It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 23
16
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 04:25 PM

There was no angular momentum. There was nothing acting upon the side of the building. Simply because something appears to be at an angle does not mean something is acting upon one of the sides.

You say an hour was not enough, why? The amount of time would be a function on the amount of energy available and the amount of deformation requried to initiate failure. What exactly were these two factors? You obviously know because you know the solution to the problem does not equaly 60 minutes.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 10:14 PM

Anything that is in the process of rotating about a point has angular momentum. Which means all forces acting on the object, in this case we agree gravity, is causing the object to rotate, tilt, about an point or fulcrum, the tilting will not stop unless something causes it to. It cannot change it's mind and suddenly go down UNLESS the resistance holding the point of rotation is removed. In the case of WTC the whole lower building was removed, as we can see by the action of the top which suddenly falls straight down following the buildings collapse, into the path of most resistance. If ONLY the point of rotation failed, a good possibility, then the collapse would NOT have been symmetrical but we would have seen the top start to drop AND CONTINUE it's angular momentum and an asymmetrical collapse would have ensued, not a global symmetrical collapse. The top would have fell as a whole taking SOME of the top of the building around the pivot point with it.

We're back to chaotic events expecting to be non chaotic in outcome. Three buildings ALL falling completely and symmetrically on the same day from similar events is not chaotic.

Go get yourself a piece of construction steel and fuel (reg gasoline will do as it burns hotter than jet fuel and thus works in YOUR favour), and try to see if you can get it malleable enough in an hour to be able to cause it change it's strength.

OR explain how thermal energy transfers, thanx...

Because having said all that you have yet to prove and explain how office fires, fueled by whatever, can transfer enough thermal energy to the steel to cause complete and sudden failure, in an hour no less. Try the experiment for yourself, that is what science is all about, learning from doing, go do it or otherwise you'll just go on repeating stuff you obviously know nothing about, your post proves it.

[edit on 1/26/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 10:23 PM

It was far more than just floors crashing on floors as the entire top section including all vertical structural components (47 columns + outer wall sections + floors) fell through the full length of the building. Resistance was plainly evident in that the acceleration was not freefall 9.8m/s^2 but the resistance wasn't all that much because the only components opposing that falling mass were the floors and they've been shown to be incapable of arresting the collapse. If just a floor or even several floors had collapsed leaving the core and outer walls intact I very much doubt the collapse would have progressed beyond a few floors if at all.

You are expecting a symmetrical collapse from a chaotic event. Impossible.

Obviously not impossible and the symmetry of the building is what influenced the outcome although the start of collapse was chaotic in the region where damage was chaotic (impact & fires). Part of the problem in your analysis of angular momentum is over-generalising the building into contiguous blocks (upper & lower).

How much lateral movement would be necessary for the core columns to be no longer in alignment leaving the now buckled as well as impact damaged external walls as the only vertical support available?
I estimate just a foot or two would be sufficient.

BTW can you explain thermal energy and how it's transferred

If you're talking about conduction, convection, radiation, thermal resistance and conductivity, curie point of steel, inverse square law etc etc I'm aware of the principles involved but it's only going to be significant in the immediate vicinity of energetic fires and moreso where sensitive material has its fireproofing damaged. The only place fitting that description is in the impact zone which is where the collapse started. The rest of the structure was relatively unaffected, if at all, by heat.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It was far more than just floors crashing on floors as the entire top section including all vertical structural components (47 columns + outer wall sections + floors) fell through the full length of the building. Resistance was plainly evident in that the acceleration was not freefall 9.8m/s^2 but the resistance wasn't all that much because the only components opposing that falling mass were the floors and they've been shown to be incapable of arresting the collapse.

WHY are you talking as if the weight of the entire upper part of the building would be applied only to the FLOORS? Do you really not realize how asinine it is to assume that? The ONLY thing the floors were supporting was what was on top of them, which was NOT the entire upper block of building.

