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: 21
59
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Well if you cut a hole in the middle of that building like about the size of a plane, it might fall eventually. But then again why did building 7 fall?




posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger
Reinforced concrete is ruined by heat,doncha know?The moisture,especially in newly poured batches,expands much more than the aggregate and sand and lime.Sorta crumbles.Steel might sag but,except for WTC,never fails.


Right. But the concrete in the floors of the WTC was suspended. There were some I-beams between the floors added for some support and stiffness -- but the concrete floors with steel beams in them, were suspended between the curtain wall and the core.

Therefore, they are only stiffening the structure -- no concrete is holding it up. If the concrete gets weakened -- it can crumble away -- you still have the steel beams on the flooring and the structure still stands. You would, however, leave a very large mess for the cleaning crew the next day.

Without a demolition of some kind, the WTC would have had to be closed down for at least a month to renovate three or four floors. And perhaps only 500 people would have lost their lives.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
Well if you cut a hole in the middle of that building like about the size of a plane, it might fall eventually. But then again why did building 7 fall?


Like the bullet that killed JFK, and then turned around and got the Mayor -- I'd say that one of the airplane engines must have gone down the elevator shaft, through the parking garage tunnels, and destroyed the core of the WTC 7 Building.

However, since it doesn't have a core, and was a normal steel frame structure (which have never spontaneously had complete collapses in history either), it might have had to hit about 400 I beams. That sure is a neat trick, but since it already took out 17 steel tubes that were larger in diameter than the engine -- well, that is one dangerous piece of debris.

>> I also like the idea, that the seismic force of the collapse, created a shock wave, and since these have peaks and troughs, the wave passed through building 6, and resonated exactly with Building 7.

>> The idea that there was some sort of propane tank or secret CIA explosive in the building, kind of insults the intelligence of everyone involved. We have all seen propane storage tanks blow up--some of us, only on YouTube. They kind of go BOOM! Not "pow. pow. pow" like a series of demolition charges and then the building crumbles to dust.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
You have photos showing cut beams. You don't have photos showing how all the beams looked BEFORE the cleanup crew arrived, do you?


No, I posted a photo of the cleanup crew cutting the beam in question.



You did not answer my question:


I can only point to a video of a Demolition, and say, GEE THAT LOOKS LIKE THE WTC COLLAPSE, and nobody here, can find anything that looks like the WTC collapse that isn't a demolition.

Then how would you know the difference?



Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
>> Great, my opinion, move on. Most people can trust what I have to say, but of course, in your world you must presume they are false


I don't presume they are false....neither do I presume they are true. I presume they are your opinions, however you have made statements which I KNOW to be false because I've done the research.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Which is attached to the core before a floor lands on it. Is this too complicated? At some point, you have to talk about the core. Either it gets pulled down with the floor -- meaning the bolts are attached, or it breaks the bolts and it is still standing. If the first hypothesis is true -- then it never was a pancake collapse and could have only fallen due to explosives. You cannot have both things be true at the same time, and this is not something that needs EVIDENCE, it's a simple principle here. The floor below is supported and attached or it isn't. Which is it? Breaks free of the core and collapses (leaving the core), or pulls the core down -- meaning, there could never have been a free-fall collapse or even a collapse at all, because the core is sufficient to hold the top floors up, whether or not they tumble down.


The floors were what connected the core to the exterior columns. The core needed these connections for lateral support and the core provided vertical support. When these floor spans began to sag, they pulled on the core and the exterior columns...eventually they buckled and broke free, crashing into the floor below. The floor below was not designed to hold that much weight, so it crumbled. Yes, the core supported the weight of the towers for years...but floor 81, for example, could not support the weight of floors 82-110.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Many were damaged? This is a new theory, or maybe one of the many I read and didn't remember because it was lame--my mind edits for content. The steel and concrete is both sagging and expanding -- which is it? If it was expanding, the walls would be getting pushed outward, if it was sagging the walls get pulled inward.


Both. The steel expanded, but the saggigng was more significant and pulled the columns inward (this can be seen in videos/photos before the collapse).


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Even though we saw no evidence of sagging (no walls moved),


The exterior columns were being pulled inward prior to collapse. Do you deny this?


