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.

 

1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 17
99
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I really don't know why people waste their time on silliness like this. Look at this link:
www.nytimes.com...
So, if fire can't melt steel or enough to collapse the building, then how did this overpass collapse? The government can't keep it secret from Wikileaks about their operations overseas and in the CIA, and somehow, it's going to keep this secret? Not to mention the families of the people involved?

C'mon people. Move on...




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SurefireII
 


I used to work for a company that did foundation design and concrete testing. I've seen concrete break tests done, written many reports for various town councils and private businesses on the results of such tests, and I want to ask you what exactly the point you are trying to make here is? For one thing, you seem to talk as though there is only one type of concrete, which is completely silly. There are many different mix designs, as anyone working in the industry would know, not to mention things like fast-cure additives, etc. Common practice for testing concrete is to test at 24 hours, 7 days and 28 days because of the cure time for different blends.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Please elucidate as to why you want people to look at concrete break testing.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute
reply to post by SurefireII
 

you seem to talk as though there is only one type of concrete, which is completely silly. There are many different mix designs, as anyone working in the industry would know, not to mention things like fast-cure additives, etc


There were two types of concrete used in the WTC. 150 lb/cu ft and 110 lb/cu ft.

The floor slabs outside the core was 110 type. The floor slabs in the core were 150 type.

I don't doubt there was lots of concrete in the basements and I suspect on the lower levels but I haven't seen it specified.

psik



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nunny
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I really don't know why people waste their time on silliness like this. Look at this link:
www.nytimes.com...
So, if fire can't melt steel or enough to collapse the building, then how did this overpass collapse? The government can't keep it secret from Wikileaks about their operations overseas and in the CIA, and somehow, it's going to keep this secret? Not to mention the families of the people involved?

C'mon people. Move on...


The steel used in that bridge did not melt, it was used to re-build the bridge.

The silliness is that people take MSM stories as facts.

74.6.116.140...://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=the+maze+will+reopen&d=4818712911 746053&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=dc6839b9,dfb3c989&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=3Xc7cBXoAbUa4LA6t4nh9g--



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Azp420

No. Because in a demo you have pieces. In pancaking, the structure fails and a lot is preserved. WTC was the later.




The pancake theory was dismissed by NIST, why are you still using it?
Your thinking is fundamentally flawed. You are devaluating this thread by mixing all kinds of theories together up to the point that it is virtually impossible to discuss anything with you as some have tried.

wtc.nist.gov...




NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


Now I know, over the years the MSM haven't been helping us by continuing to spread the pancake lies, now effectively embedded into our minds.

You also claim to have done flight simulation, I wonder: are you a pilot? I seriously doubt you are because you state that "flying a plane is easy". And you can't see anything useful through cockpit windows, well maybe if you are lucky you catch some clouds. Pilots fly on navigation, not on eyesight! My guess is you're basing your "experience" on flight sim games.

So what to do with all your "knowledge"? Based on pancakes, it will fall as such.

Six Sigma, you seem to show your face in most threads, always playing the same ad hominem game and using the ultimate debunkers source, created by a guy called Mike. That's all I can find out about the creator of this site:
www.911myths.com...
So this Mike dude must be one hell of an expert on the subject, we just don't know who tf he is but hey, we'll take Sig's word for it, right? After all, double standards must be applied when trying to prove my point vs disproving someone else's!

The pinnacle of scientific research right here folks!
www.youtube.com...

He must be so proud which is why he posted it 3 times! Step aside, scientists! You have met your match!.

And my hat off to Azp420, who has tried to explain the science for pages and pages but after all the shots below the belt they finally got him ticked off, too.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



The steel used in that bridge did not melt, it was used to re-build the bridge.

The silliness is that people take MSM stories as facts.


Didnt you notice ANOK, that the steel failed from fire alone? Did that little fact cross your mind at all? Steel does not need to melt to fail. A fire like that can turn the steel soft and malleable. Thats how it collapsed. thats also how the steel failed at the Windsor, McCormick Place, WTC1,2,7.

So fire can and does affect steel pretty badly.

Oh also ANOK, where exactly did they say the used the same fire affected steel? Can you post the article? Cause according to my sources, they had to get special "made to order steel" for this:


Repairs may be held up because the overpass requires made-to-order steel. Caltrans says that could take six weeks to several months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Caltrans may be able to borrow some of the needed materials from other Bay Area projects -- there is $10 billion worth of construction underway in the area.

www.transportationca.com...



One of the quickest emergency repair jobs in the history of Caltrans. Caltrans engineers and consultants said no corners were cut on safety for the rebuilt freeway. They assured reporters covering the story that concrete piers roasted by the burning tanker truck were sound enough to hold the freeway in a maximum possible earthquake.


www.transportationca.com...

