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: 26
16
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I just asked you to explain how thermal energy is transferred,



Good for you.

I have scientific experiments that prove that heat transfers into steel quite easily. Proven.

You claim it can't happen. Therefore, it sits upon your shoulders to show it can't happen, and prove this highly respected engineering firm to be wrong.




posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The individual parts certainly did just that. Did you miss it? There was something like a 600 ft circle of debris around the tower.


Then how was there enough left to crush floors? We know most of the debris was ejected outwards (symmetrically), we know there was not enough left to cause lower floor failure. Thanx for contradicting yourself btw and proving your own hypothesis wrong.

If the building was designed to hold itself up with at least a 2x safety margin, then how did LESS floors do any crushing (hypothesis NIST rejects btw). Your 'math' is pointless.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Then show me your proof....



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

The floors were not what was supporting the building.


Correct.


Debris falling on the floors will damage the floors


Damage? Or destroy them?


but not take out the support since the floors were not the support system of the building.


True, but what would happen to the columns if the floors are destroyed, rather than just damaged? Look into Euler's buckling and what effect long unbraced lengths have.


Even if what you were trying to say was a little bit true, that would be a pancake collapse and we all know that is not what happened.


Just a little FYI, NIST ruled out on a panckae iitiation ONLY. Not a pancake pregression.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Then how was there enough left to crush floors?


It wouldn't take much.

Only a few floors worth of other floors and core clumns would pretty much do it.

I'm surprised that you didn't know this already.....



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Damage? Or destroy them?


It does not matter as the level of their damage does not change their level of support. If they do not support an upper floor when whole or damaged, I would imagine destroyed can only remain 0 or become greater. Which way would you go? I will go with 0.


True, but what would happen to the columns if the floors are destroyed, rather than just damaged? Look into Euler's buckling and what effect long unbraced lengths have.


That would depend on how they were destroyed and the forces acting upon the supports at that time. We have steel supports that should have buckled? Why?



Just a little FYI, NIST ruled out on a panckae iitiation ONLY. Not a pancake pregression.


I did not mention NIST. I was talking about anyone with eyes and a television in the last 9 years.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. The resistance of air decelerates the ball so that it is not at freefall acceleration.

Yes, in the common sense it is still accelerating because it is gaining speed versus time, but it is still also decelerating because of the air resistance.


Ok I was hoping not


But even with air resistance it will reach a terminal velocity, and it will accelerate to that terminal velocity regardless of resistance.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK do these fires look like they are cool to you?



www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...




I dont think thats a "cool" fire. Burning furniture in an office is not a hot fire? I guess you never heard of the fact that regular office fires easily reach temps of over 1300F. How about a plane crash and office fire combined over say 5-10 floors? Thats going to be a cool temp fire?
I think I just heard every firefighters' jaw drop.

I dont know about you but there isnt going to be much of a heatsink effect when you have multiple floors on fire. The heatsink effect wont do squat for the floor trusses, which will heat up faster and expand, and that cant be good for the connections at each end. Oh, and lets not forget that each floor truss connected to the exterior and interior columns with a couple 1" bolts. Say, tell me, just how much heat can rapidly transfer through a 1" bolt from a truss that is about 60ft long and is heated over most of its length? But I guess you forgot about those little guys.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Red flames are cool flames.

Second line.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Look into Euler's buckling and what effect long unbraced lengths have.


Look into verendeel trusses (exterior columns) and the core structure.

A verendeel truss gives bracing on 2 of the 4 sides. BTW, on the exterior side of the columns, there was no bracing, so that really gives 2 out of 3 sides that are still braced.

The core structure had it's own horizontal bracing. So therefore, the outer columns of the core only lost 1 out of 4 sides worth of bracing. And that is only the outer core columns connected to the floors. There were inner core columns that never lost any bracing.

You now have made a statement that the columns became unbraced enough for Euler's buckling to happen. Care to quantify your theory?



