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 bsbray11
Does such an impact change the physics of what the steel will do when heated, which is the point of these studies in the first place? NO
Originally posted by bsbray11
According to these studies, the hypothesis NIST suggested (and never proved) would not result in the run-away
conditions they suggested it would.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is pretty bad. The fires did not burn long enough or hot enough to cause the trusses to sag enough for them to fall. NIST fudged its data. They found 4" of sag and exaggerated it to over 40" of sag to induce some kind of collapse. Their own studies showed that, of 236 samples tested, 233 had not been exposed to temperatures over 500*F, which is that of an ordinary office fire. THIS IS NIST'S OWN DATA.
The intricate lattice structure of the building created an enormous heat sink drawing heat away from building up at any specific location. Below the 80th floor of the South Tower and the 94th floor of the North, they were stone-cold steel. There was no reason whatsoever for them to collapse. They were designed with a minimum safety factor of 20, which means that, at each level, they could support 20 times their expected live load.
UL certified the steel to 2,000*F for three or four hours without any weakening or melting. That included the trusses. The fires in the South Tower burned for around an hour, in the North for around an hour and a half. SO WE KNOW THE FIRES DID NOT BURN LONG ENOUGH OR HOT ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE STEEL TO WEAKEN, MUCH LESS MELT.
Suppose that the fires had burned hot enough and long enough to cause the steel to weaken, if not melt. Since they were asymmetrically distributed, parts of the affected floors might have sagged or tilted, but not the whole floor, which was not even heated enough. (This whole scenario is contrary to the facts, of course.) So parts of the floor might have sagged or titled.
But it would have been very gradual and partial, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that we witnessed. Go back to "New 9/11 Photos Released" at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com... to remind yourself what we are attempting to explain here. NOTHING ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE BUILDINGS HAS ANY SIGNS OF COLLAPSE.
The trusses were between the core columns and the external support columns. There were some 200 connections that linked them. For a floor to fall symmetrically, not only would all 200 have to have broken at the same time, but the weight distribution of furniture, computers, bathrooms, cafeterias, and everything else would have had to have been perfectly balanced, lest the truss tilt and become jammed between the columns.
Suppose those extremely improbable conditions had been met. Then one floor would have fallen on another. But since each floor could carry at least 20 times its expected live load, unless that force had exceeded the safety factor, no further collapse would have occurred. And since the fires were asymmetrically distributed in fact, there would only have been some tilting and sagging, not any actual collapse.
None of this is explicable absent the use of powerful explosives. Notice, too, that, if the trusses had fallen, one on another, over and over, down to the ground, then there should have been a stack of trusses that was some 13-14 floors in height. But it didn't happen. And if the trusses fell, the core columns and the support columns would have remained, especially if the collapse had been initiated around 80th and the 94th floors.
Notice, in particular, that the top 30 floors of the South Tower actually tilt and pivot initially, which means that they are not exerting ANY DOWNWARD FORCE AT ALL, EXCEPT AT THE EDGE. And in the North Tower, since there was no reason for the uppermost floors to have fallen first rather than around the 95th, it would have been like emptying a can of tennis balls onto the floor: you still have the upside down can remaining!
And in this case, the sides of the can would be the external support columns and, right in the center of the can, the core columns would remain. But of course the support columns and the core columns were destroyed at the same time as the trusses. SO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY COLLAPSE THEORY AT ALL. Get over it. Act like a man. Suck it up. The towers were taken out by a demolition under control. Q.E.D.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
This is pretty bad.
Originally posted by JimFetzer The fires did not burn long enough or hot enough to cause the trusses to sag enough for them to fall. NIST fudged its data. They found 4" of sag and exaggerated it to over 40" of sag to induce some kind of collapse.
Originally posted by JimFetzer Their own studies showed that, of 236 samples tested, 233 had not been exposed to temperatures over 500*F, which is that of an ordinary office fire. THIS IS NIST'S OWN DATA.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
The intricate lattice structure of the building created an enormous heat sink drawing heat away from building up at any specific location.
Originally posted by JimFetzerBelow the 80th floor of the South Tower and the 94th floor of the North, they were stone-cold steel. There was no reason whatsoever for them to collapse. They were designed with a minimum safety factor of 20, which means that, at each level, they could support 20 times their expected live load.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
UL certified the steel to 2,000*F for three or four hours without any weakening or melting.