My links state they reused the concrete piers. Not the steel softened by fire.

Now ANOK I checked your link. I dont see anywhere them reusing the destroyed steel. Maybe you can clarify this mistake? Did you do this accidentally, or have purposely done this to trick others? Or did I just catch you in a fib?


[edit on 9/2/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


Didnt you notice ANOK, that the steel failed from fire alone? Did that little fact cross your mind at all? Steel does not need to melt to fail. A fire like that can turn the steel soft and malleable. Thats how it collapsed. thats also how the steel failed at the Windsor, McCormick Place, WTC1,2,7.

So fire can and does affect steel pretty badly.


Dude said melted, the media said melted.

The bridge failed because the rubber between the steel plates and the soft rivets melted.
The steel was warped in parts, but it's not the main cause of the failure, and was repaired and re-used.

It has nothing to do with WTC 7, or any building collapsing, and obviously you are ignoring my previous post on this.

How did the outer walls end up ON TOP of the debris pile Gen? Steel failing from ANYTHING will not do that unless it's controlled. The building could have been completely engulfed in super hot steel melting fire, it will not cause the outer walls to end up ON TOP of the debris pile. Pancake collapse would not cause the outer walls to end up ON TOP of the debris pile.

Will you ever understand that? Or will you still waffle in about damage from WTC 1, and fires causing steel to become malleable?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



- Explosives that don't go off when planes strike them


Interesting. I'm far from an explosives expert but I'll have a go at speculating.

The top section might have been much less densely packed with explosives, as the idea was to have it appear as though the top section pancaked down on the rest of the tower. I have no problem with fires and severed columns initiating the collapse with little or no help from CD. If some went off during impact it would have been masked by the jet fuel explosion.

Are we ruling out that the pilots could have displayed a similar skill to the pentagon pilots and targeted an impact point a predetermined height up each tower, with some room for error?


- Explosives that are relatively extremely quiet


Thermite/thermate? Maybe a combination of those and some more traditional? The towers coming down were pretty loud.


- A painstaking and difficult installation


No doubt.


- Unscrupulous and highly trained people to accomplish that installation

- Sophisticated software and unscrupulous engineers to run it


Money will buy just about anything in this world.


- Both of the above groups to operate in absolute secrecy


Like their lives and their families lives depended on it?


My theory requires

- Some people on the internet to be wrong


- A huge amount of coincidences

- Non-existent decelerations to be present

- Compressed air to somehow progressively move down the towers and blow out windows and eject material at a faster rate than the pancaking floors are falling (and therefore unable to be responsible for compressing that air).


The speed of the collapse is slower than usually assumed by conspiracists.


NIST have admitted free fall in 7, but any constant, uniform acceleration is too much.

reply to post by Gorman91
 



Unless you were there with a hightech laser scanner then everything you've ever posted about it is based on those same videos, making your "science" just as "made up" as mine. So yea, how about more than just your almighty word that says what is right and wrong?


Using software to plot and track data points from a video is science. Simply watching the video and eyeballing what you believe to be decreases in velocity is not.

reply to post by Nunny
 



The government can't keep it secret from Wikileaks about their operations overseas and in the CIA, and somehow, it's going to keep this secret?


Because they would have lots of official documents sitting in official archives detailing their planning of 9/11?

reply to post by raknjak
 



And my hat off to Azp420, who has tried to explain the science for pages and pages but after all the shots below the belt they finally got him ticked off, too.


Haha thanks, don't worry I'm still poking my head in.



[edit on 2-9-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I doubt that the media knows the difference between a molten puddle of steel, and a steel beam that softened from fire and failed when the connections failed. Did they actually say there was molten steel in a puddle on the ground? Did you ever think that saying "melted" is a little easier to report than "the steel softened and collapsed from stress"? You should at least know that newscasters are not always Harvard Grads with Einstein IQs. (No offense to the newscasters, just saying in general). Some people get lazy. Melted steel bolts failing just doesnt sound as exciting as "melted steel!!"

But I digress. Now, then, can you explain your comment about them reusing the destroyed steel in rebuilding the bridge? I checked your source, and found no mention of that. I wold just like for you to clarify that comment. They had to special order steel to repair this collapsed section of bridge. You cant just hammer out the dented sections and slap it back together.

