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.

 

In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



I explained the schooling and the degrees above .

Strike three , you're outta here ...

Ignore will have been activated by the time you read this.


Go ahead an ignore me, just for the record its obvious that you cannot confirm what school of engineering you attend , then the fact you have to ignore shows that you can't stand up to the heat of what you claim.

Just so the record here confirms the working of boths side is not appreciated!







posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Is it relevant that no other steel high-rises had suffered total collapse , due to fire ? NO , as these towers were not constructed with methods that were used in any other steel high-rises

Completely false information. Firstly, it is absolutely relevant that no other steel-structured high-rise has collapsed from fire.

Secondly, and you're going to like this one, the WTC was not the first high-rise to have the tube-structure design:


The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which Khan designed and was completed in Chicago by 1963. This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s. The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.
Source: Wiki

So you see, not only was the WTC not the first tube structure design, most supertall skyscrapers have that design including the current worlds tallest. Your claim is a common misconception drilled into gullible minds, courtesy of the media.


And you gotta love this part:

"Robertson and his team..." or "What Robertson failed to take into account was the possibility of an intense, violent fire."

Thankfully, Leslie Robertson wasn't the lead engineer on the WTC project. He was a second-hand. Robertson was responsible for the sway-reduction features of the WTC.

John Skilling was the chief structural engineer of the WTC along with his team and firm Worthington Skilling Helle and Jackson. Only after the project was started, was Leslie Robertson recruited by Skilling to help on the project.

As far as "What Robertson failed to take into account was the possibility of an intense, violent fire." is a load of bull. Robertson didn't fail to take into account anything because he was not the chief structural engineer of the WTC. Robertson is trying to take all the credit away from Skilling since Skilling is dead and can't defend himself or his buildings.

Here's what the real chief structural engineer, John Skilling, said about jetliners striking the towers and the resulting fires:

“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. The building structure would still be there.”


Skilling's firm, Worthington Skilling Helle and Jackson, also carried out a structural analysis that was 1200 pages long and included more than 100 detailed drawings. The analysis concluded:

"The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure."

The analysis further showed that:

“all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind."

And furthermore:

"Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”



Those towers were designed to withstand the impacts and resulting fires from a jetliner traveling at 600mph, earthquakes, and 100 mile-per-hour winds. Those towers were not frail structures waiting for the slightest hint of structural failure to collapse.

According to NIST's calculations, only about 15%-16% of the structure in the impact zones was damaged from the impact of the jetliners. That leaves 85% of the structure in the impact zones and 100% of the structure above and below intact. The impacts caused very minimal damage to the actual structures and fire doesn't bring steel-structured high-rises down.

Those buildings should still be standing today.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


That's what I like about you _BoneZ_ , always popping up with an intelligent counter-arguement .

However , how many of those buildings that you referrenced have ever been struck by an airliner and/or suffered an intense fire for a proplonged period of time ?

Can't say that my sources are always correct , but at least I try .


And anyone would be hard-pressed to convince me that those fires didn't have a major effect on the stability of 1/4" tubing that was supporting the weight of the floors above the impacted area .

And let's also remember , this was not a 100mph wind that struck the towers .

[edit on 27-4-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
OK since were just dealing with opinions here is mine:

Your opinion is false and not based on scientific fact.

it ignores the mountain of evidence to the contrary that it was physically impossible for the planes and fires to bring down the towers.

It relies heavily on unsubstantiated and discredited opinions of shill investigators and engineers.

It ignores hundreds of prominent architects and engineers who disputes such claims

It ignores the simple fact that no other high rise buildings have ever come down due to fires many of which had much more intense fires and some were even fully engulfed.

It ignores building seven and the fact that it was never hit by planes and the fires were mediocre at best.

It ignores the many witnesses to charges going off and evidence of controlled demolition which is the only thing that can account for how the towers came down.

It shows a lack of research and concerted bias to prove ones belief and or emotional attachment to such belief instead of just following the facts and truth to where ever they lead.

etc. etc. etc.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


" It ignores the simple fact that no other high rise buildings have ever come down due to fires many of which had much more intense fires and some were even fully engulfed. "

" It ignores building seven and the fact that it was never hit by planes and the fires were mediocre at best. "

" It ignores the many witnesses to charges going off and evidence of controlled demolition which is the only thing that can account for how the towers came down. "

" It shows a lack of research and concerted bias to prove ones belief and or emotional attachment to such belief instead of just following the facts and truth to where ever they lead. "


What other high-rises , with tubular construction , has ever been fully engulfed in fire after being impacted by an airliner travelling at those speeds ?

