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 construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 16
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


As stated previously, the need for this to be done on the exact impact floors is a moot point.

But, I'll admit that I may be mistaken about the floors at the impact zones being locked.

Care to comment on floor 34 and Rodriguez's testimony?

I believe 34 is a mechanical floor if I'm not mistaken.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
"Special hydraulics" technology, which was installed secretly (by israely secret agents possing as art students), IN THE SPECIFIC FLOORS that were to be hit by the hijacked airliners.


Please quote me as saying this or admit that you are building your own strawman.


1.-) Why was it decided to apply this new technology at different heights in each tower??


Who said it was at different heights? Personally, I would place them at the mechanical floors of both towers.


2.-) How was it that the planes hit exactly at the floors were the hidraulics were previously installed??


All the planes had to do was hit above the mechanical floors.


3.-) How come the hydraulics equipment wasn´t damaged or rendered not operational after the crash and fires??


Because the crash and fires weren't on the mechanical floors.


Now, not everything is a waste. The videos of the "verinage" technique actually demonstrate one thing the "truthers" have been claiming impossible:

That a big enough top portion of a building will have enough destructive force to take out the lower portion of same building.


A couple things:

1. I am not a "truther", therefore I have never stated that the block couldn't do what is said it could do.

2. What I find impossible is NIST's explanation of how this happened...i.e. the exterior being pulled inwards by the trusses. Until of course they can demostrate this in a lab setting.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





Care to comment on floor 34 and Rodriguez's testimony?


Which version?

And which of the Towers had its collapse initiate on the 34th floor?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Which version?


The version that has never changed where he describes the 34th floor.


And which of the Towers had its collapse initiate on the 34th floor?


I guess you missed the part where I stated they don't have to be on the impact floors and could be on any floor....including the mechanical floors? Or are you just being silly for the sake of it?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


So a hydraulic system, on the 34th floor, is going to cause a building to fail 600 feet above the system and not give any outward signs on the 34th. Color me a citizen of Missouri on that one.......



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
BTW. I never said this was my pet theory. Only a possibility.

One only needs to dislodge the columns enough to cause failure of one story to cause a destructive collapse. Whether that was due to plane impact and resulting fires, I am totally open to.

But, this also means that the entire tower need not be "wired" (pick your favorite type of demolition technique).



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So a hydraulic system, on the 34th floor, is going to cause a building to fail 600 feet above the system and not give any outward signs on the 34th. Color me a citizen of Missouri on that one.......


What do you propose it would look like on a day like 9/11?

I thought I remembered reports of internal collapses?

Especially WTC 7. I know you'll claim I'm going off topic, but 7 applies as well. And even more so, since it only took ONE column in that building to fell the rest.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Now this new "hydraulic technique" is also applied to WTC 7.
I was starting to wonder why this was taking so long.

Well Nutter, sorry but you are wrong.
There are plenty of videos of the WTC towers collapses, and it can clearly be seen in them that there´s nothing going on around the 34th floor at the moment of each collapse.
Sorry if I don´t post the source, but I´m sure you can check it out.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Now this new "hydraulic technique" is also applied to WTC 7.
I was starting to wonder why this was taking so long.


At least this new hydraulic technique has precidence. Unlike NIST's new theory.



There are plenty of videos of the WTC towers collapses, and it can clearly be seen in them that there´s nothing going on around the 34th floor at the moment of each collapse.
Sorry if I don´t post the source, but I´m sure you can check it out.


Who's to say you would see anything? Remember that it is 30 and 60 feet away from the exterior, shielded by the exterior, and there are "squibs" seen in videos at the mechanical floors during collapse.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by the eyes have it !!
 


So are you going to answer my question, regarding your claim that there was enough energy in the fires to cause global collapse of the three buildings?

You made this claim, I ask you to explain how it is possible, and you reply with nonsense ignoring the point of the question completely.

Do you realise you have zero credibility here? You're ignoring a very basic request that someone who was genuine would jump to answer, as it would strengthen their argument. By ignoring it you just prove that your full of it and have no real idea what you're talking about.

Same with the rest of the debunkers who always when pushed into a corner with questions they can't answer revert back to 'Are you forgetting there was a plane crash?'. When you know very well that we have accounted for the plane impact.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Also, the guy who claims that a third of one building's power was out the weekend before claims he heard it on the upper floors. I can't remember his name or I'd look up his testimony.


He lied, there is evidence of tickets that people were up on the roof when he claimed the power was shut off, also he is the only person who knew about it!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Why would he lie?