Originally posted by JimFetzer That included the trusses. The fires in the South Tower burned for around an hour, in the North for around an hour and a half. SO WE KNOW THE FIRES DID NOT BURN LONG ENOUGH OR HOT ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE STEEL TO WEAKEN, MUCH LESS MELT.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Suppose that the fires had burned hot enough and long enough to cause the steel to weaken, if not melt.
Originally posted by JimFetzer Since they were asymmetrically distributed, parts of the affected floors might have sagged or tilted, but not the whole floor, which was not even heated enough. (This whole scenario is contrary to the facts, of course.) So parts of the floor might have sagged or titled.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
But it would have been very gradual and partial, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that we witnessed.
Originally posted by JimFetzer Go back to "New 9/11 Photos Released" at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com... to remind yourself what we are attempting to explain here. NOTHING ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE BUILDINGS HAS ANY SIGNS OF COLLAPSE.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
The trusses were between the core columns and the external support columns. There were some 200 connections that linked them. For a floor to fall symmetrically, not only would all 200 have to have broken at the same time, but the weight distribution of furniture, computers, bathrooms, cafeterias, and everything else would have had to have been perfectly balanced, lest the truss tilt and become jammed between the columns.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Suppose those extremely improbable conditions had been met.
Originally posted by JimFetzer Then one floor would have fallen on another. But since each floor could carry at least 20 times its expected live load, unless that force had exceeded the safety factor, no further collapse would have occurred.
Originally posted by JimFetzer And since the fires were asymmetrically distributed in fact, there would only have been some tilting and sagging, not any actual collapse.
None of this is explicable absent the use of powerful explosives.
Originally posted by JimFetzer Notice, too, that, if the trusses had fallen, one on another, over and over, down to the ground, then there should have been a stack of trusses that was some 13-14 floors in height. But it didn't happen.
Originally posted by JimFetzerAnd if the trusses fell, the core columns and the support columns would have remained, especially if the collapse had been initiated around 80th and the 94th floors.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Notice, in particular, that the top 30 floors of the South Tower actually tilt and pivot initially, which means that they are not exerting ANY DOWNWARD FORCE AT ALL, EXCEPT AT THE EDGE.
Originally posted by JimFetzer And in the North Tower, since there was no reason for the uppermost floors to have fallen first rather than around the 95th, it would have been like emptying a can of tennis balls onto the floor: you still have the upside down can remaining!
Originally posted by JimFetzer
And in this case, the sides of the can would be the external support columns and, right in the center of the can, the core columns would remain. But of course the support columns and the core columns were destroyed at the same time as the trusses. SO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY COLLAPSE THEORY AT ALL. Get over it. Act like a man. Suck it up. The towers were taken out by a demolition under control. Q.E.D.
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about Conspiracy Theories.
Conspiracy Theories don't give a damn about the Laws of Physics.
FTFY
Skyscrapers must withstand the wind.
The plane may have done significant damage but nowhere near enough to bring a 400,000 ton skyscraper down in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.
This is probably the most idiotic bullsh!t in history.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
But since each floor could carry at least 20 times its expected live load,
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Jim says 500,000 tons now 400,000 tons would love to know where you get the stats from
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
NOTE: This simply ignores (a) most of the fuel was consumed in those massive fireballs upon impact, (b) the fires were oxygen-starved, as the billowing black clouds indicated, (c) they were burning far below 1,000 degrees C, probably on the average closer to 250 degrees C, which was (d) far too low to have caused the steel to weaken, much less melt. Indeed, (e) even if the fires had been as hot as 1,000 degrees C, they did not last long enough to bring about effects of that kind. Compare the 13 February 1975 fire on the 11th floor of the North Tower, which burned hotter (around 1,000 degrees C) and longer (more than three hours), enveloping the core and destroying 65% of the floor, yet none of the steel--in particular, the trusses--had to be replaced. That is as close to a crucial experiment (confirming controlled demolition while refuting the official account) as could be arranged insofar as the buildings are no longer standing.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Jim says 500,000 tons now 400,000 tons would love to know where you get the stats from
You are welcome to try to find an exact number for the quantity of concrete in the towers.
The NIST never specifies a number for the total.
Lots of old sources say 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cu. yds. of concrete. The building had two types of concrete, 110 lb./cu ft and 150 lb./cu ft.
So that would be 100,000 tons of steel and more than 300,000 tons of concrete. That doesn't count everything else. So how does the NIST get away with not specifying exactly?
If we aren't told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each and every level then all of the numbers are bullsh!t anyway. The distribution would affect how the building would respond to the wind which every skyscraper has to do.
psikedit on 23-2-2011 by psikeyhackr because: sp err
Originally posted by JimFetzer
www.911scholars.org...
