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.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by NWOwned
I assume that the core is kind of like the spine of the building and has slightly stronger connections than the exterior. Also, stuff did collapse internally. There is proof from the spurs of dust and debris on the tower's way down. There was major destruction going on internally before it was externally destroying itself a few floors above to the naked eye.
Originally posted by NWOwned
Why is it "pulling in" you see? Because it's sagging and connected to the much stronger spine on one end of the truss and the slightly weaker mesh on the other? Really? So the core is strong enough to assist in the "pulling in" and is the strongest part (this "spine") of the building but in the videos we only see exterior ejecting of material and NO SPINE AT ALL!
And after the first tower fell, it wasn't out of the realm of possibility that the second one would, and so, with all the news choppers in the area, how come we have no top down angled footage of the interior of the second collapse as it fell?
Are all the collapse videos from below the descending wave of destruction? Interesting.
There's no core shown in the collapse videos and yet we agree the core is like the spine and is probably the strongest part of the towers?! Why is there no evidence or nothing left AT ALL of the strongest part of the towers? Either while it's falling or after?
I imagine 'pancaking' happening in buildings with whole floors and no central 'spine'. I can see, therefore, the terminology changing from the earlier 'pancaking' idea to the idea and terminology of "collapsing", but I don't necessarily think that's the end of the term and idea changes...
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by NWOwned
I assume that the core is kind of like the spine of the building and has slightly stronger connections than the exterior. Also, stuff did collapse internally. There is proof from the spurs of dust and debris on the tower's way down. There was major destruction going on internally before it was externally destroying itself a few floors above to the naked eye.
“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”[3]
According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “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.”[5] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”[6]
“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked."[7]
“looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”[8] John Skilling
“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.”[14] John Skilling
“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”[17]
“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[23]
Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[24]
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”[25] Frank A. Demartini
“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings—doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”[22]
C. Analysis of steel
* Most of the steel evidence destroyed
o Tomasetti decision (Thornton's partner)
o 236 samples saved for testing (0.3%)
* NIST tests
o Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
o Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia
How does a sagging truss do ANY pulling?
If the truss is sagging from its own weight, due to it becoming malleable from heat, how is it going to exert any force on the stronger columns it's attached to?
But regardless, NIST reported that the highest recorded temperatures of the jet fuel fires from the WTC were not even enough to weaken the steel.
C. Analysis of steel
* Most of the steel evidence destroyed
o Tomasetti decision (Thornton's partner)
o 236 samples saved for testing (0.3%)
* NIST tests
o Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
o Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)
Originally posted by wmd_2008
How about damaged connections after all the trusses were bolted to short pieces of angle
What about the simple fact each floor had between 700-800 tons of concrete do YOU not think that would exert some force!
Do you have a link to the NIST test because they have been questioned on here and different info given!
Originally posted by ANOK
How does a sagging truss do ANY pulling?
If the truss is sagging from its own weight, due to it becoming malleable from heat, how is it going to exert any force on the stronger columns it's attached to?
But regardless, NIST reported that the highest recorded temperatures of the jet fuel fires from the WTC were not even enough to weaken the steel.
C. Analysis of steel
* Most of the steel evidence destroyed
o Tomasetti decision (Thornton's partner)
o 236 samples saved for testing (0.3%)
* NIST tests
o Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
o Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)