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.

 

Construction Video Reveals Strength of Towers

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   


I watch this and I know, what we saw on 9/11, could not be explained by the OS.

You just can't have that amount of steel collapse into itself without some extra help beyond fire an aircraft.

Is it any wonder why people come out and say we need a new investigation.
It's interesting one architect made the comment that building codes should have changed because of 9/11 to prevent further catastrophic collapses, three buildings being down because of fire, should have caused major changes.

The key question to him and all the people in his industry, is why it didn't?




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I am SO referring ATS to my History teacher... XD We could have a LOT to talk about, and I'll get lots of extra credit. :3 Unfortunately I'm the only person in my school who knows about this website and people's quests for truth and such. Gotta get out more... 9/11 is a great starting point for debate.

Especially this video, and all the other threads that have different resources to back up their theories. Since certain people kind of have a bias towards conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure... something was up. This thread's very helpful... and thought-provoking.



edit on 9/11/2010 by Elaethyr because: it needed to be clarified and expanded a bit. Also, I had afterthoughts. And I worked on the relevance. :3



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Yes the towers were strong - as long as the steel work was intact. WTC one of the first buildings to use
engineered steel in its structural support. Problem with steel is heat - when exposed to heat steel will
1) expand 2) lose structural strenght 3) undergo plastic deformation or "creep" under load

The aircraft impacts severed many structural support members requiring the other pieces undergo additional
stress to shoulder the load. The aircraft impact also blasted much of sprayed on fire proofing in the impact area
exposing the steel work to the heat. As it heated the steel lost its strenght and began to twist or creep under the load. Structural members were pulled out of alignment weakening them further . heat the steel enough will
lose its load bearing strenght and cause the structure to collapse



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

S&F
There's a famous asbestos ad featuring the towers, saying that even the cement is saturated with asbestos. It is black and white and was featured in several magazines of the day. I feel sorry for the builders and designer. They were shafted like traders of penny stocks. Get in the way of a zionist and, well, you're effed.

I think we all know what happened. Helps to draw out the official conspiracy story freaks, though.



edit on 11-9-2010 by davidmann because: added a word



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Yes the towers were strong - as long as the steel work was intact.


More than 85% of the columns were still intact on the impacted floors. 100% of the columns were still intact on all other floors (allegedly).

This is according to NIST and the FEMA report chapter 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.1. They counted the perimeter columns. NIST modeled worst case scenarios for the core, assuming both engines knocked out core columns (the engines would have been the only things dense enough at that point according to NIST). The counter perimeter columns severed were something like 11% on the impacted floors in one tower and 13% in the other, and then when you factor in the % of core columns it still conservatively comes out less than 15% columns severed on those floors.

A safety factor of 2 means that at least 50% of the columns' capacities would have to be compromised to reach the yield strength of the remaining columns, which is the force at which deformation first starts. Again this is at 50% compromised integrity with a FoS of 2, and the impacts only accomplished less than 15% compromised integrity on those floors. And not only that, but the WTC Towers most likely had even greater safety factor ratings than 2 (we don't know for sure because NIST never released all the necessary data). It is ILLEGAL for a skyscraper in NYC to have a rating of less than 2, and actually in the NIST report it outlines how all NYC skyscrapers are required by law to pass a number of rigid tests and that the WTC Towers passed all of them and was in accordance with building code.



WTC one of the first buildings to use
engineered steel in its structural support.


Source please. Seriously, I am asking you for a source for this. If you cop-out and don't post one then this statement is as good as refuted, because it is based on nothing but your wild fancy.

The Empire State Building used steel and it was built in the 1930s.


Built during the Depression between 1930 and 1931...The Empire State Building is composed of 60,000 tons of steel


www.pbs.org...


Another thing. Engineers would not design such a massive project if they were unfamiliar or had uncertainties about the materials they were using. That is not how modern engineering works, especially in multi-million dollar firms. Sorry.



Problem with steel is heat - when exposed to heat steel will
1) expand 2) lose structural strenght 3) undergo plastic deformation or "creep" under load


1) See the Cardington tests. Expansion in steel-framed structures is studied there and it has never been shown to lead to run-away collapses.