You are correct , it ignores WTC7 , as stated previously , this thread does not deal with WTC7 .

Give us ONE witness that can PROVE that what they heard was indeed 'charges going off' .

Give me EVIDENCE of controlled demolition .

PROVE that controlled demolition is the only thing that can account for how the towers came down .

"Lack of research" , not even close .

"Concerted bias" , again , left field .

"Emotional attachment to such belief" , go to my profile and read thru all of my posts concerning 9/11 before assuming you even know what I believe about 9/11 .

"Following the facts and truth" , show me some FACTS to substantiate whatever it is you believe , and I'll show you the truth if it is ever uncovered .

If you had did just a cursory check into my profile , you would have seen where I have stood on the issue of 9/11 since I joined ATS .

But you are so determined to be right and just in your opinions that you don't even bother to see who , or what , you are slamming , simply because it's your way or the highway .

It would do you well to understand who you are attacking , instead of launching your assaults on anyone who doesn't see things exactly as you do . Don't you feel that is just slightly immature and childish ?

I have never played well with others simply due to the fact that I refuse to color in between the lines just because you or someone else tells me that is the way it is .

If you know the whole truth about 9/11 , maybe you should publish a book . If I find it credible , then I will purchase a copy .

Until then , I am every bit as 'right' with my opinion , as you are with yours .

Do you ever have anything positive to say about anyone whose opinion differs from yours ?

I am in this for the truth . I am NOT in it just so I can call myself a Truther or a Debunker .

I will seek the truth regardless of which side of the fence it is to be found on ., as I've had to hop that fence several times already .

None of us has all of the answers , not even you .

However , that's not to say that none of us has any of the truth .

Truth is not exclusive to one individual , group , sect or area .

Truth can be found everywhere , one piece at a time .

So , let's cool it with the attacks .

[edit on 27-4-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


This guy has another thread that says nano-thermite was the cause just to let you know what he's up to...

Thread here

Does this make sense to you?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I thought it was commonly accepted knowledge that the majority of gas was burned off on impact/explosion

leaving small office fires.

not nearly enough to melt steel.


not nearly enough to weaken all of the steel in the building.

it was a symmetrical collapse.

and the building collapsed into the path of MOST resistance.

it should have just toppled over.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
This guy has another thread that says nano-thermite was the cause just to let you know what he's up to...

He later says in that thread that he was being sarcastic and that it did not bring the towers down. While I agree that neither thermite nor thermate brought the towers down, he is playing both sides of the fence if you go back and look at his previous posts and threads.

I actually thought he was a truther this whole time until he posted this thread. Who would play both sides of the fence?








[edit on 27-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



The problem with this theory is that lets say it were true for the sake of argument;

1. Why did the buildings fall all the way down to its bottom core?

2. Why wasn't there some large standing sections of the central core remaining. If what your saying is true, then I would expect perhaps 40-50 or more stories of the core to have remained standing.

3. The speed of collapse. I went to and filmed a controlled demolition in Vegas when I was staying in LA a few summers back. It was only a 9-10 story structure. And took nearly as many seconds to fall.

4. Why or how could tens of thousands of iron joints in the towers have all broken near simultaneously, experiencing total failure and total collapse?

5. When the south tower began to tilt (or was it the North) it tilted about 22-23 degrees and was literally on its way to tipping over, having been decapitated and severed from the rest of the building. But somehow, it righted itself and turned into dust and disappeared into the falling mass, pretty much in its own footprint.

When something as heavy as the top 25 stories of a building is leaning at 22 degrees, only an equal or greater force can correct it. What was the force which stopped the decapitated building from falling over?

6. It is fairly safe to assume that all of the jet fuel lost its combustionable properties, being covered in dust in the falling mass. And the same thing can be said of the 35,000 gallon tank of diesel fuel inside one of the buildings. It would have been rendered useless as a fuel source by the dust and debris.

Why were there any smoldering fires at all at the WTC? And why did they burn on and rage for nearly 7 weeks? And why were some areas so hot that it liquified the metal?

I could go on, but think these points above tell us that the government theory is not even a workable theory. I think it's fairly self evident.

Cheers-
Phil



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Just wanted to say that while I disagree with your opinion on what transpired at the Twin Towers, I respect your opinion and gave you a S & F for all of your work on this thread.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by hawkiye
 


This guy has another thread that says nano-thermite was the cause just to let you know what he's up to...

Thread here

Does this make sense to you?


