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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MagicalWisps
 


I agree with your post 100% .

If there is a conspiracy to be looked at , it is all about who had prior knowledge of the attacks .

It is not about how the towers fell . A basic understanding of the construction of the towers gives credibility to what I have posted , but instead of attempting to gain such an understanding , those who are attacking my position are simply relying on the findings/non-findings of others , who also happen to be on the same 'side-of-the-fence' .

It's not that hard to understand , if one can let go of their 'religion' and study this in a sensible manner .

I have never read the NIST report , and have never read the 9/11 Commissions report , but everyone accuses me of 'supporting' the OS .

How ironic is that ? All of my findings and opinions are independant of those sources which I am accused of supporting .

Heeeerrrreeee's yer sign ...

What everyone fails to realize , is that I started out as a 'Truther' , believing that there was no way in hell those towers could have fallen like they did simply from an airliner crashing into them .

Being one that has never ran with the herd tho , I studied and researched the towers and WTC7 more than any other aspect of 9/11.

I refuse to let others decide for me , what it is I should think or how I should view life .

I believe the government had foreknowledge that an attack was imminent . That does not obligate me to also believe that ninja-turtles or power-rangers crept into the towers un-noticed , and rigged both buildings with explosives .

Planes hit the buildings , intense fires and heat weakened the structures , they collapsed .




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Planes hit the buildings , intense fires and heat weakened the structures , they collapsed


ROFL

You talk more about psychological bull# than physics of engineering.

The NCSTAR1 report does not tell us the distribution of steel in the towers. Doesn't every level of every skyscraper have to be strong enough to support the weight of every level above. Isn't the distribution of mass in a skyscraper going to bring the conservation of momentum into the event and affect any supposed "collapse".

The laws of physics do not run with any herd. They are incapable of giving a damn.

That is the problem with this 9/11 business though, more psychological crap than physics. The NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

psik



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
physics does not have a political agenda, or an opinion. the NIST report is full of holes...maybe you need to go to this website:

cms.ae911truth.org...

these people are experts in this field, and are not under any threat or coersive pressure to keep up a plausible story.

i trust these people alot more than some polictical bureaucrat. even people that have taken a basic 101A course in physics knows that what has been told to the american people is a lie.

credibility in this 9/11 investigation by the government is gone, but it is sad that the people who perpetrated this crime will never be brought to justice. fear and threats do work quite well, unlike what we are shown in our movie theatres and on our television shows.

as my signature implies..."follow the money" and it will lead you down a clear path.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


ROFL here also .

If you would do as I've suggested , time and time again , and study the construction of the towers , you would come to the glaringly obvious understanding that the floors DID NOT support the floors above them .

Floor #79 did not support floor #80 , floor #80 did not support floor # 81 , etc., etc., etc.

The floors of the towers were supported by the perimeter box-columns and the box-columns of the core .

The floors did not support the weight of all of the floors above them .

Talk about ROFL ! Maybe you should study just a little bit before you decide to ridicule me next time , because as it stands your post has only served to ridicule yourself in that it is apparent that you have not studied the construction of the towers .

Talk about psychology ! Geez ...

[Edit to add] : Actually , the floors were supported by the welds / bolts / rivets that attached them to the box-columns ., not the columns themselves .

[edit on 2-5-2010 by okbmd]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread565545/pg4#pid8696201]post
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 .

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


There is no way an INEXPENSIVE model can be built duplicating the construction of the WTC.

The model is not about construction is is about basic principles of physics and it is because so many idiots either don't understand them or lie about them that this nonsense has dragged on for approaching NINE YEARS.

We aren't even told the weight of a complete floor assembly. You know those 205 foot square concrete slabs with corrugated pans and 35 and 60 foot trusses. How much mass did those things have?

So for the north tower to collapse the falling mass would have had to accelerate the stationary mass below while simultaneously crushing the supports which had to be strong enough to support the static load of that mass created by gravity.

So why haven't EXPERTS been demanding to know the tons of steel and concrete on every level of those towers for EIGHT YEARS? Grade school kids should not believe that airliners could totally destroy those towers in less than 2 hours.

The different construction gives you an excuse to ignore my model but what is your excuse for not demnding that information about the towers? After all a model that might satisfy your demands cannot possibly be built without that information. You have painted yourself into a corner. If you don't want the information then you must not want the problem solved. So why are you on this site? If you want the information then you must concede that the physics of my model makes sense.

LOL

psik



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I actually made every attempt to be courteous to you in regards to your model and here you are foaming at the mouth in return .