Also what you are suggesting is pancake collapse theory which even NIST has long refuted. Are you a conspiracy theorist too?

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 10:55 PM

You obviously are not able to look at the WTC2 collapse with any clue as to what is possibly happening. You need a little knowledge of physics to understand...

How can all the components of the top have caused this crushing when it was at an angle? You keep missing this very important point that my whole post was basically about, somehow you completely miss this important point. It's not arguable, all you come back with is misunderstandings and spin, it's fact staring right at you and waving it's arms, hey LOOK here. AGAIN for what you wanted to happen the top would have had to be sitting 'true' (do you know what that means?) not at an ANGLE.

I'm not trying to be condescending it's just frustrating you fail, or refuse to understand. Even if I am wrong, your counter arguments do not debunk what I'm saying, or even really address what I'm saying. Refusal to address my simple thermal energy question (Physics 101) shows me you can't answer it, or refuse to because you know it will contradict your claims.

When are you going to prove me wrong, and do the little experiment with the steel? Why won't you do it pilgrum. Are you just talk?

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 11:03 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Also what you are suggesting is pancake collapse theory which even NIST has long refuted. Are you a conspiracy theorist too?

Well they had to didn't they, even they realized how ridiculous a claim that was...

And anyone who still believes it obviously are not debating from any kind of knowledge, just hearsay. They think they're safe in their ridiculous claims because they have 'authority' on their side, and we've all been declared nuts by said authority for questioning (we're conditioned not to question, but except 'authority' and their claims as the last word).

...And they wonder why they're labeled 'sheep'.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:08 AM

God, I love this "office fire" stuff. As if fire is cooler and doesn't do any damage if you put the word "office" in front of it.

A "piece of construction steel"?????? What the hell is that? That can range anywhere from a piece of 1" channel iron to a 4' box beam. But I guess in the world of cool "office fires" it doesn't make any difference. And who said you had to heat the "construction steel" until it was maleable?

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by hooper
God, I love this "office fire" stuff. As if fire is cooler and doesn't do any damage if you put the word "office" in front of it.

Too bad experts agree the smoke from the fires meant that they were oxygen starved.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:41 PM

Malleable simply means the steel would bend, or disform, as it would have had to for collapse to ensue, steel doesn't stay perfectly formed until sudden failure, it will bend sag etc., as it becomes more malleable.
Steel doesn't snap from heat.

The fires WERE office fires initially fed by the jet fuel which would have burned off pretty quick as it is the KNOWN nature of fuel, it burns and evaporates very quickly, office furniture etc., takes longer.

In an ideal situation with good oxygen a carbon fire will not reach much above a cetain temp (around 800F I believe but correct me if I'm wrong). Point is fire doesn't just keep getting hotter, it will always reach a max temp and in an oxygen starved situation the fire will never reach anywhere near it's max temp. THEN the big kicker that you all fail on is HEAT TRANSFER. The heat has to transfer to all that steel, this is why your hypothesis is impossible and has never happened to steel structures EVER.

Until you can understand how thermal energy is transferred then the temps are irrelevant.

For the experiment, do I really need to tell you how to do it, do you know ANYTHING about the scientific process? Use any amount and size of steel you can find. You are just making excuses because you don't want to bother do you?

We already know an hours worth of carbon fires will not heat steel up enough to fail, please visit a foundry or something, just go work with some metal and anvil. You'll learn a lot about metal in general.

[edit on 1/27/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11

WHY are you talking as if the weight of the entire upper part of the building would be applied only to the FLOORS?

Make a horizontal slice through the towers. Now tell us the %age of the cross sections of all the columns and the floors.

I suspect that the floors will be 99%.

Therefore 99% of the falling debris will fall on the floors.

Deny the rationality of this at the expense of your credibility.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Prove that the towers were sliced, can you do that?

You must have x-ray eyes.

An aircraft then just crashed through one set of steel columns is not going to have enough energy left to go through another set of much larger columns. Ridiculous claim.

[edit on 1/27/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

You need a little knowledge of physics to understand...