Are people not allowed to have more than two ideas in one general topic?
Or are people not allowed to change their minds? Or did you just see the thread and automatically jump to your guns?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

When I read the OP and he said this is my opinion, and I don’t have to prove anything, I stop reading right there.
OP here is my opinion, the WTC were blowing to pieces, in fact WTC 1&2 were blowing apart with so much forces that it was an out of control demolition. It was done deliberately for the Shock & Awe. That is my “opinion” and I don’t have to prove anything just like you, right?


[edit on 27-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by okbmd
 

When I read the OP and he said this is my opinion, and I don’t have to prove anything, I stop reading right there.
OP here is my opinion, the WTC were blowing to pieces, in fact WTC 1&2 were blowing apart with so much forces that it was an out of control demolition. It was done deliberately for the Shock & Awe. That is my “opinion” and I don’t have to prove anything just like you, right?


[edit on 27-4-2010 by impressme]

So, you didn't read the thread, and yet still wanted to post about how he's wrong? I love it, the OP starts this thread by just bringing out some little known information on this board, and is constantly attacked because it collides with whatever preconceived notions some of the truthers have.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


The Op article from the New York Times is insane to say the least, to even suggest that jet fuel brought down the WTC perfectly consistently in its own footprint is laughable at best. I have heard every excuse under the sun but this one beats all.
I would suggest the OP to stop cherry picking someone else opinions in their own article and in hope to presenting it as some sort of truth without really debating the real facts.

Those quotes are mostly someone else opinions and nothing more.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


The Op article from the New York Times is insane to say the least, to even suggest that jet fuel brought down the WTC perfectly consistently in its own footprint is laughable at best. I have heard every excuse under the sun but this one beats all.
I would suggest the OP to stop cherry picking someone else opinions in their own article and in hope to present it as some sort of truth without really debating the real facts.

Those quotes are mostly someone else opinions and nothing more.

So, we should all believe you over him? He's presented evidence, and all you've done is say he's wrong.
And most quotes tend to be someone else's opinion btw.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 




So, we should all believe you over him? He's presented evidence, and all you've done is say he's wrong.
And most quotes tend to be someone else's opinion btw.


Did you not read the OP?


I should say up front that the following is in part , my opinion , so as not to be required to provide 'proof' by those who will disagree with it .


That pretty well sums its up, don’t yeah think?


There are no facts to "opinions".

[edit on 27-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Each floor was approximately one square acre of office space .

Multiply that by ever how many of those floors had fires burning on them and then come back and tell me this was a small office fire .

"ALL" of the steel was not weakened . Only that which was subjected to the fires and heat .

The failing floor joists were the biggest reason for total collapse , as the box-columns of the exterior walls were dependent on these joists to 'hold' them in place .

Once two , three , or more floors failed , do you actually believe the successive floors would withstand the combined force and weight of that much mass dropping onto them , without the bolts , rivets and welds breaking ?

The box columns were fastened to the joists at each floor level .With the failure of each consecutive floor , there is no way that the columns could remain standing .

The lightweight floor joists contributed more to the collapse than any other structural feature .

[edit on 27-4-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
He's presented evidence, and all you've done is say he's wrong.

Hate to burst your bubble, but while you continue to worry about other posters instead of posting about the topic at hand, not only have I destroyed the OP in my first post, the OP posting a news article and giving his opinions is not evidence of anything, and hardly "little-known" anything at that.






[edit on 27-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

From opinion...

I stated up front that it was opinion coupled with an article from the New York Times .
Why is it that people like you always want someone else to do all the footwork just so you can ridicule it anyway ?
I posted this as an opinion ., not as an attempt to see to it that it was to your liking .


but the claims he's an engineer here:

Once again , please do not humiliate yourself by attempting to appear capable of an intelligent debate , when it is apparent that you possess no such skill . I HAVE studied the design and contruction of the WTC . And , not that it would matter much to you , I happen to have been to college to study Design Drafting , Mechanical Engineering , Civil Engineering , Architectural Engineering , Welding and Physics ., to name but a few . I have the degrees that I worked for . That qualifies me to hazard an educated opinion . What can you show in the way of study or experience ?



hmm from opinion to engineer....interesting developments....

I thought this was an Opinion, then if your an engineer it should read:

In my engineering expertise this is what I think!

Btw I never claimed to be anything in this thread ever! You did okbmd!

ohh I forgot you ignored me since I said prove your an engineer!

How hard is it to say the school you attended?




[edit on 27-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 





The lightweight floor joists contributed more to the collapse than any other structural feature.


The core is anything but lightweight! and wouldn't have fallen!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join