I applaud your efforts at attempting to create a working model , I was simply pointing out that it does not replicate the design and proportions of the construction of the towers .

I wasn't trying to be offensive .

As far as the tons of steel and concrete , I'm sure I could put together enough information to give you a ball-park estimate of the weight of each floor , if you would retract your claws just a bit .



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

If you would do as I've suggested , time and time again , and study the construction of the towers , you would come to the glaringly obvious understanding that the floors DID NOT support the floors above them .


I never said floors supported floors. I said LEVELS supported the LEVELS above them.

The trusses supporting the floor slabs were connected to the CORE on the inner edge and the PERIMETER COLUMNS on the outer edge. A 12 foot height of core and perimeter columns were on each LEVEL of the buildings. Those columns must get stronger and therefore heavier all of the way down the building. Therefore the increased weight of the columns are part of that LEVEL of the building but they were not THE FLOOR.

People use the word FLOOR in two different ways and will switch meanings when they want to play debating games. That is why I started saying LEVELS instead of Floors.

Every LEVEL must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the LEVELS above. That is true of every building regardless of height. But this is accentuated in skyscrapers because they have so much height. The distributions of steel and concrete must be determined before they even dig the holes for the foundations. So why don't we have that information after EIGHT YEARS. Why aren't supposedly "intelligent" people who claim to understand physics demanding that information?

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report 3 years ago and burned it to DVD. They don't even specify the total for the concrete in the towers even though they do it for the steel.

psik



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I can see you are on the right track but , I think you are mis-understanding me .

Yes , the columns were definitely of a thicker walled construction at the bottom , and tapered all the way down to 1/4" inch towards the top .

I think what you are not understanding from me , is that the first elevated floor structure was attached to the columns with the same apparatus as the topmost floor was .

If the floor support failed on one of the upper floors , due to the combined weight of all those floors above it crashing onto it , then this would happen all the way down .

With this type of collapse , it wouldn't have mattered if the columns were 4" thick all the way to the top .

Hope this clarifies my position somewhat .



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Ps floors weighed around a 1500t average


So you can just CLAIM something and expect it to be accepted?

The floor slabs were

(205.67 * 205.67) - (85.67 * 135.67) = 30677.3 sq ft

The thickness varied between 4 and 5 inches because of the corrugated pans. I use 4.33 inches because of pictures I have seen of the pan edges. The concrete was 110 lb/cu ft.

The dimensions and density of concrete are in the NCSTAR1 report but I haven't seen them compute the weight of the slab. Nor have I seen the weight of the steel specified.

So just the concrete slab was 600 tons. You are saying the steel pans and trusses weighed 50% more than the concrete. Care to provide a link to a source verifying that number? I have never seen it specified. I don't even see Truthers asking such an obvious question. Years of talk about those things pancaking or not pancaking and no one says how much they weigh. LOL

psik

[edit on 2-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


In order to arrive at a fairly accurate estimate , you would need to know what mix-design was used in the concrete , how much entrained air it contained and what the unit weight of the concrete was .

As well as supposing that the mix design etc., was strictly adhered to all the way to the top of the tower .

From experience , I know this is not always the case . There will be times that you don't have the desired slump , so water is either added or subtracted from the mix , as well as the entrained air either added to or subtracted from the batch .

Concrete mixing is never an exact science , therefore I say it is possible to ascertain only a ballpark guesstimate of the weight .



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


In order to arrive at a fairly accurate estimate , you would need to know what mix-design was used in the concrete , how much entrained air it contained and what the unit weight of the concrete was .

As well as supposing that the mix design etc., was strictly adhered to all the way to the top of the tower .

From experience , I know this is not always the case . There will be times that you don't have the desired slump , so water is either added or subtracted from the mix , as well as the entrained air either added to or subtracted from the batch .

Concrete mixing is never an exact science , therefore I say it is possible to ascertain only a ballpark guesstimate of the weight .


ROFL

Yeah right, come up with lots of blathering BS excuses. I notice you did not provide a link or dimensions or calculations.

And all of the things you mention that can go wrong would make the assembly LIGHTER not Heavier. I say your number is at least 30% too heavy. I think it was less than 1000 tons but I have never seen a total weight specified in 3 years so what does that say about all of the EXPERTS discussing this subject.

The floor assemblies pancaked. The floor assemblies did not pancake.

And nobody can tell us what the floor assemblies weighed. That is EXTREMELY intelligent!!!