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngstThe STIFFNESS is provided by the floor -- not the outer wall. The shape of the wall is smooth, because all the floors are the same size. That building was designed for 3 simultaneous strikes by 707's


Source this claim please.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


I gave you a star because of a worthly explanation and view. I am in the middle with all this, logic says one thing and conspiracy says another along with many other theories.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

How does the towers falling due to fires instead of explosives work out to be "pro-Bush"? Was he not bad enough already that you have to manufacture elaborate conspiracies to blame on him?

Because it is only his people who could have stopped NORAD and the airforce from taking down planes that are hijacked for an hour.


They weren't stopped...they didn't get to the planes in time.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Due to a flight attendants call, they knew before one of the planes left the ground that it was hijacked.


Source, please


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Only our government could have covered up the fact that explosives were used in the investigation of the ruins.


Argument from personal belief


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngstErgo, either it fell due to fire, or it fell due to demolition.


False dilemma.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
If it fell due to demolition -- the ONLY group that could have covered it up and interfered with stopping the planes is the Government. That government was run by a certain man who pushed the Patriot Act, the two bogus wars, phony evidence for those wars. And of course, he had help. He didn't need to mastermind anything while reading "My Pet Goat." This is why executives all around the world don't need to be smart if they can hire other people -- happens all the time, just ask anyone in a large company. And I noticed that we didn't get to a realistic Pro-Bush theory, just redirected to "Bush-bashing."


I'm not pro-bush...why would I have a pro-bush theory? There are plenty of people I don't care for (Bush included) but I don't need to accuse them of mass murder to make myself feel better about disliking them.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
because, let's not forget, whose reputation is on the line and who MUST have been the one to cover it up. If you want to blame another government -- they'd still need the help of the investigators. So either it was 19 guys with box cutters who didn't appear on the manifests,



Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

They DID appear on the manifests....they did not appear on the "Victim list"...look it up and come back when you can get your facts straight.

>> I just checked, and you are indeed correct: Faxes of Flight Manifests
I'll give you that point


Thank you. In the future please be sure to research your claims before just repeating what someone else said.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
or it was the Bush government that lied about every disaster they were involved in.



False dilemma - en.wikipedia.org...>> I have that bookmarked too--very handy. You are partially correct -- just because Bush lied about everything else, and screwed the country -- doesn't mean on THIS one thing, he isn't telling the truth.


I'm not fan of Bush...and I know politicians lie...but he didn't lie about "everything else".


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
If they had released Video from the Pentagon and had an open investigation -- well, then we wouldn't have to trust just the Bush administration, would we?


You don't have to trust the Bush administration, you can trust the eyewitnesses who were there.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I believe that Bush and company deserve a fair trial. Prior criminal activity is justifiable for search warrants and to proceed with an investigation. IN this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. That's why I'd start the trial with all the other crimes as probable cause. I don't see how this is a false dilemma at all. The assumption that I could convict based upon prior crimes would be, a false dilemma, and you made a false dilemma assuming that was my intention. My intention is a fair trial -- and I think we have ample evidence for that. We don't have ample evidence, to prove that fires brought down the buildings.


I agree with your last sentence...it was the impact damage AND fires which caused the collapse. If you believe there isn't ample evidence for that, so be it...but there is even LESS evidence that the collapses were caused by anything other than those 2 things.

It was a false dilemma, because the choices were:
" 19 guys with box cutters who didn't appear on the manifests, "
"the Bush government that lied about every disaster they were involved in. "



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by jfj123
 


I don't think you seriously dealt with this -- this seems like you are being intellectually dishonest. This is an empty building, the Chinese are not going to war over it, and it has no strategic use -- why should they lie?


Maybe there was an insurance motive?
Maybe there was a a secret bunker under the building that needed to be destroyed.
I'm just using "truther" logic here.
[B]
So, because you've witnessed some below-standard logic, you choose to invalidate the building fire by lowering your standards even more? Hopefully, you won't be picking fights with third graders and can let their insults pass.
There have been some wild claims, to be sure. But it is dang well verified that the CIA, Ports Authority, and Guilliani's disaster center were in that building. It was also where cases against the Bush family ENRON, and other large companies were stored. You know, because other people were working there, and new about what was in the building.

There is no evidence of a Secret Bunker -- but I believe there was some gold stored there. Whatever nonsense you might have heard -- it doesn't apply to the fire in China.

However, whatever conspiracy theory you come up with about the Chinese -- and I trust them about as much as BushCo, I'd like to hear the one on how they make the building stand up, after it engulfed in flames, if steel buildings actually can collapse due to fire -- which they CAN THEORETICALLY, but not spontaneously, with an immediate collapse.

