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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Why dont you have a look at the plane impact point for that tower then work out WHY the tower fell that way




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Why dont you have a look at the plane impact point for that tower then work out WHY the tower fell that way


The top of the south tower broke loose and rotated 50 minutes after the plane impact.

The NIST has produced a graph of the building oscillation resulting from the impact. The building deflected and underwent damped oscillation for FOUR MINUTES after oscillation.

Do YOU KNOW how much the building was deflected off center by the impact?

Your question assumes the plane and fire and gravity could cause that break and rotation. I showed that video to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to think the plane could have caused that. But a proper analysis means needing to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. So why don't we have that information after EIGHT YEARS and why aren't the physicists and engineers demanding the information?

The mass of a skyscraper is quite a bit different than that of a CIGAR!

Deal with it!

psik

[edit on 1-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The top of the tower NEVER broke lose the side of the plane impact was weakened enough that the structural damage then effects of the fire reducing the strength of the steel resulted in the collapse of the building towards that point LOOK at the video YOU SEE IT HAPPEN.
Its starts to lean to that corner then drops its plain as day on the video WELL it is if you watch it with no preconceived ideas.


Then light that cigar and calm down before you get yourself BANNED from this forum as well.


Ps floors weighed around a 1500t average


[edit on 1-5-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The top of the tower NEVER broke lose the side of the plane impact was weakened enough that the structural damage then effects of the fire reducing the strength of the steel resulted in the collapse of the building towards that point LOOK at the video YOU SEE IT HAPPEN.


So how many TONS OF STEEL were on each level from 75 to 90 of the south tower?

If we don't have that information then no one can KNOW how much anything was reduced. You are just BELIEVING you don't KNOW ANYTHING.

You don't know when to use affects versus effects.

psik

[edit on 1-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The south tower was hit between the 75-84 floor so why do you want to know how many tons of steel between 75-90



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Typical rhetorical answer those links have been debunked on the A&E for 911 truth site, go debunk their answers. People need to quit thier emotional rhetoric and look at all the evidence objectively.

Like that is going to happen any time soon... Sigh! What a testament to media brainwashing and how effective it is... Bigger Sigh!



[edit on 1-5-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The south tower was hit between the 75-84 floor so why do you want to know how many tons of steel between 75-90


Didn't you notice that I asked how much the building deflected when the plane impacted?

The NCSTAR1 report says the building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor. That was 130 feet BELOW where the plane impacted. Survivors said the building moved like a wave. So if it deflected that much 130 feet below then it also did it 130 feet above.

So that was 21 stories of the building pushed 12 inches or more. It may have bowed in nearly 16 inches at the 81st floor. So how do you compute the conservation of momentum and how much kinetic energy did structural damage versus how much simply bowed the building without knowing the distribution of mass?

www.youtube.com...

You see I built a model to demonstrate that also. Not knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level for an event of this importance os COMPLETE NONSENSE, especially after almost NINE YEARS.

psik



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


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

I'm glad you are not a judge in a court of law , where ALL of the evidence is considered , and both sides are allowed to present their arguments in full , instead of only what the opposing counsel agrees is admissable .

I have no obligation to furnish you with 'credentials' ., how would you check them with nothing other than 'okbmd' to go on anyway ?

Once again , this thread is my OPINION , not required to adhere to the stringent tests that it would be subjected to if I had said 'these are facts' .



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


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

Please show us how it is relevant .

Show us any other high-rise that , being struck by an airliner , had 1/4" box-columns for support structure at the point of impact , had the very same bar-joist floor trusses that WTC had , and sustained intense heat and fire for a prolonged period of time .

If you can't replicate those exact same requirements that I have asked for , then you are wrong in asserting that any other type of high-rise fire is relevant .

All other types of construction do not apply .

No impact by an airliner ? Does not apply .

Massive girders and steel beams cannot be used in this test of relevancy.

According to your line of reasoning , then consider the following :

(1) No other space shuttle had ever exploded on take-off , so there is no way that the Challenger did .

(2) No other space shuttle had ever broke up and dis-integrated upon re-entry , so there is no way that Columbia did.

I could go on and on , with examples of events that were 'impossible' only because those events had never happened before , such as Three-Mile-Island , Chernobyl , etc ., but it is pointless because you are still going to insist that it is relevant that no other steel high-rise had ever collapsed due to fire .

Good Luck with that . My opinion is that it is NOT relevant .

If that ostracizes me from the 'Truthers' , so be it . I still sleep well at night .



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Typical rhetorical answer those links have been debunked on the A&E for 911 truth site, go debunk their answers. People need to quit thier emotional rhetoric and look at all the evidence objectively.

Like that is going to happen any time soon... Sigh! What a testament to media brainwashing and how effective it is... Bigger Sigh!



[edit on 1-5-2010 by hawkiye]


A&E for the truth
1188
Most architects know SWEET F A about structures thats a job for engineers so we have 1188 A&E according to their site out of HOW MANY world wide, I have been involved in the construction industry for MANY years now and ANY engineer I have spoken with since this event happened DOESN'T think the way you do. This event was unprecedented NOTHING like this had ever happened so it was BOUND to becaome a conspiracy theorists wet dream

We have all these suddenly CONSTRUCTION experts on web sites all over the place that have NO idea what they are talking about. One idiot on here posted a picture of a collapsed building claiming this was how the twin towers SHOULD HAVE collapsed , but when I pointed out the building he showed was only a few stories high , all reinforced concrete and brought down by an earthquake he stfu!