Not saying you're wrong, I have no idea, but what would his motivation be to lie?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Apparently you are not too familiar with physics as you think. When the WTCs collapsed, where the hell else would they go once collapse starts? Up? Sideways? No, it goes down according to gravity. The WTCs collapsed from the top down, and partly to blaim for this is the design itself of the WTC's tube-in-tube style. Are you remotely familiar with the WTC's designs? I ask this because you are acting as if every building is built the same and ergo should behave the same way. If you knew the difference between a tube-in-tube and a steel frame you would understand the different mechanisms. WTC5 and 6 were typical steel framed buildings. They didnt completely collapse but they did have substantial sector collapses.
WTC1+2 were tube-in-tube. When one floor gives way, there are NO horizontal I-beams to stop the collapse or even put up any resistance. THAT is why they appeared to collapsed "symmetrically". Floors collapsed down, the exterior columns peeled away and the core fell apart, but a large part of the core remained standing for another 15 seconds after the main initial collapse. You call that controlled? The collapses started where? Where you saw the exterior columns bending inward. You show me what type of magical explosives go off silently and cause exterior columns to bend inwards slowly prior to collapse? What caused the inward bending? The floor trusses as they sagged from the heat of the fires. You should take some time to read up on steel trusses and the fire dangers associated with them in buildings. Once the connections failed of the trusses to the exterior and interior columns, that was it. Its coming down whether you like it or not. You try stopping thousands of tons of material when it shifts downward 10 ft. Physics right there. What was standing in the way of the moving mass above? 2" bolts and dampeners holding the trusses up. Thats it. It just sheered right down. THAT is understanding how physics works.

You say we have a lack of understanding of physics?


edit to add:

see how easy it is for a total collapse when just one floor is removed:

Just one floor removed. And lookie how it travels right through the path of "most resistance". So in your words, this should not have happened either correct?



[edit on 1/4/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


What the heck are you talking about ?

Tube in tube ?

Are you gonna say the were made of popsicle sticks next ?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Ah yes, welcome to the WTC design 101.

Yes sir, the WTC was a state-of-the-art design known as the Tube-in-Tube. Maximize your floor space with less vertical steal columns in your way. Push all of the vertical beams to the exterior and interior, forming a tube-in-tube structure. Vertical steel columns outside forming a tube, vertical steel columns arranged in a tube inside. Hence: TUBE-IN-TUBE. Inbetween, no vertical beams, no steel I-beams, nothing to get in the way. Floors? Held up by floor trusses, each connecting to the exterior and interior columns, (or exterior column trees to the interior core beams). Nothing else holding them up.

You didn't hear about that at all in any of the conspiracy sites you may have browsed through? No? That is something that is not mentioned much in the conspiracy site pages. Yeah they are pretty good at withholding important information, especially when it threatens their charade.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Not 1 skyscraper has ever, collapsed as these did due to heat or fire. And what about "building 7" No plane, very small fire and yet they "Pulled it" at 5:21pm...why? That is the big question for all you doubters out there. Building 7 is the big problem for the govt. to explain away. Why was the FEMA tent city set up the night before 9/11? 2200C is the melting point of the WTC steel supports so how could the heat melt the beams when jet fuel only burns at 500c? There so many faults with 9/11 it's laughable to believe the "official story". Reminds me of the Global Warming Scam.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


No , but I worked in Construction for quite a few years .

Never done a steel core building, Always concrete core.

But i would bet that the Steel Core would be stronger .

Link me this Tube in Tube design plz, the name itself freaks me out.

I envision cigar type hollow tubes



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Why would he lie?


He is a truther, they all lie!


Not saying you're wrong, I have no idea, but what would his motivation be to lie?


To get his picture/name on web sites etc.

Stop and think why he is the only person who knew about this "power shutdown"

[edit on 4/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Well we do know the WTC "tubes" were just vertical columns arranged in a box pattern, not in a circle tube like a cigar.
They just called it a tube-in-tube, for what reason i do not know
I guess its easier than box-in-box or whatever.

Now yes steel is stronger than just concrete, but what many overlook is the fact that the steel columns are just bolted together. The exterior and interior columns were all bolted together (save for certain sections where they needed to be bolted and welded for extra strength.) I am sure you are aware of this as well. So you also should be aware that in a catastrophic collapse, or failure, the weakest areas are the connection areas themselves and any extra overload of lateral or vertical stresses can severe the connection resulting in a continuous global failure. This is what was observed at the WTC collapses. The solid steel parts mostly stayed in one piece or were bent (depending on where they were or what hit them etc etc) but what was noticed first and foremost os that the bolts holding the ends of the steel columns failed! Snapped! Broke! Sheered off!

The core itself was just vertical steel columns that had light concrete floors for the stairwells and certain areas for more stability or support. But they were not encased in concrete. The exterior columns were actually steel column trees bolted together. A tree consisted of three vertical columns spaced evenly apart, held together by three plates horizontally placed. At each end, they were bolted in a large lattice sturcture. Together they formed the exterior "tube". I hope this is clearing up some of your misconceptions.

Edit to add! Sorry bout that forgot to add the important stuff! My bad!

en.wikipedia.org...(structure)

www.uoregon.edu...

[edit on 1/4/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


OK

i was thinking something different in my minds eye.

Actually ,a steel core building would be MUCH stronger than a concrete core

By a Lot.

Concrete core has plates poured into the concrete then the horizontal

beams are welded to them.

If the horizontal beams are bolted to the interior core , it would withstand

a hell of a lot more load!!

The floors are laid down tin (tin-pan) with usually 4000 psi floor

poured to about 6 inch depth



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join