Whether China lies about how the fire started, or why, or what happened. Just like other fires that the Chinese and Bush are not involved in -- it's essentially just a structure on fire. So are the flames holograms or something? Can we not establish that the building is on fire for 20 hours and is standing -- regardless of what caused the event? This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty.
[/B]



There has to be motive in most cases. This is just a building that caught on fire and its only significance here, is that it was totally engulfed in flames and is still standing after 20 hours. Nothing like a real-world example.

WTC 1 & 2 were just buildings hit by big planes at high speed and were damaged by fire......
[B] Right. And when the planes hit, the building didn't even tremble. I missed all the windows that fell off from the resounding blow. It was effectively like a fly hitting the screen on your window. In crash tests, when planes fly full speed into large brick walls -- the walls always win. This is a huge structure, that is flexible. So the impact of the planes did whatever damage it did immediately, and then you had a fire with jet fuel for about 15 minutes and then a regular office fire for another 45 minutes.

Look, I can go back and look at pictures -- there were still vertical beams left standing where he plane went through -- the plane body shredded itself and didn't harm even a few I-beams--or else, my eyes are deceiving me. The only hard points were the engines -- which probably could take out an I-beam. Even if we can accept the theory that the engines can go right through the core -- they are 14' wide. So, both engines, improbably go right through the core -- you've taken out 4 steel tubes out of 17 if this major magic is true, you still have more than enough strength left because the building was built at 3x load capacity -- it could still stand for a few more hours at least.

And hey, if they go through one of those pieces of core -- either they damage most of it, leaving the core broken on one side -- or they go through. Did we see an engine fly out the other side? How does this magic bullet work exactly? They obliterate 17 steel tubes larger than they are, and do it evenly, and have exactly enough energy, not to throw any of this steel or the engines out the other side of the building.

The blast and fire, has enough energy to strip the insulation and melt the curtain wall supports, or buckle the flooring, yet we don't see the windows fly out all around the building on that floor, and we don't see any change in shape of the curtain wall. Amazing. Somehow, there is another dimension, where these strange physics take place, so that we don't witness them in these four.
[/B]



There is a constant chirping that the Truthers are illogical and grasping at straws --

I was pointing out how in the case of the chinese building, everyone is INSTANTLY accepting the official version without question. Your response is perfect because it shows your own double standard. You say, "why should they lie ? " Well why would the US lie? Your implication is that the chinese government is more trustworthy then the US government.
[B]No. That is your implication. The "Truther's" are talking about a steel building on fire -- regardless of country, magic concrete, or anything else. The hole thing is on fire. The only conspiracy theory is; "How is the Chinese government keeping it up, when it must collapse due to fire?" Perhaps a freeze ray?

Sorry -- couldn't help myself. This has nothing at all to do with anything else but the building on fire. Really -- doesn't matter if they claim it was hit by a space beam. It's on fire and then it didn't fall. Neat trick, huh?

I'm expecting any day now, that a steel building will get demolition charges in it, just so that it can fall from a fire at free-fall speeds to prove Truther's wrong. So I'm going to say -- if a steel building falls, and there is a good credibility with the investigators -- then maybe we could be wrong. But you know, this would be requiring ANTI-demolition charges to keep the building up.

>> Continued



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

but the only evidence for a steel skyscraper, collapsing, much less in on itself at the speed of gravity, is the three building at the WTC. So, every explanation of how this can happen WITHOUT a demolition -- needs to be proved, because there is no examples to base it on.

So because it has never happened, it couldn't happen? More "truther" logic.

[B]No. It just means you need PROOF that it can happen. If I pointed a gun at someone, and that bullet came from the gun and hurt someone else -- well, in court, I'd have to PROVE a theory that the bullet was spontaneously combusting or that a hologram made it look like the bullet came from my gun in order for people to think I didn't shoot the gun.

The ANOMALY is a freak accident. But if there is evidence of fowl play and obstruction of justice, it's hard to say that people claiming the anomaly happened don't have a burden of truth.
[/B]


>> I'm not bothering with the rest -- I've run out of time.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   


Because it is only his people who could have stopped NORAD and the airforce from taking down planes that are hijacked for an hour.


They weren't stopped...they didn't get to the planes in time.