Lets look at some of the claims

The Empire State Building claim Smaller SLOWER plane hitting a building
constructed in a TOTALLY DIFFERENT way. MASONARY OUTSIDE.


First steel framed buildings to collapse due to fire WRONG on two counts.
Look on the net you can find steel framed building that have collapsed just
because of fire never mind the fact that these buildings were
HIT WITH AIRCRAFT which also EXPLODED.


The fires were not bad.
See pictures posted earlier.

Fires not hot enough to melt steel DOESNT need to melt it to cause problems
with strength and resultant problems with thermal expansion etc.


Many items in an office could have caused noises due to the heat.
The surface of concrete can CRACK AND POP due to the heat of a fire.
Structural steel and steel fixings when they fail can make very loud noises
if you havent heard it before you may think think its a small explosion.


They fell at free fall speed WRONG as posted earlier you have pictures of
debris falling from upper levels and can still see parts of the building
standing behind them.


Fell inside own footprint
Wrong look at any GOOD demo video and its
obvious thats BS.


No one ever saw any work done to the extent required to plant explosives
to do this.



So care to comment no doubt you will


[edit on 1-5-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
What the hell does it matter how many A&E's there are worldwide? These nearly 1200 A&E's are the actual ones that have actually looked into the collapse of the twin towers and used that knowledge to prove the collapse of the buildings is suspect. Claiming that architects don't know anything about the construction of buildings is ridiculous, they design them, they know what they can handle, same as engineers.

Job Description of Architects:
Architects design buildings and other structures. In addition to considering the way these buildings and structures look, they also make sure they are functional, safe, economical and suit the needs of the people who use them.

Your claim that the fires were bad is also false. Fireman made it to those levels and said on the radio (documented) there were small isolated pockets of fire. The jet fuel simply burned off too quickly to affect the steel in the way you claim. See all that smoke coming from the towers? SMOKE = NO FIRE.

The building fell in roughly 10-11 seconds, that is free fall speed for a building that size. The reason you still see parts of the structure standing as its collapsing is because if it was a true collapse it would have been pancaking downward, and slowing down each time it hit a new floor. It obviously didn't fall according to physics. As far as falling in its own footprint, of course some of it didn't because it was propelled outward by EXPLOSIVES. You are not proving anything except that you like everyone else claiming to be a construction expert have no evidence. What the hell do construction workers know? They build the buildings, they don't design them.

The fact is those building were designed to handle multiple impacts by jetliners. One each hit, and those who were behind this agenda knew that alone could not bring them down, so they devised other means.

You are also wrong about the planning behind it. Much of the upper level of the Towers were shut down 2 weeks prior to 9/11 and security cameras were offline. That is plenty of time to plant explosives in the upper levels and paint thermate on the walls in liquid form. Thermate was found in the dust from the site. You are in denial of the facts plain and simple.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Claiming that architects don't know anything about the construction of buildings is ridiculous, they design them, they know what they can handle, same as engineers.


At Illinois Institute of Technology the standard joke was that architects took "funny physics and funny math". My pledge father was an architect.

Architects deal with the aesthetics of buildings, what they look like. The engineers have to make them work. But I think this business is being made to look far more difficult to understand than it really is.

Let's face it. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931. What kind of electronic computers did they have then? The computers of the early 60s are a joke compared to what we have today. But how many EXPERTS will talk about something as simple as the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers?

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. Every level must be strong enough to hold the combined weights of ALL OF THE LEVELS ABOVE. They had to figure out how much steel and how much concrete was going where in those building before they dug the holes for the foundations.

So regardless of who thinks what destroyed the buildings why isn't EVERYBODY demanding accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete. The only reason I can see for anyone not wanting the information is if it PROVED the planes could not destroy them. But I asked Richard Gage about that info in May of 2008. He gave me this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints.

Gravity has not changed since the Empire State Building was completed. Computers are far better than they were in 1966. AE911Truth should be able to come up with decent numbers from scratch. They know how many columns were where, they don't need to design the whole building.

But the strength necessary to support that mass through its entire height combined with the inertia of the mass must make it IMPOSSIBLE for the top 12% of the north tower to crush the reast in less than 18 seconds. If the collapse started it should have arrested.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Typical rhetorical answer those links have been debunked on the A&E for 911 truth site, go debunk their answers. People need to quit thier emotional rhetoric and look at all the evidence objectively.



Thank you wmd_2008 for your opinion, however we would like to see some evidence to your argument, perhaps you have plenty of Architects and Engineers who can confirm the OS of the WTC is true? Lord knows you cannot use the NIST report any longer due to all the proven lies that were uncovered by real Architects and Engineers.Experts in their own field of expertise have confronted NIST, these professionals not only uncovered the phony sciences that NIST dreamed up, but they showed NIST their faults by using real science. These experts are very credible and they have written many papers on NIST faulty science and have shown many demonstration.