Also, this is very relative to WTC7. At WTC7 the steel was exposed to fires for 6+ hours before failing. And what was failing? The beams, the connections. Was there any water pumped into WTC7? No! Fire can and does affect steel, no matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears, bury your head deep in the ground, and shout NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

As to why the outer walls did what they did, didnt you notice the direction the building tilted towards during its descent? Wasnt it said that the interior collapsed first, taking the penthouse with it, and the exterior shell came down last? And what happened? The north side of WTC7 came across the pile. Did you forget the design of WTC7? I already answered this to you last time, and you didnt notice it. Now I have to do it again? Pay attention ANOK.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Didnt you notice ANOK, that the steel failed from fire alone? Did that little fact cross your mind at all? Steel does not need to melt to fail.


Hey, "Gen," I have some thoughts to cross your mind, too.

Did you know that I've been aware of the effects of heat on steel -- since before 9/11 even happened?

The way fire fails steel is called deformation. It causes expansion and contraction that is very rough on the structure and causes connections/bolts/etc. to break.


Now fast forward to the Cardington tests. Which demonstrated that high-rise structures can resist a global failure by redistributing the loads that are shifted by this deformation. It was found that before failing, the configurations of members actually shift around and find a new equilibrium which requires less energy than actually destroying connections.


So let's think about this in a "common sense" way since I know better than to bring up anything too complicated to you "debunkers." Even this will prove too much for you to handle logically, but of course that's never stopped us from trying to explain before.


You want to compare a highway fire and failure to a skyscraper fire and failure.

Do you want to compare other skyscraper fires to the WTC failures then?

Because traditionally, no, you have claimed that they are "apples and oranges."


So let's get this straight.


Comparing highway fires to the WTC skyscraper fires = okay.

Comparing other skyscraper fires to the WTC skyscraper fires = apples and oranges.


Are you ready to accept other skyscraper fires as relevant illustrations of what happens to these structures yet? Or are you still hiding behind excuses?

I have a whole slew of them lined up that we can talk plenty about. The First Interstate Bank, Meridian Plaza, Caracas Tower, Windsor Tower... The Windsor Tower burned for 24 hours, completely involved on a series of many floors in a row. The only thing that collapsed on it were small pipe-shaped "columns" on the exterior, a few of which fell away and off of the building. Don't take it out of context, either: this was only after 24 hours of fire that puts the WTC fires to shame.

Plenty of examples if any "debunkers" are ready to talk about them now.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You're just saying but not backing up. Like I said. View the videos. The outer structure is still up as the core collapses.

Denying reality is not my business. Video's there. You can chose to deny ignorance or not.

reply to post by raknjak
 


I don't care what NIST or others say. I do my own homework. If you'd like to point out how it is wrong based on your own idea go ahead. Until then, NIST can go enjoy being wrong. because I flat out see the outer structure standing and the inner structure falling. They did not fall together 100%. The core dragged down the other parts of the hierarchy and the strongest lower hierarchy parts stood, falling last.

reply to post by Azp420
 


By all means post it. It seems to accelerate towards the end when nothing was left to hold it up, but the building seems pretty steady in the beginning.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade ... Explosives that don't go off when planes strike them ...

I'm not an explosive expert either, but it's typical that a particular type of impetus is used to set off a charge. Sometimes these things that set them off are called "fuses" even though they don't resemble the burning string one associates with setting off dynamite that one can see in western movies. Some bombs require a lot of impetus before they go off.

For example, do you know what is used to set off a hydrogen bomb?

Answer: an atomic bomb!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You're just saying but not backing up. Like I said. View the videos. The outer structure is still up as the core collapses.

Denying reality is not my business. Video's there. You can chose to deny ignorance or not.


Ignorance is certainly refusing to admit when you don't know.

The core can't be seen in any videos during the so called collapse. PROVE the core collapsed ahead of the exterior. What could cause it to collapse? How can you PROVE the fire was hot enough if you don't even have data on the quantity of steel in the core.

The energy required to heat whatever quantity of steel to whatever temperature can be computed.


Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

911research.wtc7.net...

Those assumptions about the distribution of steel are wrong of course but it demonstrates that not having the correct information after NINE YEARS is RIDICULOUS.

psik

[edit on 2-9-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The building collapses.

You can still see the outer structure standing after the building collapsed.

Total building - outer structure = inner core structure collapsing.

Simple enough?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The building collapses.

You can still see the outer structure standing after the building collapsed.

Total building - outer structure = inner core structure collapsing.

Simple enough?


Simply completely nonsensical.

psik



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
As to why the outer walls did what they did, didnt you notice the direction the building tilted towards during its descent? Wasnt it said that the interior collapsed first, taking the penthouse with it, and the exterior shell came down last? And what happened? The north side of WTC7 came across the pile. Did you forget the design of WTC7? I already answered this to you last time, and you didnt notice it. Now I have to do it again? Pay attention ANOK.


Jeez you so miss the point of what is being said.