>> Arg. Gee, I guess nobody stopped the planes but somehow they flew out into the ocean to look for planes flying into tall buildings. We've been over this -- the freak occurrence of Dick Cheney involved in ANY exercise or terrorist meeting on record, all happened to be on 9/11 and he was involved in 5 mock exercises of terrorist flying planes into buildings.

Fine! The planes were not stopped in mid air from moving. There just weren't any available, and they sent a crop duster from miles away when an F-15 could make the trip in 15 minutes. And everyone was confused. And then apparently, we hear from the Pentagon, that they can't track planes in our airspace.

Wow, Trillions of dollars in the cold war to fight the USSR -- I suppose nobody thought they'd fly planes over here.

How dumb does the government think we are -- and PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.

[QUOTE]Source, please [/QUOTE]
Google it yourself, I cant' turn this into a book. It takes enough time just pointing out the logic errors and rebutting your misused logical fallacy assertions -- as I will point out again below.

[QUOTE]
Only our government could have covered up the fact that explosives were used in the investigation of the ruins.

Argument from personal belief
[/QUOTE]
>> If demolition charges were used, There would be evidence. Did Bin Laden or the Saudis conduct the investigation and cleanup of ground Zero? Did they clean up and re-sod the lawn at the Pentagon?

Do I need to link to WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION.

It's pretty hard to cover up explosives -- but if you ship all the steel in the building to China and recycle it immediately, when there was a hire bidder for the scrap in New Jersey -- well, that would do it.

And please, google about the WTC steel disposal -- don't trust me on this "opinion."

Yes, it is a personal belief, because I BELIEVE I read that our government, is actually in this country, and it investigated the WTC disaster and did not use the FBI.

[QUOTE]Ergo, either it fell due to fire, or it fell due to demolition.

False dilemma. [/QUOTE]

OK, you come up with another possibility. YOU say it fell by fire, I say by demolition. Do I hear anyone for termites?

Again, it's not a false dilemma, or a false argument, or false dichotomy, because I'm NOT contending that it has to be something I believe or something ridiculous -- like you've done when talking about the Chinese fire, or that I was making a fallacy by referring to Bush's credibility and prior crimes. Rush Limbaugh does this all the time; he proposes his idea, and the puts forth the most ludicrous idea for his fantasy Liberal, it also might be called a "Straw Man Argument."

Either Bush was protecting America, or we were under Alien Attack.

NOW THAT, is a straw man argument. Like "With us or against us" -- or "Your search for truth is helping the enemy."

For this to be a Straw Man Argument, you have to find some other more plausible possibility for the collapse. So Fire, or Demolition, or WHAT? Please, feel free to add something to my simplistic two options. I kind of left out acoustic resonance with delayed failure due to high speed impact -- but maybe you wouldn't.


Thank you. In the future please be sure to research your claims before just repeating what someone else said.

I would never use anything from the Moussoui case as "EVIDENCE." I don't re-research every claim I make because that is tedious. The "flight manifests" were never around years ago. They only got pulled out from all the secret evidence for that case -- and I don't know if they would survive a REAL COURT.

You've got a hundred assertions now, that I've torn to pieces. I thought you'd appreciate someone honestly throwing you a bone.

If I continue with this, I might get personal. I don't think you ever admit anything-- and breeze on through to the next weakest point you think you can score on, and you have an agenda here. Bigger men can admit they are wrong. You ignore all the larger points, and then don't admit when you have a point that doesn't make sense -- as most of them don't.

>> You may SAY you are not supporting Bush's government -- we hear that all the time from people who go right ahead and support him. But there are only two options: Either the planes brought down the WTC, or our government covered up who did it. And that would mean, two planes brought down 3 buildings or they Made It Happen On Purpose, or Let It Happen On Purpose.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


I gave you a star because of a worthly explanation and view. I am in the middle with all this, logic says one thing and conspiracy says another along with many other theories.


Hey thanks.

I don't even know how to STAR someone.

I'm trying really hard to only deal with what can be proven and disproved. It really is hard, because all the sources are not from the disaster. You also have a criminal justice system, which has been subverted -- and to say that, for some people I still have to provide proof.

I'm sitting here, reading the web, and I'm required to prove every last detail, beyond a shadow of a doubt, when the dang thing was destroyed, and the people I think did it investigated the crime. Then, they have people who like the Strong Man government, or may just get paid like Big Tobacco used to do.