2) Loss of structural integrity due to excessive heating has NEVER been an accepted theory of why the buildings collapsed. FEMA rejected it, and NIST rejected it, and anyone who looks at how much heat would be required to elevate enough steel to 600 C or above realizes how ridiculous the idea is, and why NIST and FEMA both dismissed it immediately as a possibility.

3) Creep is a very gradual phenomenon (thus the name "creep", not "snap" or "boom") and does not cause skyscrapers to collapse within 2 hours. Especially when the necessary overloading and heating was also not realistic, as discussed above.


The aircraft impacts severed many structural support members


Discussed in detail at the start of this post.


Structural members were pulled out of alignment weakening them further . heat the steel enough will
lose its load bearing strenght and cause the structure to collapse


According to only you, and no one else. Well at least no one who has actually read the reports or taken the time to educate themselves about this theory. NIST and FEMA both disagree with you.


And I'll definitely be waiting for a source for your claim, that the WTC Towers were one of the first buildings to use steel.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Yea being the 9/11 anniversary perhaps now is an apt time to remind everyone (and inform those who dont already know) just why the towers had to be detonated rather than pulled down www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...


edit on 12-9-2010 by Nonchalant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Sorry if this is short and to the point. I watched 7 fall today. Really, anyone who believes that it fell due to the 'attack' needs a hardcore shrink. A forced evaluation. It looked like something from monty python, or south park.

All this subject is anymore is a forum for people to show they have the right to 'believe' anything, even if only through intimidation, and that they expect to weigh these insane beliefs equally with logic and even against widespread protest and doubt, no matter what the cost to the entire world and it's liberty. Unlike the lost souls employed by the media conglomerate, they do it for free. They do it while handing over their souls. Just imagine if such persons were allowed to hold office? They would be enforcing these beliefs. It would become a crime to express doubt, as it is in the holocaust


edit on 12-9-2010 by davidmann because: misspelling




edit on 12-9-2010 by davidmann because: ambiguity in phrasing




edit on 12-9-2010 by davidmann because: ambiguity in phrasin



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Yea being the 9/11 anniversary perhaps now is an apt time to remind everyone (and inform those who dont already know) just why the towers had to be detonated


No kidding.

I was spending time with my grandma today (her birthday is 9/11 ironically) and she had it on the news, and they were playing nothing but a bunch of 9/11 lies.

I full-screened YouTube and showed her the police transmission about vans with murals painted on the sides of planes flying into NYC, and the van exploding with 2 suspects in custody seen fleeing from this vehicle before it exploded. I showed her news reports from CNN that day of an FBI official explaining that they believed a vehicle bomb had been detonated to coincide with the airplane impacts. I showed her CNN reporting that another van had been pulled over on a bridge and discovered to have been loaded with explosives and suspects were in custody. I showed her footage of the firefighters saying there were bombs in the building, of the firefighters in the Naudet footage describing the "boom boom boom boom boom" like "detonators" had been on each floor, of the explosion recorded a couple of blocks from WTC7. And I showed her WTC7 collapsing for the first time, which she immediately recognized as a controlled demolition.

I almost regretted showing her all of this because she seemed hurt by what she was seeing, but she couldn't deny it and didn't bother coming up with the piles and piles of band-aid excuses so many others do. She just said, "I've never seen ANY of that before on TV," and "This'll be just like Kennedy's assassination, we'll probably never know the truth." My grandma's a sweetheart. No one should have to hear all of that for the first time on their birthday, and admittedly she's probably not of much value to the "movement." But she deserves to see all angles and I was too disgusted by the blatant garbage being displayed on TV.

9/11 sucks.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Interesting you should mention that, bsbray. I just posted this a few minutes ago, all about that:

Mossad Truck Bombs on Sept 11, 2001

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Interesting you should mention that, bsbray. I just posted this a few minutes ago, all about that


Synchronicities abound today. That's at least the third one I've experienced.

Must be something in the "air."



new topics

top topics



 
14

log in

join