Pretty funny, coming from a guy that has said in this thread that there was zero resistance to the falling debris from the towers, while at the same time doesn't realize that if the debris accelerated at less than g, that there was indeed resistance.

Guess we now know just how much physics knowledge YOU have now, eh mate?

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:55 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Prove that the towers were sliced, can you do that?

You misunderstand a lot of things, don't ya?

I'm giving him an exercise so that he can prove to himself that a vast majority of falling debris would fall on the floors.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Don't be silly, the fact that the towers collapse wave was accelerating and not slowing proves there was no resistance.

You have no idea what I am talking about, WTC2 simply proves you wrong, you just don't understand it, or don't want to. If you did you would reply with an intelligent knowledgeable response but instead you make baseless claims and unwarranted insults.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Don't be silly, the fact that the towers collapse wave was accelerating and not slowing proves there was no resistance.

You ran away from this a week ago.

Do you understand the difference between:

1- a falling object encountering no resistance will accelerate at freefall.

2- a falling object encountering some resistance, but less than required to arrest its momentum, will accelerate at less than freefall

3- a falling object encountering sufficent resistance to overcome its momentum will decelerate.

Which applies to the collapse front during the collapse?

Which applies to the ext columns during the collapse?

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 03:14 PM

Malleable simply means the steel would bend, or disform, as it would have had to for collapse to ensue, steel doesn't stay perfectly formed until sudden failure, it will bend sag etc., as it becomes more malleable. Steel doesn't snap from heat.

First, steel deforms not disforms (not even sure that is a word, but whatever). Second, what do you think happens internally in a structure when two pieces are joined and then all of sudden when one of the pieces which was 21'-3 1/8" becomes 21'-6 1/4"? What happens to that force?

The fires WERE office fires initially fed by the jet fuel

Yeah, just one of those typical jet fuel "office" fires. Happens all the time.

oxygen starved situation

Tell me how a fire, raging in a building 1000' in the air, with a huge hole in the side is "oxygen starved"?

We already know an hours worth of carbon fires will not heat steel up enough to fail

We do??? Define "fail". Wouldn't fail be defined by mission?

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 03:19 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

In an ideal situation with good oxygen a carbon fire will not reach much above a cetain temp (around 800F I believe but correct me if I'm wrong).

What are you on about now? Why would anyone go test steel themselves when there are professional firms that do this for us?

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Hmmm, looks like about 900C in 45 minutes.

These are real tests, and are done for the sole intent of enhancing the knowledge of structural and fire engineers.

If you think that you're onto something with the whole thermal conductivity claim, feel free to show your work.

Failure to do so is an admission that you know NOT of what you speak.....

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by REMISNE

Too bad experts agree the smoke from the fires meant that they were oxygen starved.

This would be bad for the building:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

"Fire tests were conducted in compartments where the fire load and the natural ventilation were varied. The well ventilated compartments experienced lower temperatures and fires of shorter duration. In Figure 2 the numbers identified with each curve indicate the fire load density in kg/m2 (ie 60, 30 or 15) and the ventilation area as a proportion of the façade area (ie ½ or ¼)."

Fig 2:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

"Ventilated" or "Oxygen Rich?" There is a difference between feeding a fire oxygen and just blowing air past it, through it, whatever. Different type of building as well.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Lillydale

"Ventilated" or "Oxygen Rich?" There is a difference between feeding a fire oxygen and just blowing air past it, through it, whatever. Different type of building as well.

And despite your objections, fire engineers and fire fighters won't give your personal incredulity a second thought. Instead, they'll rely on this type of information.

Case in point - fire fighters will ventilate buildings that are on fire. Counterintuitive you might think, why would they give the smoke and oxygen poor heated air a way out, and let frsh air in. Wouldn't it increase the heat release rate? Yep. So why do they do it then? Cuz they know better and reject your wrong ideas.

Do you ever wonder why that is?

Or is that too scary to contemplate?

new topics

top topics

16