Regardless of who or what destroyed the towers grade school kids all over the world should be laughing at the United States. The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings designed before the Moon landing. But everybody is supposed to believe that planes containing 34 tons of jet fuel, 40% of capacity, and weighing less than 200 tons could totally destroy buildings of 400,000+ tons in less than 2 hours. And Americans don't even ask the tons of steel on each level within 5 stories of the impact point.

psik

[edit on 2-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Metal Head
 


What you said my answers below

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.

I live in the UK and EVERY engineers practice that had Concrete and Structural Steel Building designers LOOKED at what happened DO you honestly think they WOULDN'T


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.

Architects look at nice catalogues and the pretty pictures and decide what a structure will look like. Engineers work out the FORCES on the structure wind loads, dead loads,imposed loads dynamic loads. SO has that cleared that up for you! Architects only have the basic knowlege of loadings on a building but they still have more than YOU

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.

What about ALL the other items that can burn in a fire YOU always seem to forget them lets have a little list paper, carpets ,desks loads of plastics etc etc some info for you.

The power and fury of a typical house fire is immensely underestimated by the average person. The National Fire Protection Association has conducted accurate tests involving the growth and temperatures of fires. Did you know that just 3 minutes and 3 seconds after the start of an average living room fire involving a couch, that the temperature 3 feet above the floor within the room is over 500 F? Just 38 seconds later, the temperature in the room is 1,400 F. THATS 760 c JUST TO LET YOU KNOW!

img571.imageshack.us...

Lets see no fires you said!

www.debunking911.com...

i56.photobucket.com...

Yes you were right no fires there.



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 building didn't fall at freefall speed because if YOU actually looked at the videos neither Twin tower started to collapse FROM the top floor DID they! Somehow they always measure their free fall caculations from full height. You cant get an accurate time due to the DUST! Debris from the walls on the building can be seen DROPPING faster than the floors were LOOK AGAIN! THE BUILDINGS WERE OVER A THOUSAND FEET TALL remember how they were constructed parts of the the outer walls fell away as the floors collapsed inside.
WHO said I was a construction worker I said I worked in the construction industry AGAIN YOU jumped to a conclusion.



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.

They were NOT designed to handel MULTIPLE impacts show a link!

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.

Collapse didn't start at upper level DID IT! When was thermite found in the dust before or after the steelwork dismantling took place.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 2-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 2-5-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
"Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting, DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse. DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11, this interview clip was taken from video shot in January 2001."

"At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone, and many more would have were it not for confusion in the evacuation process. None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone. An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the Tower was destroyed. "

Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."

Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they weakened the steel structure.

?? There is my evidence.

What do you mean the collapse didn't start at the upper levels? Did you not see it?? The collapse surely didn't start at the bottom. What about the windows in the lobby that were blown out, did that happen when the plane hit the 75th floor, that's idiocy. There are so many witnesses that heard explosion throughout the whole building, deny that and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing with no facts.

Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials – proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.

Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7.

The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a “nano-thermite” material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

The next step, Jones said in a phone interview on Monday, is for someone to investigate “who made the stuff and why it was there.”

A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to determine “the whole truth of the events of that day.” They eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers.

One sample was from a man who had swept up a handful of dust on the Brooklyn Bridge, where he was walking when the second tower fell. As the journal authors note, “It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steel-cutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began later."



[edit on 2-5-2010 by Metal Head]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Metal Head
 


I see you seem to have ignored all the points I made about architects and engineers


Lets HAVE a look at this CASE Ronan Point

upload.wikimedia.org...


Gas explosion in a kitchen on the 18th floor blew out supporting walls 4 flats were above this point, this weakened the structure and caused the progressive collapse you see in the picture you the type that cant happen according to some on here the only thing that stopped more damage was the fact the flats are compartmentalized and the kitchen was in the corner and not in the middle of the floor.

After this disaster which killed 4 a major rethink was made of this type of consrtuction in the UK.

Now according to theories on here the collapse should have stopped before it reached the bottom



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


" Yeah right, come up with lots of blathering BS excuses. I notice you did not provide a link or dimensions or calculations.

And all of the things you mention that can go wrong would make the assembly LIGHTER not Heavier. I say your number is at least 30% too heavy ."

Do you have me confused with another poster ? I never gave you a 'number' , so , how do you conclude that my 'number' is 30% too heavy ?

I tried to explain a little bit about concrete to you , and you dismiss it as "blathering BS excuses" ?

I actually have several certifications that qualify me to talk about concrete from an educated position , not just from speculation .