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
NOTE: This simply ignores (a) most of the fuel was consumed in those massive fireballs upon impact, (b) the fires were oxygen-starved, as the billowing black clouds indicated, (c) they were burning far below 1,000 degrees C, probably on the average closer to 250 degrees C, which was (d) far too low to have caused the steel to weaken, much less melt. Indeed, (e) even if the fires had been as hot as 1,000 degrees C, they did not last long enough to bring about effects of that kind. Compare the 13 February 1975 fire on the 11th floor of the North Tower, which burned hotter (around 1,000 degrees C) and longer (more than three hours), enveloping the core and destroying 65% of the floor, yet none of the steel--in particular, the trusses--had to be replaced. That is as close to a crucial experiment (confirming controlled demolition while refuting the official account) as could be arranged insofar as the buildings are no longer standing.
reply to post by hooper
Originally posted by JimFetzer
In NCSTAR 1-3, NIST admits that (a) it studied 236 samples of steel, (b) that it regarded those samples as sufficient to evaluate their exposure temperatures, (c) that it found only three locations at which temperatures had reached above 250*C (about 500*F), which implies (d) that 233 samples had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F. Here is NIST's own answer to a "frequently asked question"--among the most important--and my comment:
Dead loads
Dead loads are the self weight of components put on the structure like plasterboard or carpet and the structure itself. Typically they are relatively constant throughout the structure's life, and so they are also known as Permanent loads[1][2][3]. The designer can also be relatively sure of the magnitude of the load as it is closely linked to density of the material, which has a low variance, and is normally responsible for the specification of the component (e.g. plasterboard thickness) and can check it on-site.
Dead loads also include forces set up by irreversible changes in a structure's constraints. For example, loads due to settlement, the effects of pre-stress or due to shrinkage and creep in concrete.
[edit] Live loads
Live loads, sometimes referred to as probabilistic loads include all the forces that are variable within the object's normal operation cycle not including construction or environmental loads. Using the staircase example the live load would be considered to be –
* Pressure of feet on the stair treads (variable depending on usage and size)
* Wind load (if the staircase happens to be outside)
Live loads (roof) produced (1) during maintenance by workers, equipment and materials; and (2) during the life of the structure by movable objects such as planters and by people.[1]
Live Load (Bridge) produced by vehicles traveling over the deck of the bridge.[4]
[edit] Real world usage
The reason for splitting loads into these categories is not always apparent, and in terms of the actual load on the object there is no difference between dead or live loading (neglecting inertial and vibrational characteristics). For the most part, the split occurs for use in safety calculations or ease of analysis on complex models.
When considering the feasibility of a structure, safety always takes precedence and because of this, governing bodies around the world have regulations to which structures have to adhere. Using the example of the staircase, if it was intended for use in the UK it would have to follow British and European Standards
* BS 4592 – Industrial type flooring and stair treads
* BS 5395 – Code of practice for the design of straight stairs
* Other standards specific to the application (e.g. BS 14122-3:2001 – Permanent means of access to machinery. Stairways, stepladders and guard-rails)
Within these standards a safety factor is usually determined where the structure should be able to withstand a certain force above the maximum expected load. Once again using the staircase example, assuming it is an indoor medium-usage industrial staircase the current safety factor would be 1.2 times the maximum stress imposed by the dead load and 1.6 times the maximum stress imposed by the live load. The reason for the disparity between values, and thus the reason the loads are initially categorised as dead or live is because while it is not unreasonable to expect a large number of people ascending the staircase at once (or the wind speed increasing, snowfall or any other live load increase), it is less likely that the structure will experience much change in its permanent load. The same can be said of many structures and so it is convenient to assess loading based on its application.
NOTE: This simply ignores (a) most of the fuel was consumed in those massive fireballs upon impact,
(b) the fires were oxygen-starved, as the billowing black clouds indicated,
(c) they were burning far below 1,000 degrees C, probably on the average closer to 250 degrees C, which was (d) far too low to have caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.
Indeed, (e) even if the fires had been as hot as 1,000 degrees C, they did not last long enough to bring about effects of that kind.
Compare the 13 February 1975 fire on the 11th floor of the North Tower, which burned hotter (around 1,000 degrees C) and longer (more than three hours), enveloping the core and destroying 65% of the floor, yet none of the steel--in particular, the trusses--had to be replaced. That is as close to a crucial experiment (confirming controlled demolition while refuting the official account) as could be arranged insofar as the buildings are no longer standing.