Really, the best defense so far, is; "such a conspiracy cannot be this large, because we would have figured it out by now." And here I am, some dweeb on the internet saying; Hey, I think I see what is wrong here -- look a this and this. Obviously, for a good percentage of the population -- they didn't get away with the conspiracy.

But hey, I guess Big Tobacco didn't hire thousands of doctors to confuse the issue about Nicotine causing cancer. How did any countries get turned into fascists states like Chile, Italy and Germany, without a CONSPIRACY with many players?

And I get this argument on Above Top Secret -- oh the irony.

I'm not the guy here posting that I saw a flying saucer, lizard man or chem-trail. I think all these things are entertaining and keep an open mind. I only report what my eyes and my logic give me the best evidence for -- and only the good stuff.

>> I'd appreciate someone trying to HONESTLY poke holes in my points. It is tiresome dealing with the questions designed to distract. That really got me ANNOYED, that this other guy is saying my assertion that if a Demolition happened then the Government would have to have covered it up. I mean, if we can't fricken' assume, that some basic "either or" when we saw the Government involved in the investigation -- then it is no longer a serious discussion amongst adults.

I'm a 44 year-old guy, who never got involved in conspiracies until AFTER 9/11. I had to re-examine a lot of things I thought I KNEW. Then, to have to deal with claims lumping in EVERYONE with questions, with the one guy who saw Big Foot (which was only claimed by an anti-truther, by the way), well it is kind of maddening.

Whether right or wrong. I think that a lot of people arguing FOR the Government's theory (and let's be honest, THEY are accusing Al Qaeda and saying the planes caused the collapse), have an emotional attachment to the idea that Governments don't do this kind of thing. Because it is kind of the bedrock of society. We work hard, we keep our nose clean, and we make a better life.

There is a Libertarian or Free-Market world view, that gets destroyed if businesses make profits by ignoring health standards when regulators aren't looking. Try proving to some people that mercury in the corn syrup is bad for you. It's the same thing with Global Warming. And anything that challenges the Big Business is Good For You world view.

Now, if Obama has a building collapse on his watch -- IN MY OPINION AND FROM MY EXPERIENCE, IT IS LIKELY these same people will be pushing for a trial immediately, because of course, Obama is a Socialist, and anyone against big business is suspect until proven innocent. I'm not talking about every Conservative or Libertarian -- just many of the ones who blog all the time and follow Rush Limbaugh and people of his world view.

>> So, when you are looking at the rationale of the discussion -- pay attention to the psychology as well.

You also have folks who HAVE to assume every vapor trail is something more than what it is -- but that is another crowd, and they don't seem to get as much fervent opposition as people who challenge the status quo.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by KonigKaos
 


Hey genius...WTC tower 7 was NOT hit by a plane and only had fires on 6-8 floors and it collapsed into its own footprint.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I found a lot of pictures recent to the day of the collapse here. Not much I can see really stands out as suspicious, but there is concrete dust everywhere and in one picture, it shows huge pieces of concrete that landed on cars and the concrete appears to be blackened and burned?

Here's more pictures taken by FEMA, a couple hundred of both the Pentagon and WTC aftermath. The WTC pictures were taken on 09/13 and one in particular looks a little suspicious.

Notice the red residue on the metal and the slight black color to the right of it. There is also black residue on the bottom of the other metal piece sticking up.



I also found this site showing proof of hotspots on 9/16 under all three towers and a photo proving there was molten steel under tower 1 two months later.

Photo of molten steel at ground zero



Satellite thermal imagery showing hot spots under all three towers on 09/16




Worker Frank Selecchia



who took this picture two months after 9/11 of molten steel being extracted from under tower 1




To Vitriol, you are good at explaining things and deserve all those stars you get. I understand why you get so frustrated and that emotion was what made me jump into the discussion but alas, this information hasn't been fresh in my mind for a couple years now which kinda left me unprepared. I actually almost posted before I first did, but I didn't because I hesitated to get involved in it and you touched on a couple of the things I had in that original post. Keep it up since it's obviously fresh in your mind and you are well spoken.

By the way, you give stars to people by clicking the empty "star" in the top left corner of the post. A filled-in blue star represents a star that another poster has given you.


Edited to add:

Seismic activity showing 2.1 and 2.3 earthquakes just as the towers started to collapse.