How does the building tilting in ANY direction cause all four outer walls to end up ON TOP of the debris pile? Please explain that one. But continue reading first, don't skip, don't skim, read the whole darn post for a change before you react.

YES the interior collapsed first, no one is arguing that, you just fail to understand the point of the 'penthouse kink'. As I already explained it is the classic sign of a controlled implosion, you have NO proof fire caused the center of the building to miraculously collapse just ahead of the outer walls in order to cause all four walls to end up ON TOP of the debris pile, which also happens to be the point of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IMPLOSION.

Thermal expansion however expanded (lol) would also not cause all four walls to end up ON TOP of the debris pile.

I bet you didn't clink on the link I supplied either did you?

It's not as if it just looked like a controlled demolition, it did what a controlled demolition is supposed to do, collapse into it's own footprint, in other words the outer wall end up ON TOP of the debris pile.

Why am I repeating myself?

Didn't I already address that in my previous posts? Why do you carry on as if I haven't already covered this? That is what trolls do, are you a troll Gen? You didn't even read my post all the way through and give it even a second of thought did you? You are probably not reading this part, but other people are and I think it's clear who is making sense in this discussion. You are just making excuses.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NIST forgot to tell us some interesting stuff? I'm sure they're glad they remembered finally!



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420


Interesting. I'm far from an explosives expert but I'll have a go at speculating.

The top section might have been much less densely packed with explosives, as the idea was to have it appear as though the top section pancaked down on the rest of the tower. I have no problem with fires and severed columns initiating the collapse with little or no help from CD. If some went off during impact it would have been masked by the jet fuel explosion.


I'm not sure about that. I think there might have been a noticeable delay. I also think that they would risk some of them detonating in the seconds after as the initial damage settled, and possibly at some distance from the impact point.




Are we ruling out that the pilots could have displayed a similar skill to the pentagon pilots and targeted an impact point a predetermined height up each tower, with some room for error?


There would have to be quite significant margin for error. There is some debate on this forum about how easy it is to control a plane at that speed. truthers tend to say it's impossible, which I don't believe, but I don't think a high level of accuracy is plausible.

It's not quite the same as the Pentagon hit either, since that's wider . The WTC pilots were dealing with three dimensions, as it were.




Thermite/thermate? Maybe a combination of those and some more traditional? The towers coming down were pretty loud.


Witnesses talk about the quiet before hand. And a look at the videos shows that there are no CD-type explosions in the immediate seconds before the fall.

Even Steve Jones says that the Thermite wouldn't work on its own, so where are those "traditional" explosives? There's no sign of them at all, in footage or physical evidence.




Money will buy just about anything in this world.


Like their lives and their families lives depended on it?


That's a bit of a lazy argument. You're suggesting that it's possible, if you have enough cash, to access (completely secure) networks of utterly ruthless murderers. And then after they've done what you want you can easily threaten them with their lives? It sounds like a film to me. Far too many potential weaknesses.

What's to stop one of your (let's reiterate - utterly amoral) operatives threatening to release the truth and demanding money? He flees to another country incognito and gets on the 'net. Simple. The shadowy conspirators haven't managed to kill Kurt Sonnenfeld and he's not even in hiding, just in Argentina.

Are these people stupid? Do they agree to work for the conspirators knowing that after they've done the job they'll suddenly be threatened with death? If so that's a conspiracy you could only carry out once.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Nice of you to supply some meat to your words.

Are you god? Do your words give truth by their very utterance? Is what you say true because you say it?

I'd like some backing to your words.

Also, you fail at Grammar. "Simple complete nonsense" is the correct way to state your sentence. Or perhaps "Simply complete nonsense". Thanks, good sir.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Nice of you to supply some meat to your words.

Are you god? Do your words give truth by their very utterance? Is what you say true because you say it?

I'd like some backing to your words.

Also, you fail at Grammar. "Simple complete nonsense" is the correct way to state your sentence. Or perhaps "Simply complete nonsense". Thanks, good sir.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Gorman91]


I have posted this I don't know how many times.

www.youtube.com...

The washers provide the mass which must be supported and therefore the inertia to resist any downward acceleration. The paper loops provide the support which is strong enough to hold the static load but be crushed by the dynamic load.

But the entire structure does not crush. The inertia plus the energy absorbed in the crush slows and eventually stops the falling mass. The falling mass has the same structure as that below and is itself damaged due to Newton's 3rd Law. It absorbs some of its own energy. Anyone can duplicate this experiment for themselves. The components are less than $30.

What can you do besides talk? You don't do that very well since what you say does not correspond to any kind of physics.

psik

[edit on 3-9-2010 by psikeyhackr]



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join