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.

 

FEMA:WTC3 should be studied further to see how it resisted progressive collapse.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I thought this was the understatement of the year, considering that you had WTC7 much further away and it appears to have suffered less damage than WTC3. Yet WTC7 progressively collapsed.

WTC3 was impacted by large chunks of WTC2 when it collapsed. The pieces that fell on to it crushed 16 stories but the building was able to resist collapse further at the 7th floor. Unlike the mysteriously missing photos of WTC7 damage, there are clear photos of not only the damage occurring but what it looked like afterwards. A few firefighters lives were saved during the collapse of WTC2 due to WTC3's robustness and its ability to resist failure, even after fires were burning(from f11) and the debris from WTC2 collapsing the entire middle of it.

Then WTC1 collapses this time covering the entire building with a large amount of debris, causing WTC3 to collapse even further. Still the building was able to save more firefighters and PA officers on the first floor b/c the building did not give way and collapse completely.

This FEMA report details all of this www.fema.gov...

You can't help but wonder why WTC7 did not perform similarly to WTC3 or why parts of the collapsing WTC3 were able to break away from the rest of the building and why the building below the collapse was able to stop the total collapse of the structure. Why did these buildings perform so differently on 9/11 after it would seem the one with worse damage didn't collapse and the one with seemingly less damage completely collapsed?




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Or WTC4, 5, and 6. (Especially WTC5.)

They all also suffered much more impact damages and more visibly intense fire (not just hypothetically intense, as in, we see SOME fire, but there *obviously* must have been much more
) than WTC7.













About half of the building in the last photo (WTC4) was completely destroyed by falling debris:



Look at the original shape of WTC4:




Anyone who will say the buildings' weight were a factor (ie WTC7 collapsed because it was heavier
), or any other layman answer, need to save their breath, or look up with a design factor is. Bigger buildings are ALWAYS stronger, unless you are talking about a bunker or something (and hey, there WAS a bunker in WTC7!!). There is no way in hell they would use equally-sized or even smaller columns and beams in WTC7 than in the smaller buildings. All load-bearing capacities are at least proportional, if not greater in larger skyscrapers.

No one wants to compare these fires to the WTC7 fire:








...because there is obviously nothing to compare.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Different designs, different loads, different everything. A "tube-in-tube" design will behave much differently than a traditional steel frame built building.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Different designs, different loads, different everything. A "tube-in-tube" design will behave much differently than a traditional steel frame built building.


Right, and 3 collapses with only 2 planes and each one near free-fall or close enough. Not at all believable. Sorry it isn't.

Perhaps, having the CIA in Bldg-7 was a factor...



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Different everything. Of course, of course, everything is different about those buildings.

There is really no point in even studying them, because it's not like you can apply anything you learn to any other buildings. Ever.


Edit to add, FEMA might as well scrap the idea of studying WTC3. There is no point, just ask the General here. When things are different you can't compare them. End of discussion. End.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The 1993 WTC bombing heavily damaged WTC 3 (then known as the
Vista Hotel, later purchased by Marriott) - the truck bomb went off
right under the building.

To reinforce the building after the bombing additional steel bracing
was installed .

Some 40 FDNY members died in WTC 3 while evacuating it and other buildings in WTC complex.

Here are excerpts from report on WTC 3



The primary structural frame of WTC 3 was composed of rolled, wide-flange structural steel columns, floor beams, and girders. The column grid for the building consisted of approximately twelve 26-foot-wide bays in the north-south direction with non-typical bays at the south end of the building and at the location of the plan angle change. In the east-west direction, there were three bays with column spacings of 18 feet 9-7/8 inches, 22 feet 6 inches, and 18 feet 9-3/4 inches. Steel columns were standard wide-flange W14-series shapes throughout (up to W14x500 at the 2nd floor). Details of column splices were not indicated on the structural design drawings.





The response of WTC 3 to the September 11 events is complex and noteworthy. WTC 3 was subjected to two loading events. The first event involved the collapse of WTC 2, which stood immediately east of WTC 3. Due to its proximity to WTC 2, substantial amounts of debris fell directly on the roof of WTC 3. Figure 3-6 shows large portions of the prefabricated assemblies from WTC 2 falling on top of WTC 3.

Debris from WTC 2 struck the building with sufficient force to crush approximately 16 stories in the center of the building, as shown in Figure 3-7. In spite of this extensive damage, the collapse did not continue down to the foundations or extend horizontally to the edges of the structure. In fact, the two northernmost bays (approximately 60 feet) remained intact all the way to the roof. A similar, but lesser condition existed in the southern bays. Even in the center of the building, the collapse stopped at approximately the 7th floor. This arrested collapse implies that the structure was sufficiently strong and robust to absorb the energy of the falling debris and collapsed floors, but at the same time the connections between the destroyed and remaining framing were able to break apart without pulling down the rest of the structure. This complex behavior resulted in the survival of large portions of the building following the collapse of WTC 2.




WTC 3 was subjected to extraordinary loading from the impact and weight of debris from the two adjacent 110-story towers. It is noteworthy that the building resisted both horizontal and vertical progressive collapse when subjected to debris from WTC 2. The overloaded portions were able to break away from the rest of the structure without pulling it down, and the remaining structural system was able to remain stable and support the debris load. The structure was even capable of protecting occupants on lower floors after the collapse of WTC 1.




WTC 3 should be studied further to understand how it resisted progressive collapse.



Here is link to report on 1993 bombing by US Fire Administration

www.docstoc.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Different designs, different loads, different everything. A "tube-in-tube" design will behave much differently than a traditional steel frame built building.


Yes General, I believe you are referring to the towers when you say "tube in tube" but I was comparing WTC3(or the ones BSBray referred to) ability to resist a progressive collapse after sustaining severe damage. Unlike WTC7, which appeared to be slightly damaged and furtherest away, yet progressively collapsed.

I don't understand why you Debunkers wish to end any discussion of anything 9/11. Especially, when even your own idols: FEMA admits it should be studied further. Why is that?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Edman, Are you basically trying to say that the reason why WTC3 did not progressively collapse was due to the additional bracing added after the 93 attack?

The FEMA report I linked to(from which you quoted from) also details exactly what was done to the WTC3 after the 93 bombing. I would and do think that if FEMA had come to the conclusion that the additional bracing was the reason why WTC3 was able to resist a complete progressive collapse they would have said so. They certainly would not say it needs further study if it was as simple as the additional bracing that prevented a progressive collapse.

Besides, I believe that the additional bracing was totally destroyed upon collapse of tower one but as your quote and mine say WTC3 was still able to resist complete collapse and save some firefighters and PA officers lives that were on the first floor looking for stragglers/survivors.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join