Source


[edit on 13-2-2009 by Kratos1220]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

>> Which is attached to the core before a floor lands on it. Is this too complicated? At some point, you have to talk about the core. Either it gets pulled down with the floor -- meaning the bolts are attached, or it breaks the bolts and it is still standing.



Or....

The core, when it buckled, pulled down the floors.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kratos1220
 


Now those beams aren't really molten now are they? Come now, if they were, then that scooper wouldnt have been able to pick it up. No what you have is red hot steel being pulled from inside, which probably was exposed to chemical reactions unrelated to thermite reactions.

More info found here!
Molten Iron



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Right. But the concrete in the floors of the WTC was suspended. There were some I-beams between the floors added for some support and stiffness -- but the concrete floors with steel beams in them, were suspended between the curtain wall and the core.

Therefore, they are only stiffening the structure -- no concrete is holding it up. If the concrete gets weakened -- it can crumble away -- you still have the steel beams on the flooring and the structure still stands. You would, however, leave a very large mess for the cleaning crew the next day.

Without a demolition of some kind, the WTC would have had to be closed down for at least a month to renovate three or four floors. And perhaps only 500 people would have lost their lives.


We can see here the floor truss connections, and after seeing this, it does give a clearer reason as to why the floors failed.



There was also evidence of sheering of the bolts and even the entire seat on which rested the top of the truss cord was seen to be completely sheered off in the collapse.

Also, evidence of exterior columns bending in prior to collapse:





Floor sag:



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

>> Which is attached to the core before a floor lands on it. Is this too complicated? At some point, you have to talk about the core. Either it gets pulled down with the floor -- meaning the bolts are attached, or it breaks the bolts and it is still standing.



Or....

The core, when it buckled, pulled down the floors.


>> That would pretty much support the demolition theory. Only in a total fantasy world can two 14' engines, tear through 17 steel tubes larger than they are -- with enough energy but not so much that we don't see them shooting out the other side. And do it evenly, such that no side has any support remaining.

The last time I saw something like that, it was Wiley E. Coyote, being launched by rocket into a tree. An entire trunk of a giant Redwood was knocked out, and the entire tree, branches and all, fell straight down on the would-be eater of Road Runners. I think that has GOT to be the best visual, for the idea of a Plane knocking out the core and having everything crash straight down on itself. Of course, there is a bit more realism in the Bugs Bunny cartoon, because the tree trunk has to be ejected from ground zero -- it doesn't remain to occupy the same space.

Even if you pull down the core -- you've got twenty stories collapsing 10 to 20 feet. That isn't a significant amount of the building to cause failure. And I noticed that the upper 20 stories were turning to dust as they fell.

Even if the core near the strike point collapses -- it doesn't effect the lower core -- it would pull to one side at least and not go straight into the core which is the point of most resistance.

You aren't adding any weight with a collapse of a few floors to the core. IF the core broke just there and NOT at the base of the tower -- you would have the top 20 floors topple to one side -- because both chunks of core are still rigid. You constantly have the issue of a core that has no reason to break -- much less be crushed and shredded into itself.

I seriously cannot understand how people can visualize such a non-possible event.

You are balanced on a pole, the top of the pole breaks for some reason and you fall off the pole to one side or another -- not ram right down through it at free-fall speed. You topple. Or you lose your grip and slide down the pole. That's kind of a simple analogy. But dang, the building is supporting all this weight already. NOTHING HAPPENED to the lower floors from the plane strike. The fire was only THEORETICALLY hotter than a normal office fire for 15 minutes.

Again, with a cutting torch, I have to have a LOT MORE HEAT than the melting point, to cut steel. If I just have some temperature NEAR the melting point, I have to wait a LONG TIME, to have the heat transfer through the body of the iron beam. I could never cut it, or weaken it, evan AT THE MELTING POINT OF STEEL. A real engineer can probably explain this better. The smaller the fire, the higher the temperature needs to be to damage or cut the metal.

But even to weaken it with a big fire, it would take many more hours. Steel doesn't weaken until near its melting point -- and damn sure not critically.

A simple test for steel, would be to put a bar into furnace -- but the problem here is, you have a heat load many times greater for that little bar than you do in a building. The building transmits the heat away. Notice again the China office fire -- burning for 20 hours -- it takes a while for the heat load to critically damage the structure -- that fire was probably hotter for a longer period than the one at WTC.

