was to the towers. Amazing that it suffered such minor damage and it's also still standing!



Here's the corner of the WTC 7 structure that debunkers claim is "gone:"



But wait, here's another photo that's not obscured by smoke. Oops, I guess it wasn't gone after all. And it looks like those "all-inclusive" raging fires have extinguished themselves:





[edit on 12-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by talisman
 


how so? The entire side of the structure was aflame.

The fallacy that most believe is that it was a small 2 floor office fire.

uh, no. it was an all-inclusive fire. The fact that a side of the structure was gone also helped.


And no, the box shape did not do good. The WTC is a joke of a structure and the Chinese build superior structures.

That's why they can build a mega structure in 3-6 years, while we have a hole in the ground for 7, going on 8.





#1. What about Building 6? That building was far worse compromised. It didn't do the 6.5 second near free fall dip.

#2. The building in China was not even finished. It had no working sprinklers. The building burned TOP TO BOTTOM.

#3. In the case of WTC-7, its one thing for a skyscraper to collapse from fire, but it is another thing to have people around who knew of the approx time!

#4. In the future, all one has to do is Randomly Hit a building with a bolder, start some fires and viola! A building will fall into its footprint like 7. If what your saying is true, than Building 7 proves we have no need for demolition teams.


No matter how people try to slice it, it becomes obvious. The Official Story is Officially Dead.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by talisman]

[edit on 12-2-2009 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Heres a pdf that goes step by step through the building collape and it was written by structural engineers who took time to learn how to prevent this in the future.Helps them in there job, It shows the collapse was not controlled at all. Conspiracy theorists only show 1 side of the building after the collapse the truth is the building did not come straight down.

wtc 7



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


So now the higher ups in the fire departments are in on the conspiracy.
WOW ! This conspiracy just keeps growing and growing.
Before you know it, everyone but us will have to be involved in 9/11 for it to work



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Isn't it funny when their own evidence hangs them?

This conspiracy just keeps getting bigger and bigger because since they can't be wrong, the bush administration must have burned down that building too ! oh and of course used bombs and thermite and other stuff we don't understand....



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


After re-watching the video, a few things occur to me.
I wonder if they're going to let the burnt out hulk of the building sit there for 6 months and be a safety hazard so they can do a "proper" investigation like the "truthers" would want? Instead of cleaning up the dangerous area as soon as possible, hauling away and properly disposing of the debris.

Also, I wonder if they're going to do a proper investigation such as making sure a plane didn't hit the building and start the fire, or check the molecular cohesion of the steel to make sure high energy beam weapons didn't disassociate the steel supports molecules? Or check to see if arab workers went into the building earlier and planted thermite charges? Because we all know if they don't check all those things, then they didn't do a proper investigation and/or they are covering up what really happened.

Then we also must figure that no matter what the government investigation says, we need to know they're lying and all those experts are all in on the conspiracy but only people like us will be able to figure out the truth


Just some thoughts about how similar these situations should be based on previous complaints from some "truthers" .



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I am talking about a composite deck vs. a composite deck. In a composite deck, the steel members (whether they are trusses or beams) act with the concrete compositely (together). They expand thermally together (yes, concrete and steel have nearly the same thermal expansion) and the concrete would also hinder the trusses from bowing. Unless somehow the shear studs are broken. But, then how did the studs break from thermal expansion when steel and concrete expand together?


Just an FYI

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
10-6/°C 10-6/°F
Concrete 7.4-13 4.1-7.3
Steel 11-12 6.1-6.7

because PCC materials vary considerably. Realistic data for the types of materials being used in concrete mixtures are rarely available and, if they are available, they are likely to be based on a specific PCC mix design or aggregate type. However, an agency could test typical mixes containing a range of aggregate types to obtain typical values for their materials.

Might give you a basic idea for what you're discussing.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Griff
 


I will accede to "designed that way" and will even assume "constructed that way." If the trusses and concrete are expanding against the exterior columns and inner core columns, would that not stress the 5/8 bolts at the joints? Would you claim that they would not break under such stress? If you were to calculate the difference in length due to expansion of a 400 to 500 C temperature rise, how much longer would they get? What would happen after they failed?


Also keep in mind that just because they were "designed" that way on paper, doesn't mean that's how the concrete was mixed or how if the steel had correct chemical comp. etc...

There are ranges for thermal expansion of both material.

If a cement contractor could mix the concrete to save $5.00 per cu yrd and they needed 100,000 cubic yards, the contractor can pocket one-half million dollars.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Here are those small fires you're referring to:







new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join