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
But even with air resistance it will reach a terminal velocity, and it will accelerate to that terminal velocity regardless of resistance.


What causes terminal velocity? The deceleration component of the air resistance and friction.

Again, please look up vectors and learn to use them.

The sum of the accelerations/decelerations may be in the positive, but that does not discount that the resistance is causing deceleration at the same time.

If not, nothing would reach a terminal velocity but keep on accelerating.

BTW, terminal velocity means zero acceleration in common terms but in physics terms the body is still undergoing acceleration from gravity and deceleration from air resistance. The air resistance grows while the velocity of the body grows until the resistance (deceleration) is equal to 9.83 m/s/s, thus cancelling out the acceleration due to gravity. But, since the body is already in motion, it continues it's velocity at a constant rate (terminal velocity).

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
ANOK do these fires look like they are cool to you?


Of course not and is a loaded question.

What is ment by "oxygen starved, cooler fires" is not that the fire is cool.

It means that the fire burns cooler than optimum....i.e. yellow/orange rather than blue/white flame.

Edit: Lilly beat me to it.
Lilly.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

It does not matter as the level of their damage does not change their level of support.


I think we're having a communication problem, I'll try to be clearer. If the floors are destroyed by the falling debris, then the debris continues its descent. I'm sure you'd agree?

And if the floors are now gone, they can no longer brace the columns that they were formally attached to. Agree?



That would depend on how they were destroyed and the forces acting upon the supports at that time.We have steel supports that should have buckled? Why?


2 reasons:

a) with the floors destroyed and removed, the columns are no longer braced, making them more unstable.Agree?

b) if the columns weren't fatally damaged by the falling debris, then even if they're still holding some weight, the length of the now-lesser-braced columns can collapse easier under load. Understand?



I did not mention NIST. I was talking about anyone with eyes and a television in the last 9 years.


If you agree that 99% of the debris MUST have fallen on the floors, then the first things to fail under a natural collapse conditions would have been the floors. Then followed by columns. Agree?

I'm curious though. Do you REALLY expect to see floors neatly stacked on top of each other after a 110 story fall?

Nobody advocates that, except your side. This side doesn't. This side recognizes that a pancake style collapse - namely, that the floors failing first in the collapse progression - does not require the floors to be neatly stacked. We recognize that it'll be a chaotic event, and all the material will be broken up.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

So therefore, the outer columns of the core only lost 1 out of 4 sides worth of bracing.


And the thing is, the 2 remaining sides were opposite of each other, meaning the ext columns were supported in a single plane. That's why the ext columns are seen peeling away in sheets.


There were inner core columns that never lost any bracing.


The core floor beams weren't indestructable, right? It is rational to believe that any falling core columns would impact inside the core area, and destroy the floor beams.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
 


And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.


Really? I thought the buildings withstood the plane impacts enough so that 100's if not 1000's escaped. What towers are you talking about?

With your logic, the Head Structural Engineer of the WTC Towers, Jeff Skilling, got it right:




Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." "However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage." Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-Seattle Times after the 1993 Basement Bombing the FBI knew was going to take place but did not prevent it.





posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Absolutely what I've been trying to suggest.

There was far more than just floors falling on floors and falling sections of core columns were more than capable of stripping the horizontal bracing on the intact core below as the collapse progressed.

Anyone got a rough figure for the mass of just one typical average 30' core column section from the upper half of the building?

For WTC2 there'd be about 500+ of these not-insignificant battering rams on their way down and only 100mm concrete floors suspended on relatively lightweight trusses to oppose them.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Your hypothesis still requires an explanation as to how you got huge lengths of steel columns becoming detached from the floor connectors.
And why that steel would overcome welded joints that are designed to carry a load far greater than what would have managed to fall directly on it, remember you have admitted 60% of the debris fell outside the footprint and were not responsible for any crushing. You contradict your own hypothesis.