>> And the point about the construction of the WTC. When the main architect/engineer who designed it said that he designed it with regards to plane impacts, but nobody bothered to account for the jet fuel -- well, that was AFTER 9/11. He at first said some very unkind things, and then later recanted, and gave that statement. It would be clearer to say, they probably discounted Jet Fuel, because it wasn't hot enough, nor would one or two jets have enough fuel to provide enough HEAT LOAD, to weaken the structure.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kratos1220
 


Starred then. Thanks for the kind words. Occasionally, it is good to get some recognition, rather than the constant barrage of "you said its own footprint -- it was clearly 50 yards wider than its own footprint."

There is SO much to talk about and document, that it could be a full time job for 10 people. I have a link and a good document to everything I've said -- but heck, how do you search for "WTC designed for three simultaneous plane strikes?" Its all generic words -- I have it on a backup hard drive somewhere.

By the time you go back and get your dang "research" which nobody pays you for and I've got clients to make happy,... the annoying PBCTA, Pro-Bush Coincidence Theory Advocates are moving on anyway to whatever low hanging fruit. Because really, either its a fire or the Big Gov did it (or at least covered it up).

>> Did you not notice that circular discussion about the core? Is it just me, or is it not just an either/or question: Either the floors collapsed on each other (pancake) and tore away from the Core LEAVING IT STANDING, or they did not, and therefore could not have had a total failure. Can you see any other option? The reply, always seems to be, re-explaining the initial theory of one floor not being able to hold three floors -- yeah, duh.

>> That molten steel can't be explained -- not even by a traditional Demolition using Thermite or Thermate. I can't mess with it too much, because it would probably mean mentioning some really fancy device -- and of course, that would mean you were supporting the Chewbacca theory.

>> I've seen other seismic activity charts -- they were obviously from further away because the collapse was not a significant blip. However -- any idea of what power those spikes represent? It's also very, very important to get the timing -- if the spike peaks before the collapse or after. Personally, I don't think there was a huge detonation -- just set off a charge to start the thermate on the core, and then another to jolt the core off its base a few minutes later to get it to PULL the building downward -- 30 seconds after the center falls, the detonations from top down begin -- so at that point, a lot of very small shaped charges to cut the remainder of supports and dice up the core.

>> Were you a first responder, by the way?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Kratos1220
 


Now those beams aren't really molten now are they? Come now, if they were, then that scooper wouldnt have been able to pick it up. No what you have is red hot steel being pulled from inside, which probably was exposed to chemical reactions unrelated to thermite reactions.

More info found here!
Molten Iron



Who do you think you're kidding? You can see it dripping off the bottom of the mass the crane has a hold of, dripping down.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I think the most important facts when comparing the two buildings:


The 34-storey TVCC, which required 92,000 sq m of external and internal Rheinzink cladding, consists of a 1,500-seat theatre, audio recording studios, digital cinemas, news release and a five-star hotel with ballroom and function facilities and a generous spa. The hotel tower was designed as a reinforced concrete frame plus core.


www.gulfconstructionworldwide.com...


That does make a difference. Thanks for the information. I should learn not to just take other people's word for it.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Kratos1220
 


Now those beams aren't really molten now are they? Come now, if they were, then that scooper wouldnt have been able to pick it up. No what you have is red hot steel being pulled from inside, which probably was exposed to chemical reactions unrelated to thermite reactions.

More info found here!
Molten Iron




ARG!

Red hot steel is still solid. Yellow hot steel is melting. The little bits of spray coming off that steel, is YELLOW HOT -- hence, dripping down. The scooper is picking up a big chunk of metal, some of which is cool and exposing, a HOT CHEWY CENTER.

"which probably was exposed to chemical reactions unrelated to thermite reactions."
If you say so.

Really, I wouldn't be surprised if there were nuclear reactions -- what the hell keeps steel molten a month later?

Can you find anything, theoretically, that could have been in the WTC that would do that? How does this support the two planes knock down 3 buildings theory?

It's this stuff right there that breeds conspiracy theories. I'm sure Team Bush is still kicking themselves for making it fall so perfectly -- but Demolition crews do have their pride, I'm sure they are proud as hell of the WTC demolition. Next time they do this, they will make it fall over, and take a lot longer to collapse -- to add some realism.

Dang, and letting people get video footage of that molten lava. Right, that was caused by jet fuel.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join