I am currently certified by the Department of Transportation in two states to perform concrete testing and inspections . If my tests and inspections indicate that the concrete does not meet the approved standards and requirements of the D.O.T. , the concrete does not get used until the corrections are made and subsequent tests have proven that it meets the criteria .

I also perform compression strength tests and tensile strength tests , as well .

I am a card-carrying member of ACI International , so I am qualified to talk about concrete .

But it appears to me that you might be more interested in arguing than actually allowing someone to help you with your questions concerning concrete .



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Do you have me confused with another poster ? I never gave you a 'number' , so , how do you conclude that my 'number' is 30% too heavy ?


Sorry confused you with individual claiming 1500 tons.

Anybody can claim any credentials on the internet therefore it makes no sense to claim any. JUst supply data that can be verified by other sources, on the internet preferably. I wasn't expecting anybody to but in with trivial excuses.

It is easy to compute what the weight the concrete slab outside the core should have been. At 600 tons the steel framework supporting the slab should have been less than half that. So I figure 900 tons max. Considering how a skyscraper must support itself and they had to predict the buildings reaction to the wind I would expect they would be more careful with concrete in a skyscraper than on a highway. And they got to repeat the same process again and again up the building so everyone got lots of practice so I bet they were pretty consistent beyond the 40th floor.

But the STRANGE THING IS that we haven't been told a number for the weight of the entire floor assembly. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in more than 3 years. This incident is approaching NINE YEARS. They have been talking about these floor assemblies either pancaking or not pancaking for ages. It is the total weight that matters because the way the upper knuckles were embedded into the concrete they could not be separated. I encourage you to find the total weight or even the weight of the concrete slab specified anywhere.

So it is the fact that we don't have any number that is far more interesting than what the number actually was. How do you do physics WITHOUT DATA?

psik



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


" Anybody can claim any credentials on the internet therefore it makes no sense to claim any. JUst supply data that can be verified by other sources, on the internet preferably. I wasn't expecting anybody to but in with trivial excuses. "

Tell you what , I'm just going to leave you to work this out without any input from me .

Knowing the mix-design , unit-weight , air content , etc., would not be considered 'trivial' to anyone who REALLY wanted to understand the weight of the concrete . To the contrary , it would be critical .

I've been banned once already , and don't intend for that to happen a second time .

So , good luck with your query .



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



But the STRANGE THING IS that we haven't been told a number for the weight of the entire floor assembly. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in more than 3 years. This incident is approaching NINE YEARS. They have been talking about these floor assemblies either pancaking or not pancaking for ages. It is the total weight that matters because the way the upper knuckles were embedded into the concrete they could not be separated. I encourage you to find the total weight or even the weight of the concrete slab specified anywhere.


Have you ever consider going to the NIST website, looking at the extensive records of the design critieria, including the FLOOR DEAD LOADS, and maybe doing the calculations for yourself? And have you possibly considered the alternatvie - that you are just plain dead wrong about needing to know the "total weight" in order to compile the failure analysis?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Have you ever consider going to the NIST website, looking at the extensive records of the design critieria, including the FLOOR DEAD LOADS, and maybe doing the calculations for yourself? And have you possibly considered the alternatvie - that you are just plain dead wrong about needing to know the "total weight" in order to compile the failure analysis?


But what does this say about all of the BRILLIANT PEOPLE claiming to know physics who have been discussing this subject for years? Why hasn't it been mentioned A LOT. and therefore easy to find?

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report three years ago and have it burned to DVD. They don't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. LOL

Try finding that. The number you will see the most on the net is 425,000 cubic yards, even from the NY Port Authority. But that would mean more than 300,000 tons of concrete per tower and plenty of people say that is wrong. So the real problem is that we can't get agreed upon information about the state of the towers before the planes hit. So how are we supposed to figure out what the planes could do?

But you ask questions and people say, look here, it's there, you're just lazy, blah, blah, blah. But the information is bullsh!t. The NIST uses the terms "center of mass" and "center of gravity" a total of 10 times and never says anything about the center of mass of the top tilted portion of the south tower.

How intelligent is that?

The people that can BELIEVE the palnes could cause all of the destruction have the ability to turn off their brains and not wondr about the obvious. It must be so comforting to be able to TRUST IN AUTHORITY. LOL

psik



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



But what does this say about all of the BRILLIANT PEOPLE claiming to know physics who have been discussing this subject for years? Why hasn't it been mentioned A LOT. and therefore easy to find?


Maybe, just maybe, it says that these BRILLIANT PEOPLE are, in fact, smarter than you and know that the information that you allege is absoultely vital to the production of a failure anlysis is really not at all required.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join