You claim fire weakened the steel yet you still can't explain how, you know that thermal transfer I keep asking you about? The heat from the fire has to transfer to the steel, fire was only affecting a few floors thus a small amount of the steel used in the whole building. The heat that transfers to the steel will also be transferred through the length of the steel, thus cooling the steel.

To understand this you need to know the physics of fire, not the popular incorrect assumptions people generally believe. When we say the fire was cool we mean comparatively not literally, we know carbon fires really don't get hot enough to cause steel to fail, that is why it is used and not wood. History proves this fact.

Do the experiment I keep suggesting, a piece of steel and a fuel fire and see how long it has to be in the fire before it becomes malleable.
It doesn't matter how much steel you use, a small piece with a large fire will put the outcome in your favour. Will you do this or come back with another exasperated reply.

BTW with these questions I'm just trying to see your level of knowledge with this stuff, and your refusal to provide a direct answer tells me a whole lot.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
You official lie believers cannot get around certain evidence, and by not being able to refute this evidence with logical and likley means you ignore it and hope no one notices. But, its' existence undermines your entire support for the official story, and is irrefutable, and unexplainable by forces generated by the events of 9-11 in NY.

First, you cannot expalin by normal coaalpse mechanisims...of any kind..the DUSTIFICATION of virtually ALL of the concrete, human and other water bearing substances and objects; this DUSTIFICATION cannot be explained by a biulding sagging from weakened beams and falling to the earth. Photo's show both Towers ERUPTING into vast, fine particulate matter that covered major areas of Manhattan.

Since photo's also prove, conclusively, beyond and shadow of a doubt to the unbiased observer, that both towers had sections give way and ' blocks' of tower, comprising some 15-30 floors, dropped straight down through the path of greatest resistance, and in so doing turned into dust as well as the supporting structure below!!

There was NO massive block of Tower to fall and crush the structure below, because the cameras capture the ' blocks' ' dustifying' before our eyes and unable to contribute in any way to to the massive erupting exposions that hurled tremendous sections of steel hundreds of yards away..sound lie a building falling down from weak beams to you? If so, get your ability to reason checked.

In addition to that inescapable fact, there is the nagging little matter of the ' toasted cars', massive holes in the ground where WTC 6 used to be, as well as other massive holes and small holes as well. it is of little comfort to official story drones to know that ONLY energy devices of some sort can account for all of the evidence seen. There are too many anomalies, by far, to ignore and pretend do not exist.

There are many others...radical proof of controlled demo...too plain to see. But unless you can explain how in the hell a building falling from weakened beams and supposedly sagging and dropping down can turn the concrete, and steel, into dust. The core steel actually turned to dust on camera. it shows the massive core structure, which momentarily survived the' collapse' turning literally into dust.

Smoking guns are laying all over the crime seen but the sheriff and coroner are blind, deaf and dumb.....and very very rich.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



The heat that transfers to the steel will also be transferred through the length of the steel, thus cooling the steel.


So the next time I want to cool a piece of steel I guess I should throw it in a fire? I would love to see you make ice cubes.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

The sum of the accelerations/decelerations may be in the positive, but that does not discount that the resistance is causing deceleration at the same time.



I;ve thought a little about what you've said here and have a request for you:

Read Anok's statements. He says:

1- it didn't fall at freefall acceration, it fell at a lesser acceleration.
2- but he also says there was zero resistance.(or decleration vector)

Can you explain to him please that there can be be resistance (or deceleration as you use it) and still have the collapse wave accelerate.

Since you seem to appear to have a decent grasp of the issue, although we used different use of the term, you should be embarassed to have a fellow truther going around spouting off how everyone he disagrees with needs a physics class, when it's painfully aware that HE'S the one in dire need of some education.

In the quest for truth, it should be your first goal to educate those among your group that haven't the foggiest notion of what they speak. To fail to do this means you're not a truther, but a falser.....




top topics



 
16
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join