Some of these experts in Engineering have professionally approached key figures in NIST and have requested they change their faulty report. NIST only responds is in arrogance and to out right lie in public, other than that they have remained as silent as the Bush administration.
NIST sciences does not even stand up to high school sciences, and that’s a proven fact.

You make fun of A&E, yet you fail to present any evidences to back up your claims.
Opinions are not Truths.

It has already been proven that fire alone could not and did not cause the kind of rapid demolition collapse that we all witness.


Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center

cms.ae911truth.org... .html


9/11: Family Members, First Responders & Experts Speak Out

cms.ae911truth.org...


25,000 Years of Architectural and Engineering Experience Says – ‘New Investigation Needed’

cms.ae911truth.org...

AE911Truth at NIST: “Dr. Sunder: come clean with the American people”

cms.ae911truth.org...


29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

cms.ae911truth.org... -wtc-high-rises-on-911-.html


Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report

cms.ae911truth.org...

Not one single credible person has ever debunked any of this information.
These are the facts, if you feel they are wrong then I will assume you have some credible sources to credible evidences that will back your claims.

Just saying, Oh that’s been debunk years ago, doesn’t work here, because here you need to back your claims if you want people to find you credible.

ATTN Mods: I do not understand why half of my post is in "bold" I have not used any BOLD html in my post?

[edit on 2-5-2010 by impressme]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Metal Head
 


The fires weren't bad ? I think all the images that have been posted prove otherwise . Smoke=no fire ? You can't be serious ? Paint thermate on the walls ? Just another theory that you have read somewhere .

Thermate found in the dust ? Who all has proven this ? What about all those people who were covered in dust ? Are we to assume that this thermate was therefore spread far and wide by the numerous 'carriers' , in the aftermath ? And yet no thermate/thermite reactions have been reported anywhere else by the 'truth' movement ?

" The reason you still see parts of the structure standing as its collapsing is because if it was a true collapse it would have been pancaking downward, and slowing down each time it hit a new floor. It obviously didn't fall according to physics. As far as falling in its own footprint, of course some of it didn't because it was propelled outward by EXPLOSIVES. You are not proving anything except that you like everyone else claiming to be a construction expert have no evidence. What the hell do construction workers know? They build the buildings, they don't design them.

The fact is those building were designed to handle multiple impacts by jetliners. One each hit, and those who were behind this agenda knew that alone could not bring them down, so they devised other means. "

If it was a true collapse ... it would have been slowing down ? The pictures speak for themselves . Debris from the top is seen falling faster than the building as a whole .

Propelled outward by explosives ? No one on this site has provided anything in the way of images or video , that conclusively supports that claim .

If those "behind this agenda" ... "devised other means" , then why use airplanes to start with ?

A bomb had already exploded in the WTC once before . Why not just plant a more efficient bomb this time , and blame it on the same group ?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I would like to applaud you and say that I fully agree with your opinion, and my opinion is quite the same without knowlege of the construction, ect. My opinion is based soley on what I saw happen and the loss of a loved one on 9/11. It happened like this: planes hit the buildings, they burned awhile then collapsed, right before my very eyes.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Why is it that in some of your posts you imply that the NIST findings are not credible , while in other posts , you favor NIST to support your opinion ?

Isn't that being selective and playing both sides of the fence ?

Looking forward to you showing evidence of other high-rises that fit the criteria I asked for in my earlier post , as it would indeed be relevant .



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


Thanks for your support and I am sorry for your loss . I do know the pain never goes away .

I didn't lose anyone that day , but I still to this day feel your loss as well .

Best Wishes .



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


" ... nowhere in the 9/11 truth movement is fire-induced collapse supported ..."

Nowhere have I seen that a total belief in the 'truth movement' was a prerequisite for posting my opinion on ATS .



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


" But the energy to do that crushing would have to come from the kinetic energy of the falling mass. JUST LIKE IN MY MODEL!!! The top portion would SLOW DOWN. The stronger and heavier levels further down the tower would continue the deceleration until it stopped. "

While I find your model impressive , in that you actually took the time and effort to construct it , I must also say that it in no way represents the construction of the towers .

Your paper/cardboard has a diameter that is larger than the diameter of the holes in the center of your steel rings ., which is not representative of the WTC construction .

If you could build a model where the diameter of your cardboard rings fit snuggly inside of the center hole of the steel rings , then you would be closer to the actual construction .

Upon doing that , it would be necessary to initiate the cardboard to 'collapse instead of the steel rings . We both know the cardboard is not going to crush the next cardboard , etc.

The only way I can see this type of model working would be if your cardboard were steel and your steel were cardboard and the diameter of the one were to fit snugly inside the center diameter of the other .

The one fitting into the other would represent the floors while the other would represent the outer columns .

Nice try tho , I'll give you that much .



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I think there is more to be examined when it come to charges set in the buildings. Charges in a building of that magnitude isn't somthing you can implement in just a few hours much less a week. There were two buildings mind you. Double the work of planting "charges"

All about who had or didn't have prior knowledge of the attacks.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join